Our firm has filed an administrative petition on behalf of Aura against the decision of the National Committee for Preferred Housing Areas (VATMAL) to approve TAMA 2050 – a large-scale urban renewal plan in the Giora compound in Ramla, encompassing 3,200 residential units.

The petition argues, among other claims, that the plan is economically unfeasible, based on a detailed economic feasibility appraisal submitted by Aura. Furthermore, the feasibility assessment provided by the plan’s appraiser lacks the necessary detailed calculations, rendering it impossible to verify and in violation of the transparency obligations that underpin the publication of such reports.

It is also argued that the plan is unlikely to be implemented due to the inability to secure bank financing for a project that lacks economic viability.

Approving a plan that cannot realistically be executed severely infringes on the constitutional property rights of the apartment owners in the area, effectively freezing the planning process. As a result, residents would be left living in old, poorly maintained buildings with no secure rooms (Mamad), no earthquake resilience, and no prospect of either implementing the plan or pursuing alternative developments.

The petition further claims that VATMAL was aware of the plan’s lack of economic feasibility, even under the assessment provided by the planning authorities. Nonetheless, the committee stated that economic feasibility would be revisited only at the time of implementation. This approach is highly problematic, as it effectively shifts the burden of turning the project into a viable one onto future homebuyers – leading to increased housing costs. Feasibility must be evaluated at the time of plan approval, not at some undefined future point.

The decision to approve an economically unviable plan was allegedly made without a complete factual foundation, in the absence of a compliant appraisal under Standard 21.1, and without exploring alternative solutions to achieve economic viability – such as increasing residential density, including complementary land within the plan, or providing financial subsidies. The petition argues that this process violated Aura’s right to be heard, significantly and unnecessarily harmed the constitutional property rights of local residents, breached principles of natural justice and administrative fairness, and was grossly disproportionate and unreasonable – thereby warranting the cancellation of the decision.

Aura is represented by Adv. Yaבov Cohen, Head of our Planning & Zoning Department, and Adv. Tamir Tabib of the same department.

Media coverage: Calcalist >>