The Local Planning and Building Ramat Gan asked to postpone the hearing will continue its policy regarding the projects of Plan No. 38in the city, for the preparation of what it calls "adjustments". However, in light of the position of the Attorney General submitted to the court and reservations about the policies. However, in practice it will have to do much more than that, because the control of the Attorney General to conduct a technical but not significant. The opinion issued by the Ministry of the Attorney General will serve as a warning sign now each local authority wants to restrict the plan 38 projects in its territory - and there are many such.

The great importance of the document is the Legal Advisor defines where the limits of elasticity of the plan 38, and in our case - on a background and how can local authorities to formulate a policy to reduce the dimensions of the exercise program.

NOP 38 gives municipalities the option to develop local versions according to needs and according to options in every neighborhood and neighborhood. However, the Attorney General writes two things that it does not allow: to take advantage of the flexibility to create a "Version", the plan actually neutralize all the content, and urban policy considerations involve factors that are not planning at all.

Urban policy plan 38 is merely internal guidance document, adapted to every city and town in accordance with its specific situation, and allows the application program according to local needs and possibilities. However, this document may not contradict the principles of the plan and the goals it is intended to achieve - and that is exactly what happened in Ramat Gan.

The decision made by the local committee-RG, not to approve applications for permits Tama 38 except in exceptional situations, substantially opposite to the spirit of the plan 38; beyond that, is not it involves planning considerations, not separating different areas, and in fact it is more urban than policy statement. this is in contrast to the policy document approved by the city two years ago, which included a clear division of the city and formulas of rights and construction options based on population density, width of roads etc.

Also, Attorney General rejects the arguments being expressed more than once by local authorities, including Ramat Gan, concerning the obligation to reduce the building permits for projects of NMP, due to the question given exemption betterment taxes. Indeed this is a problem, but the local authority is entitled to reject projects because of it. The only body that can make these changes is the National Council for Planning and Construction.

Attorney General's position - does not mean that the local authoritymust approve any request for a project plan 38 is submitted to it. The policy document also former mayor of Ramat Gan was approved in 2017 and accepted by the Attorney General, there is a clause that says that whatever is said in the document to deny the right to refuse to issue a local committee permits, if found problems of planning applications submitted to it. Therefore, it is very if there is a problem in Ramat Gan, is not with the state, but in the use of the right to refuse to grant a permit local committee plan 38.