Attorney means Toaster-Rosenthal, globes.co.il

A few days ago, a recommendation was issued to the National Council (Committee on Principal Planning Issues) for the National Council to extend the validity of the Tama 38 until October 2022, during which time an alternative solution for urban renewal will be promoted and replaced, which will replace the Tama 38. The National Planning and Building Council Expected to discuss the matter tomorrow (Monday), and if something unexpected happens, the recommended outline will be valid.

The process of promoting an improved or alternative mechanism presents an opportunity to remedy some of the difficulties that arose during the implementation of TAMA 38, and which could not always find a proper "on-the-go" solution.

This was the case, for example, with the exemption from the improvement levy , which was set to incentivize the implementation of the GDPR. This exemption had a cooling effect on the local authorities, which had difficulties in promoting projects that did not have revenue for the purpose of improving infrastructure. As a result, many authorities significantly restricted the realization option of TAMA 38.

In light of this, with the recommendation of the Holocaust, it was recommended to reduce the exemption from the levy. Under the new mechanism that will replace TAMA 38, other solutions will have to be found, which, on the one hand, will create economic viability for projects, and on the other will provide the infrastructure needed to support the resulting population. From these projects.

A possible solution is to empower the construction rights that are allowed within the project, so that they will be sufficient to generate economic value even after the improvement levy is paid. This incentive is also in line with the need to crowd out residential areas in the center of the country and add significant housing units. Another alternative solution is to provide a certain subsidy for the state to establish the necessary infrastructure.

One way or another, it is likely that the permissions received by tenants at the beginning of the TAMA will be reduced.

Another issue is the issue of the majority needed to promote an urban renewal program. In different municipalities, we see a trend that prefers the renewal project to be carried out on several buildings together, in a way that allows for the separation of land for public purposes. These types of projects are currently being undertaken by way of the preparation of a city building plan by virtue of section 23 of the TAMA 38.

However, a few months ago, the Tel Aviv District Planning and Building Appeals Committee ruled that the regulations dealing with the percentage of consent required for the submission of city building plans should be interpreted, so that with regard to demolition and construction plans other than evacuation plans (including plans under the 38th TAMA) 100% consent is required to submit the plan. Achieving a 100% consent rate at such an early stage of submitting the program constitutes a very significant obstacle to the advancement of such plans and drops the ground under the desire to promote projects in several building complexes.

This means that in the current legal situation, if an entrepreneur wants (or is required) to promote a regeneration plan in relation to four adjacent buildings, one tenant in one of the buildings will refuse to promote the project in order to torpedo the entire project and prevent the four buildings from being renewed.

In view of this significant difficulty, it is necessary that the new mechanism be established to include the amendment of the relevant regulations, in order to clarify that for the purpose of submitting a plan for demolition and construction under this new mechanism, 80% of the rights holders in the complex will be sufficient, similar to the percentage of consent currently required at the time of issuing a permit under the TAMA 38.

In addition, because this new mechanism is expected to come into existence in only three years, the regulations should already be amended today, so that even in the interim, programs that were promoted under TAMA 38 would not be required to reach 100% agreement.

Another issue that is currently being debated in the courts is the question of the Planning Authority authorized to approve plans by virtue of the TAMA 38, which enshrines the valid BNA rights and the rights that can be obtained by virtue of the TAMA 38. In this matter, the Appeals Committee recently determined that this authority was vested To the District Committee (unless it is a minimal addition of land), two petitions are pending before the District Court (one filed by the undersigned office on behalf of the developer and the other filed by the local committee Givatayim).

At the same time, a ruling by the Central District Administrative Court, which rejected a claim under section 23 approved by the Ra'anana Local Committee (bad / 1010), was issued with a lack of authority. This issue, too, should be statutorily regulated within the alternative mechanism to be replaced by TAMA 38. In this matter, the Holocaust Resolution was recommended to consider the possibility of providing concurrent authority in this matter, both to the local committee and to the provincial committee. We think this is a proper solution.

Another difficulty with which decision-makers will be required, within the framework of outlining an improved solution, is to respond to buildings that meet the earthquake standard, but do not have a dimension. This issue should have been raised in Amendment 4 to TAMA 38, but this amendment was shelved.

Finally, despite the obvious preference for promoting demolition and construction projects over reinforcement projects, and the preference for complex design, the solution to be determined must provide a degree of flexibility that will allow buildings that have no real potential to be part of a complex or have no real potential for demolition and construction. In this regard, the Holocaust Authority recommended examining the possibility of giving the local committee authority to approve reinforcement plans by way of condensation, in "appropriate and exceptional cases".

Adv. Meital Toister Rosenthal Partner in the Office of Adv. Ofer Toister, who deals with planning and construction.