Calcalist, Shlomit Tzur, 11.08.2020
The Tel Aviv Municipality demolished the passenger terminal (the northern customs house), at the northern entrance to Jaffa, while the Site Preservation Council was still fighting against the demolition permit that the municipality planned to issue to the building. In June, the Conservation Council, through attorney Gideon Koren, filed an appeal against the permit the municipality had planned, but before a hearing on the appeal took place, the municipality actually issued the permit and demolished the structure.
During a hearing in the Appeals Committee on the legality of the demolition permit, Tamar Tuchler, deputy director and director of the Tel Aviv District Council for the Preservation of Sites, said: "The municipality demolished the building in the dead of night as a terrorist's house is being destroyed." The committee's chairman, Hila Sirota Levana, stated that until a decision is made on the appeal, the municipality will refrain from further demolition on the spot:
Recall, last June, the Site Preservation Council filed an appeal with the District Appeals Committee against a demolition permit the municipality planned to issue to the building. Following the filing of the appeal, the municipality submitted its position to the Appeals Committee which dismisses the allegations, and that evening demolished the structure , without waiting for the position of the Appeals Committee.
In the appeal, filed through attorney Gideon Koren, the council noted that the passenger terminal was built in 1931 on the waterfront at the northern entrance to the Jaffa port, where the historic port was located for thousands of years, and between 1931-1936 more than 150,000 immigrants passed through the aliyah. Fifth, the council further described that the building was erected on the ruins of the old Ottoman customs house and the remains of the platform and the stairs of the building are exposed to visitors to the site.
According to the council, the terminal building was declared a building for preservation both under the Port Preservation Plan as part of the Second Amendment to NAP 13 (the Outline Plan for the Preservation of the Beaches), and even as part of the Jaffa Port Preservation Policy.
On the other hand, the Tel Aviv municipality claimed that the existing building was not the historic Ottoman customs house, but a building from the British Mandate period that was built on the customs house and operated only for a few years until the Arab uprising. It was further argued that the building has no historical or architectural values that justify conservation, in contrast to other buildings in the port that are preserved and renovated by the municipality. "The existing structure damages the fabric of the buildings in the port and blocks the open view to the north and the continuation of the open public promenade, which the municipality is developing along the entire coastline," the municipality argued, adding that decisions given by the National Council and the Supreme Court ruled the building was no longer preserved.
Ron Huldai Photo: Yair Sagi
At the opening of the hearing in the Appeals Committee in recent days, and after the Tel Aviv Municipality demolished the building, committee chairman Hila Sirota said that "we are aware that the building was demolished, but for me at least as it did not prevent the respondent from demolishing when there is a standing appeal, "It is disturbing to discuss the appeal even though the building was destroyed."
Advocate Erela Avraham Ozen of the Legal Department of the Tel Aviv Municipality said at the hearing that in all matters of preservation, Tel Aviv is at the forefront. “Tel Aviv is the only one in the country that has a preservation program with a thousand preservation buildings and insane compensation claims. We fight for every bag in our teeth, because conservation is a candle to our feet. We believe we are acting lawfully in the matter of preserving the Northern Customs House. The issue has exhausted itself in proceedings that were lawfully conducted before the National Council and the High Court. "
However, the Council for the Preservation of Sites believes that this is a serious incident. "The fact that one or another amount of buildings is being preserved does not mean that the conduct that was in this case is proper," said Adv. Koren, who represents the council. "A 13, abolished the preservation of the structure. According to the council, the municipality was obliged to approve a detailed plan before issuing a demolition permit for the building, and regardless, the municipality had to submit a response to the appeal committee, accept its position and then demolish the building, which the council considers "nationally coveted."
"Since the demolition of the Herzliya Gymnasium there has been no such thing"
"I have been with the council for nearly 30 years, since the demolition of the Herzliya Gymnasium, which was the public cause for the establishment of the Council for the Preservation of Sites, has not been like this," Koren said at the hearing. "Here and there we have a private developer or contractor who comes in the middle of the night with a tractor to establish facts on the ground and demolish a structure we think needs to be preserved, before it is determined in the plan. But public authority? "And a public authority that claims to be respectful and dignified, on the day it presents you with the answer, as a snatcher, as thieves in the night, destroys the building in a brutal demolition whose whole purpose is to establish irreversible facts on the ground. Is this an authority that respects conservation?"
"The building was taken down as if it were a terrorist's house," Tuchler added. "The damage caused to the platform is really great. We received an alert informing the employees of the Tel Aviv Municipality to arrive at 3 at night to prepare for the demolition. We did this so that we would not be able to issue a restraining order."
On the other hand, Ozen claimed in the hearing that it was the Council for the Preservation of Sites that was conducted improperly when it did not comply with the decisions of the National Council and the High Court. "We see the appeal process to the Appeals Committee as an abuse of justice," Ozen said. "In the Council for the Preservation of Sites they took the issue of the Customs House north to all the places they could take and that's fine. We did nothing secretly at the table. "
"At three in the morning"? Asked committee member Michael Gofer. Ozen replied that since the conservation plan for the building was made by virtue of NAP 13, and the NPA underwent changes, then the structure is no longer defined for preservation. "When you set in the plan a structure for conservation, the meaning that you protect from demolition, when the National Council comes and cancels it - the meaning that the structure is no longer protected," Ozen said. "If they wanted to prevent demolition, they would turn to the court, ask for a restraining order and do as everyone else does. The fact that they return to the planning institutions and recycle claims, we consider it improper conduct."
But White Sirota clarified at the hearing that the decision of the National Council regarding the NPA does not cancel a series of detailed plans in it. "It should be written in your little daughter Rachel in the NPA that she cancels this instruction in a detailed plan," White Sirota told Ozen. "You had to make sure that things were said explicitly by the National Council." On Ozen's claim that the Tel Aviv municipality respects preservation, White Sirota said "respect and destroy. Nothing would have happened if you had waited another week, it does not feel respectful." White Sirota also decided that until a decision is made on the appeal the municipality will not carry out further demolition work.
The Tel Aviv Municipality responded: "Contrary to the allegations, the work to remove the customs house is carried out in accordance with the permit legally granted and with the approval of all competent bodies and institutions - the Supreme Court, the National Council and the Israel Land Administration. Which was not removed before the demolition of the building began. "