Globes, Arik Mirowski 01.08.2021
The Ministerial Committee approved the draft law initiated by Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked for the planning alternative to NOP 38. The alternative stipulates that local planning and building committees will be authorized to approve detailed plans for plots with old buildings, while increasing construction areas up to four times the existing built-up area. For the new buildings, various professionals criticize the amendment to the law, and believe that it is complicated and cumbersome, will be very difficult to implement and will not solve any problem that exists today.
The alternative designed is largely based on an unapproved previous alternative, which deals with the conversion of NOP 38 point planning into a complex urban renewal, ie one that will include not one building, but building files. Shaked's alternative, which corrects that alternative ( , Will allow the demolition of existing buildings of 2-5 floors, the construction of new buildings underneath without height restrictions, adding up to 300% to the construction areas built up to 2005 (ie reaching a situation where building rights reach 400%, four times the existing building), compared to the previous alternative. Up to 350% relative to construction of up to the year 2000; the alternative will also include a route of strengthening buildings and additional construction, in the style of TAMA 38/1, but with half of the building rights than in the route of demolition and reconstruction. In both routes, additions of public areas in the buildings will be approved. As for public areas, the draft law states that their area will not exceed 15% of the total allowable area that is not for public use.
The improvement levy will be the rock of controversy
As stated, the amendment to the law includes quite a few complications, including, for example, the interaction between local and district committees. The amendment says that in order for plans of the proposed type not to impair local renewal in their immediate area, local committees will not be given the authority to plan such plans unless they submit to the district committee a general urban renewal plan, within three years of the amendment. Those who do not submit will lose their exclusive authority to approve plans under the amendment, and developers will also be able to submit it to the District Planning and Building Commission.
However, the bill even mentions at least one case in which a district committee will further deepen its involvement in the city, and that is when there is a plan for neighborhood urban renewal. The district committee will determine that the plan does indeed fit the definition of the neighborhood, and in return will authorize the local committee to approve plans under the amendment.
A very sensitive matter is the issue of the improvement levy. TAMA 38 was granted an exemption from the levy, which is considered one of the factors that torpedoed the plan, as local authorities do not like to approve additions of housing units without receiving improvement levies in return from developers.
It is not certain that the local authorities will like the alternative to the NOP.
And this is exactly where a serious minefield lies, and even the possibility of conflicts between local and district committees. As stated, the new amendment also adds a restriction on local committees that will not conduct comprehensive planning of urban renewal in their territory, in the form of conferring powers on district committees to decide regarding such projects. District committees, however, do not engage and are not built to engage in such things, and it is not clear how effective this whip will be.
Finally, the amendment to the law does not solve the problem of urban renewal in the periphery. Minister Shaked said in this regard that the issue will have to be resolved in contacts with the Treasury, since the state will in one way or another have to subsidize projects in the far periphery.
In conclusion, professionals estimate to Globes that this is a "cumbersome and problematic" amendment in the language of one of them, that will not lead to significant benefit or promotion of urban renewal projects, and that it is not at all clear how much it improves economic viability for entrepreneurs in many places.