The mythical cliff in Bat Yam saved: a victory in the struggle to preserve the beaches
The Tel Aviv District Committee accepted the objection of "Adam Teva V'Din" and canceled the plan to build a 24-story tower on a cliff on the northern coast of Bat Yam. Building rights will be transferred to an alternative location, with the aim of reducing the damage to the beach and the public.
Following the objection filed by the environmental organization "Adam Teva V'Din", the Tel Aviv District Committee accepted on Sunday its demand to cancel the plan to build a 24-story hotel and residential tower on a cliff on the northern coast of Bat Yam, and to transfer the building rights to an alternative location.
Throughout the long struggle, the organization maintained that there is no legal or planning obstacle to transferring the building rights to another location, despite the claims of the planning institutions that this is not possible. The objection filed by the organization proved that it is possible to find an optimal planning solution that protects both the developer's rights and the public interest.
"The Tel Aviv District Committee deserves all praise for the complex and important planning move it promoted and approved in this case for the benefit of the general public. This is in contrast to the Committee for the Protection of the Coastal Environment (Holhuf), which again fails in its role as established by law, by approving the plan without any significant attempt to improve the planning in a way that would reduce the harm to the public and the environment," say at "Adam Teva V'Din". "It is suggested that those responsible for Holhuf conduct a soul-searching, and consider whether the time has not come for a fundamental change in the way this committee operates, which seems to have not been fulfilling the important role assigned to it by law in a proper manner for a long time."
Advocate Ortal Sanker, from the legal department at "Adam Teva V'Din", adds:
"The beaches are a rare and limited public resource, and decisions of this kind are significant in reducing the damage to the beaches. This important decision proves that there is no need to choose between the developer's rights and the public good, and that with a willingness to find creative solutions, it is possible to reach a result that is good for all parties. We hope that this decision will lead to a change in the approach of the planning institutions to harmful plans, and in particular to old plans that were approved before the Coastal Law, and will encourage a real examination of alternatives also in future plans."
