This should already be very clear to the Bat Yam Municipality, following the submission of the petition by the Amarta company, in which it was clarified in the Ministry of Interior's response that when an application for work on the land is rejected due to a planning impediment, the changes in the designation of the land years later will not lead to the approval of the engagement in a tender that did not correspond to the planning situation on the land at the time of its existence, after clear clarifications that were conveyed to the municipality in the framework of the response letter in the matter of Supermatis from 2017."
- This letter reflects the Municipality's knowledge and awareness of the position of the Minister of the Interior, that even if the applicable plan is changed, it will not be possible to approve the agreement, since it is the result of the publication of a tender that does not conform to the applicable plan, and therefore, since it is not feasible, there is no point in continuing the engagement and the company is deceived into knowing that it is investing funds and resources in order to promote the project.
- As if that were not enough, on February 18,2021 (N/15), the Ministry of Interior sent a detailed letter to the Municipality (signed by Ms. Carmit Fenton) that refutes the Municipality's position and clearly proves that the Municipality's engagements with the company, including the engagement in the first addendum and the engagement in the second addendum, were made at a time when the Municipality knew and understood very well that the Ministry of the Interior was not willing to approve the engagement, neither in the first place nor in the future if the zoning plan is changed, so that the agreement between the parties is not enforceable.
The Ministry of the Interior's letter to the municipality in its letter dated February 18,2021 reads:
"In light of this, the Ministry of Interior's response of November 2,2016 to the Bat Yam Municipality's request to approve the engagement with the company based on a planning opinion given by the Tel Aviv District Planning Bureau, was that since the approved program designated Area 63 for an Education Campus, it was found that the agreement does not comply with the permitted purposes according to the current planning situation, and therefore the agreement with the company cannot be approved."