...
"Contrary to the Municipality's interpretation of the Ministry of the Interior's response mentioned in your letter on the basis that the Ministry of the Interior objects to the discussion of the approval of the engagement until the work of changing and/or adding the required use ("sheltered housing") to the zoning plan has been replaced and/or in addition to the existing use ("Education Campus"), the Ministry of the Interior's response of November 2,2016, aforesaid, cannot be interpreted in any other way than "not approving the engagement". Moreover, it is not possible to find any stipulation that says that if the planning aspect is regulated, it will be possible to discuss the municipality's request."
- In this context, the Ministry of the Interior noted the municipality's engagement with Supramatist, which, similar to the transaction in our case, was made following a tender that does not correspond to the current planning situation. See below, p. 2 of the letter:
"We emphasize that the Bat Yam Municipality has been aware for several years of the position of the Ministry of the Interior regarding the publication of tenders in a manner that is consistent with the planning situation in force, as stated in my letter of November 20,2017, regarding the approval of the engagement with the Suprematest company:
'We recall once again that the Ministry of the Interior has commented several times in the past to the Bat Yam Municipality that it must publish tenders in a manner that is consistent with the current planning situation. If the municipality wishes to make use of its land not in accordance with the plan, it must first make the planning changes, and only then publish a tender in a manner that will be consistent with the approved plans [emphasis in original]."
- The Ministry of the Interior further noted that in light of its refusal to approve the transaction on November 2,2016, the municipality was not entitled to enter into an agreement with the company in additions to the agreement and to collect the use fees from the company. See p. 6 of the letter:
"In receiving the Ministry of Interior's response of November 2,2016, the agreement was not valid, and therefore the municipality was not supposed to uphold the development agreement, collect the first payment of ILS 5,000,000 from the developer, and sign an addendum to the development agreement, based on the erroneous assumption that if the "change of use" as defined in clause 7.4 of the development agreement is made, the Ministry of the Interior will consider the request again. Even if the municipality's interpretation of the Ministry of Interior's response from 2016 was correct, as long as the approval of the Minister of the Interior is a suspension condition for the implementation of the agreement, and it has not yet been received, the municipality cannot fulfill the development agreement with the company in any way."