Court Rejects Plan to Build Safe Room, Citing Neighbor's Rights
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
A couple in Petah Tikva was denied permission to build a safe room by expanding into a shared property area due to insufficient neighbor consent and the supervisor's ruling prioritizing the rights of elderly residents. The supervisor noted that financial compensation for relocation did not outweigh the disruption and stress caused to vulnerable neighbors.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Court denied a safe room construction plan due to insufficient neighbor support.
- The ruling prioritized the rights of elderly residents over the expansion.
- An offer to pay for hotel stays for neighbors was deemed insufficient.
- The case highlights ongoing disputes over shared property rights.
- Security needs do not negate other residents' rights.
A couple in Petah Tikva seeking to build a reinforced safe room (Mamad) on their property has had their request denied by the Supervisor of Land Registration, Meir Porat. The couple aimed to expand into a shared area of their building, but faced opposition from some neighbors. They secured agreement from 40% of the building's residents, falling short of the 60% majority required for such construction.
The couple argued that the opposition was in bad faith and emphasized the security necessity of a safe room. As an unusual incentive, they offered to pay for hotel stays for elderly neighbors during the construction period. However, some of the objecting residents were elderly with medical conditions who feared the disruption of a construction site or the stress of temporary relocation.
Supervisor Porat ruled that while the hotel offer addressed the cost of relocation, it did not mitigate the inconvenience, disruption to daily life, or potential medical difficulties for those forced to leave their homes. He stressed that the right of residents, particularly the elderly, to remain in their homes carries significant weight. The couple was also ordered to pay 4,000 shekels in expenses.
This case is one of many disputes over shared property. In separate incidents, a supervisor in Haifa ordered a resident who funded excavations under a building's foundation to cover repair costs, and another resident was required to remove three air conditioners installed on a shared facade. The underlying principle in these cases is that even improvements to a private apartment are subject to the rules of the shared building, required agreements, and legal majorities. While a safe room is important for security, this objective does not override the rights of other residents.
Mentioned