The local committee implemented the demolition order issued by the court and demolished a residential structure on Raanana’s Lotus Street, after having been built without a legal building permit on land that had been earmarked for vehicle parking.  The structure was demolished at the beginning of the month with the assistance of the Police.

In 2005, the court for local matters in Kfar Saba issued a demolition order, deferred for a period of 18 months, for a residential structure on a plot of 49 square meters built on the basement level of an apartment building on Lotus Street, on an area designated for vehicle parking. The illegal residential structure was adjoined to an apartment on the ground (garden) floor of the building through a staircase.  Moreover, a pergola was also built in the area of the garden, without a legal building permit, in an area of approximately 52 square meters.  The verdict also sentenced the defendant to a fine of NIS 12 thousand. 

The defendant did not honor the court decision and did not execute the deferred demolition order; and therefore, an additional indictment against him was filed.  In January 2008, the court convicted him of not executing the judicial order in accordance with paragraph 210 to the Planning and Construction Law.  Concurrently, and with the consent of the Raanana Municipality, in two different discussions, the court agreed to the requests submitted by the Defendant and extended the date of the demolition’s validity twice, until 7.9.09, in order to enable the Defendant to prepare for the demolition, and that if the Defendant would not implement the order by the date set, the Municipality would be allowed to implement the demolition order itself.

On September 7, 2009, an additional discussion was held, in which the Defendant’s third petition to postpone the execution of the demolition order was rejected.  Judge Hanoch Feder ruled that the demolition order for the structures should not be further delayed and he emphasized:  “There is no doubt that the additional request I was submitted, is seemingly a misuse of the court’s proceeding and an attempt to push off the end of these proceedings.  The Petitioner was granted a long period of time in order to exercise his rights.”