Sustainable Tourism Law

812 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM LAW But there was no definition of these terms in many of the Plans, a situation that was taken advantage of by entrepreneurs who gave their own definition to the terms, in a way which allowed them to circumvent the original and authentic purpose of the planning authorities. During the years it was discovered that beaches and other areas of exceptional nature or landscape qualities, which were planned to serve the public at large for vacation and tourism purposes, were actually being exploited for building private prestigious residence houses. Sometimes the developers even managed to obtain approval from the local Planning and Building Commission. In a series of cases the Israeli courts dealt severely with these infringements of the planning laws. They decided, first, to examine what were the overall goals and the spirit of the National Plans and then they examined whether the projects stayed within the framework of such goals. One such case involved a project that was in the process of construction in the coastal area, where the Local Plan permitted the construction of “hotel sites together with facilities for recreation and bathing activities on the beach”. It was soon discovered that developers started to sell their apartments to local individuals for their exclusive use. The developers’ defence was based on the fact that the Local Plan permitted to construct both “hotels” and “apartment hotels”. They claimed that the buildings in question had all the attributes of hotels – the spacious lobby, the public spaces, a swimming pool, restaurant and a gym; they argued that what looked as a hotel should actually be considered as a hotel which fits the requirements of the Plan. But the courts stated that not only the physical form of the project should be examined but also the essence, namely: whether the use that was made of the buildings was within the framework of the official Plans. The courts ruled that, in essence and in view of the goals of the National scheme N.P.T. the term “apartment hotel” should be interpreted in such a way that the units in the building would be used in the same way as units in a hotel. Whatever the form of the building was, the one trait of an “apartment hotel” that distinguishes it from an apartment residence house should be that the place serves for temporary lodging of persons who come for vacation, tourism or business. That “internal” aspect of an “apartment hotel” must prevail. The courts agreed that units might be owned by individuals, but not for exclusive private use. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that, in view of the underlying principal of the official plans – benefit of facilities in the area – the