About
More than permits.
We build peace of mind.
Anyone reading an about page in this field wants one answer: who holds the file when the local planning and building committee (ועדה מקומית) sends its comments back. For over 15 years that has been our work, across authorities nationwide. This page says how it runs.
Who is behind the practice
Good to meet you - I am Doron Greenwald, the founder.
I came into this field after realising that the gap between good design and an actual permit is not a design gap - it is a management gap. Most projects do not stall because something is forbidden; they stall because nobody held the file end to end.
Since then I have guided more than 1,250 clients through local committees across Israel. The approach has not changed: understand what is genuinely permitted, plan a realistic route, and lead it until the permit is in hand.
Where files stall even when the design is sound
An application rarely stops because the design is weak. It stops when two documents disagree: a survey showing a store missing from the drawings, or an information file (תיק מידע) naming a consultant nobody appointed. Each contradiction returns as a comment, and every round adds two to six weeks, by how often the committee sits.
The three contradictions we meet most
- Survey against records. A gap built without a permit makes it a legalisation, filed differently; a drafting error is redrawn.
- An information file ordered too early expires mid-design, and its conditions need reconfirming with the authority.
- A structural engineer joining late shifts wall thicknesses and columns, changing the areas the committee counts.
Our first check is documentary: what stands on site, what the records say, what the information file will demand. A gap caught then costs a drawing revision; after filing, a review cycle.
How we work
The truth first, the quote second
The first feasibility check is free, and it is not a sales call. If what you want is not realistic, you will hear it from us before you spend anything.
One person owns the file
Not a call centre and not a “department”. One person who knows the project, knows at any moment what is missing, and who you can actually reach.
The file is complete before it is filed
Most delays are born from a missing document. We close the file against the information-file conditions before it is sent, so no review cycle is wasted.
Who holds the file, and what happens then
The stages themselves sit on the process page; the question before them is who moves the file when it stops.
| Who runs the application | What it does well | Where it usually breaks |
|---|---|---|
| The owner alone | No consultancy fee, full control of the pace | The information file expires before the drawings are ready, and comments wait weeks |
| The architect alone | Continuity from design to filing, no handover midway | Coordination and committee replies queue behind the practice's own design work |
| A permit consultant with the architect | One person tracks every condition and each consultant | Needs agreement upfront on who signs what |
What we check before the file reaches the committee
- Confirm the survey map (מפת מדידה) is recent enough for that authority, not merely signed.
- Deduct what earlier permits used, so rights start from the balance left on the plot.
- Walk the information file condition by condition, marking which consultant each one needs.
- Confirm every owner in the land registry extract (נסח טאבו) has signed, absent heirs included.
- Settle wall thicknesses and column positions with the engineer, since both change the calculated area.
- Decide whether the file carries a relaxation (הקלה) and place its publication window in the schedule.
The first month after the scoping call
Most of the time before filing goes into three tasks that run in parallel; in sequence they add two to four weeks for nothing.
- The survey is ordered in the first days and returns signed in one to three weeks, by plot size and season.
- The information file is requested in parallel, timed to land while the architect is mid-design.
- The consultants it requires are coordinated directly, the engineer taking drawings from the architect, not from you.
- Before the application opens in the national licensing system (רישוי זמין) we run the document list against those conditions.
Two to six weeks is the usual span: an empty plot with an existing design pulls it short, shared ownership and a relaxation pull it long, as the timeline article shows.
You are asked for surveyor access and a choice between design options; a week's delay moves the whole chain a week.
Who we work with, and what differs by file
The regulatory route is identical for everyone. The first question is not, and it decides what is checked before money goes into design.
- Homeowners ask what is allowed: we start from the rights left on the plot, not the zoning plan (תב"ע).
- Developers ask how long and how much, so we price the betterment levy (היטל השבחה) and the objection window.
- Architects want the licensing run while they design; the design stays in their office.
- Business owners come when a licence stalls on a building requirement, usually a non-conforming use (שימוש חורג) file.
- Purchasing groups settle consents first, since those decide when filing is possible.
- Lawyers in enforcement need an opinion on whether legalisation is feasible before a fixed date.
One person then holds the file throughout. Someone who knows it can say at once whether a comment touches something already settled; a file passed between people loses two days to a week per handover.
The figures we publish, and what sits behind them
96% of the applications we submitted were approved. That is not a promise on any single file. It means we do not submit one where we saw no route, and some enquiries end in one call with a negative answer.
7-45 working days spans filing to permit on the files we run. The low end is a plain application, no relaxation, a fast authority, filed complete; the high end carries publication, objections or many consultants. We do not commit to a date.
Over 1,250 clients and more than 15 years across committees nationwide is what tells us what an authority asks for in the first round, so it goes in before filing.
Which end of that range your file sits at is what the free feasibility check answers. An address or the block and parcel (גוש וחלקה) is enough at that stage.
Questions and answers
All of Israel. What differs between authorities is procedure, not law: what the first round demands, and how long an information file takes to issue. We set the collection order to suit the authority.
No, and sometimes better not. With nothing drawn, a rights check decides what is worth designing and saves a design round. If you have an architect, they keep designing while we run the licensing, the consultants and the committee replies.
Yes, with no minimum. A safe room (ממ"ד) or an enclosed balcony runs the same route as a whole building: information file, survey, consultants, filing. At the first check we say whether it justifies a process of its own.
Usually what arrives is a decision with conditions, not a final refusal. We separate what can be fixed in the drawings, what needs a relaxation and publication, and what would need the plan itself changed. The first two return as an amended filing.
We handle the correspondence, comments included. You are asked for decisions and for two possible attendances: the surveyor's visit, and an objections hearing where an owner must appear. Each comment reaches you with what it demands.
Three costs sit outside our fee: licensing fees to the authority, set by built area; the survey, priced by plot size and by how much must be measured indoors; and the consultants the information file requires, a structural engineer almost always. A relaxation may add a betterment levy.