Tagsaction movies animation australian film backlots bad movies blockbusters bordwell clampett clause 101 close analysis criticism disney documentary film as heritage herzog humour indiana jones james bond james cameron kael looney tunes lucas matthew guy miff mocap obituary peter jackson pixar planning in victoria planning news politics science fiction silent film simcity spielberg star trek star wars superheroes tarantino tintin trailers vpp reform welles westerns zemeckis
Follow / Subscribe
Tag Archives: secondary consent
Posted on May 16, 2012
The first instalment of the long-awaited Underwood Review of the Victorian planning system (which we’re supposed to call the “Victorian Planning System Ministerial Advisory Committee”) was released on Friday and makes for interesting reading. The full report is here, and the government’s response is here.
The paper is structured partly as a review and partly as discussion paper: at certain points it’s making quite specific recommendations, at other points it’s just kicking ideas around. This is actually one of its strengths: it certainly gives a sense that the Committee was legitimately interested in hearing people’s views. There is a much more genuine sense of community engagement in this paper than in, say, the previous government’s review of the Planning & Environment Act. To glance through the submissions received by the Committee (on the DPCD website here) is to get a sense of what an achievement that was. Extracting value from those submissions – most of which are either disgruntled objectors saying the system is too developer-friendly, or industry objections saying the system is too objector-friendly – is no mean feat. (For what it’s worth my submission – which I was flattered to see the Committee quote at a couple of points – is here).
Posted on March 1, 2008
In last month’s Planning News, Andrew Clarke raised a number of questions that had confronted him while sorting through the case law regarding amendments to plans and permits. That article highlighted the tendency of the planning system to make hard work of what should be simple matters: I suspect the seemingly arcane quandaries he mentioned will be familiar to many practising statutory planners. At the centre of many of those difficulties is the issue of secondary consent: the amendment of plans not through Section 72 of the Act, but by acting upon flexibility built into the conditions of permits. It is supposed to be the simpler option, a shortcut that saves time compared to the path laid out in S.72. However, there is always a danger associated with leaving the marked path: you risk getting lost in the undergrowth. That, unfortunately, is where we now stand with regards to secondary consent.