*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n
The latest issue of the Local Government Law Journal <\/em>(Volume 25 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n Developments in Substantially the Same Modification Applications Case Law: Realising the Implications for Planners<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Willem van Wyk and Anthony Roydhouse<\/p>\n There have been many twists and turns in making sense of the \u201csubstantially the same\u201d test for modification applications in New South Wales. In an attempt to provide a cohesive narrative, the development of jurisprudence can be described as an accretion of judicial gloss beginning in the 1990s before being stripped away in recent years. This article provides a brief history of leading decisions before a more detailed discussion of two important Land and Environment Court cases this year: Canterbury-Bankstown Council v Realize Architecture Pty Ltd <\/em>and Peden v Lake Macquarie City Council<\/em>. Despite these cases, the state of the law, if it is indeed a question of law, remains unclear. This article is written from the perspective of planners undertaking the substantially the same test. A particular concern is that the ability (or necessity) to articulate one\u2019s views using a shared lexicon could be lost in the return to the basics of the legislation itself and nothing else.<\/p>\n Command and Control Fails \u2013 Events Regulation New South Wales 2012\u20132016<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Garry O\u2019Dell<\/p>\n Events can be powerful mechanisms for public good, social equity, economic returns, and cultural benefits. Events may include activities that use private or public space \u2013 be it land, a building, water or in the air, to provide experiences for tourists, visitors and residents. However, the decision to approve an event varies from one context to another, creating significant confusion for the community, regulators, and organisers alike. Even though all government levels regulate events in Australia, this article focuses on local government public servants who make decisions as event regulators in New South Wales from 2012 to 2016. The research investigates the complexities, inconsistencies and inequities. It was found that Local Government Authority regulators filter out regulatory contradictions by applying their discretion and understanding of the perceived benefits and short-term impacts of events.<\/p>\n LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING & LAW GUIDE CASES<\/p>\n DIGEST OF CASES<\/a><\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – LGLJ Vol 25 No 3 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
\n