On behalf of the editorial committee, we wish our subscribers and friends a prosperous, rewarding and happy 2021. In a whirlwind end to 2020 at VCAT and PPV, we have produced three VCAT editorials and one PPV editorial. Highlights of VCAT Vol 8 No 6 are a Supreme Court decision upholding an appeal that an EPA clean-up notice only ousts the operation of the P&E Act to the extent that the notice directs the performance of specified measures which require a permit or consent to be given under the operative planning controls; the limits of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in relation to extensions of time; the Tribunal’s finding that the directors of the Corkman Hotel are guilty of contempt; and the Federal Court Full Court finding that Teltra’s payphones are not exempt from MCC’s planning scheme. Highlights of VCAT Vol 8 No 7 are continuing problems with Melbourne’s DDO-10; a refusal for a seven building because of equitable development concerns; rejection of a gaming venue in Truganina South because of net social disbenefits; a dismissal to a compensation claim; and a finding by the Supreme Court that there is a serious question to be tried regarding cultural heritage on the Western Highway. Highlights of VCAT Vol 8 No 8 include whether s 64 of the P&E Act precludes an RA from issuing a permit under s 80; reductions of car parking requirements in activity centres; whether a structure was a fence or wall, and therefore exempt from a permit; refusal of a service station on grounds it is contrary to orderly planning; and a finding that a permit is required for a community garden in the PPRZ. Highlights of PPV Vol 8 No 5 are Moreland’s proposal to apply VicSmart to two dwellings on a lot; whether a Council should declare its position on its expert witness evidence; the limits of 3D modelling; the Priority Projects Standing Advisory Committee report on Treasury Square; and the Yarra Strategic Plan  prepared under the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017.