The planning shift: amendment VC286

On 1 July 2025, Clause 52.27 (licensed premises) was removed from the Victoria Planning Provisions with amendment VC286 so that businesses are no longer required to obtain a planning permit for the sale and consumption of liquor.

Amendment VC286 implemented an initiative of the State Government’s Economic Growth Statement (December 2024) to streamline liquor and planning approvals for hospitality businesses.

Since the approval of amendment VC286, there have been two noteworthy VCAT decisions dealing with liquor licensing matters.

1. Endeavour Group Limited v Victorian Liquor Commission (Review & Regulation) [2025] VCAT 843 was notable for the following reasons:

This decision concerned a review by an applicant for a liquor licence of a decision of the Victorian Liquor Commission (Commission) to refuse to grant the licence. The Tribunal recognised that this case happened to be the first time it had heard a liquor licensing review in over a decade and documented various procedural complexities. 

The main complexity documented in the decision related to the roles of the Tribunal and of the Commission in the hearing. The background to the proceeding was that a delegate of the Commission had originally determined to grant a liquor licence. That decision became the subject of an internal review hearing conducted by the Commission in response to several applications for review. The outcome of the internal review was a decision by the Commission to refuse to grant the licence, and the licence applicant applied to VCAT for a review of that decision under section 152 of the Liquor Control Reform Act (LCR Act). In these circumstances, the Tribunal clarified that:

a. the Tribunal's task was to 'step into the shoes' of the original decision maker with all its functions and make the correct or preferable decision on the material before the Tribunal; 

b. it was the material presented to the Tribunal that was to be considered, which would not necessarily be the material that was before the Commission at its internal review, and it should not be assumed that all of the material that was before the Commission is relevant to the Tribunal;

c. the primary role of the Commission in a merits review hearing is to assist the Tribunal in making the correct or preferable decision, and that includes not behaving as an adversarial party; and

d. as the Commission carries out its primary role in a merits review hearing, there is no obstacle to the Commission putting forward its case as to why the original decision should be affirmed, or departing from its original decision. 

The Tribunal observed that the nature and content of liquor licence conditions may change in the future, given that planning permits will not include conditions relevant to the supply and consumption of liquor and it will be the responsibility of the Commission to manage and enforce the operation of licensed premises. The Tribunal agreed that it would be permissible for a liquor licence to include a condition requiring a plan of management to be endorsed by the Commission as a record about the manner in which a premises is to operate. 

A key question in the case was whether the granting of the liquor licence would detract from or be detrimental to the amenity of the area. In exploring this, the Tribunal identified that 'amenity' under the LCR Act is tethered to behaviours associated with liquor consumption and is a narrower concept than 'amenity' in a planning context.

The Tribunal observed that the LCR Act does not specifically identify or require consideration of ‘net community benefit’ for liquor licence applications and considered that economic benefits such as employment creation were of limited relevance. Notwithstanding, consistent with a decision of the Court of Appeal, the Tribunal confirmed that the concept of ‘net community benefit’ is relevant to the notion of harm minimisation, which is not simply about limiting supply of alcohol. Rather, it is concerned with regulating supply of alcohol so as to ensure, as far as practicable, 'net community benefit'.

The case was heard over 12 days with multiple experts called to give both general and specific evidence. The decision is understandably dense and helpfully demonstrates the Tribunal's approach to the assessment of a license application under the LCR Act. We expect that these types of proceedings will become more frequent as a result of amendment VC286, given that there is no longer the ability for stakeholders such as Councils and community groups to oppose a licensed premises at the planning permit stage. 

2. Ballarat Cinemas Pty Ltd v Ballarat CC [2025] VCAT 1029 was notable for the following reasons:

The decision concerned an application under section 87 of the Planning & Environment Act to cancel four planning permits. The application was made by the occupier of the land concerned. Each of the planning permits was originally granted to allow the use of the land to sell or consume liquor in one way or another, and none of the permits allowed other matters that might have required permission. 

The apparent reason for the application was to obtain certainty that the permits had no continuing effect, post amendment VC286. 

The Tribunal analysed material associated with amendment VC286, including the explanatory report, and found that:

a. it could be implied from the amendment that there was no intention to 'save' permits issued only under clause 52.27; and

b. the intention of the amendment was "for planning schemes to vacate the field of regulating the use of land for the sale and consumption of liquor".

Accordingly, the Tribunal determined that a permit issued only under clause 52.27 has no continuing effect even if it has not expired.

While the Tribunal agreed to make an order cancelling the relevant permits, it discouraged any inference being drawn that every permit issued only under clause 52.27 needs to be cancelled to achieve consistency with the legal effect of amendment VC286. The Tribunal noted that if there is a dispute about the legal effect of such a permit, an enforcement order application or a declaration application might be an alternative means of resolving the dispute.

The Tribunal did not pass comment on a more complex scenario where a permit includes permission to use land to sell or consume liquor along with other permissions. In that scenario, it is likely that any conditions which relate only to the liquor permission do not have continuing legal effect. However, on a permit with multiple permissions, identifying such conditions is unlikely to be straightforward and an amendment application may be necessary to obtain certainty. 

These decisions provide helpful guidance as the industry adapts to this new regulatory context.

If you or your clients operate premises with a planning permit purporting to regulate the sale or consumption of liquor, or have a complex liquor licensing issue, our Environment and Planning team are pleased to assist.