Old Liquor Permits After VC286 — Is the Final Fix Coming?
Since the removal of Clause 52.27 on 1 July 2025, there has been no shortage of confusion around existing planning permits for liquor.
Earlier this year, we wrote about how some councils were continuing to require amendments to historic permits — often unnecessarily — despite liquor no longer being regulated through the planning scheme.
Since then, there have been a couple of important developments that are starting to clarify where things are heading.
A Quick Recap — Why This Is Still an Issue
Amendment VC286 removed Clause 52.27 entirely from all Victorian planning schemes.
That much is clear.
What wasn’t addressed, however, is what happens to existing permits issued solely under that clause.
As things currently stand:
- those permits still technically exist
- but the planning scheme no longer requires them
- and there are no transitional provisions explaining how they should be treated
That gap is what continues to create uncertainty — particularly when dealing with liquor licence variations.
What VCAT Has Said
The decision in Ballarat Cinemas Pty Ltd v Ballarat CC [2025] VCAT 1029 is the first real look at this issue at Tribunal level.
In that case, VCAT:
- confirmed that VC286 contains no savings provisions
- accepted that the removal of Clause 52.27 represents a material change in circumstances
- observed that permits issued solely under that clause may no longer have any continuing effect
The permits in that case were ultimately cancelled.
Importantly, however, the Tribunal did not establish a blanket rule applying to all sites. The decision is best understood as a strong indicator of direction, rather than a definitive resolution of the issue.
The Bigger Development — A Legislative Fix on the Horizon?
More recently, the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Act 2026 has introduced a new provision into the Planning and Environment Act — section 69D.
In simple terms, it provides that:
where a planning scheme amendment means a permit is no longer required,
that permit (and its conditions) cease to have effect.
On its face, that provision appears to deal directly with the situation created by VC286.
In other words, rather than requiring permit amendments or cancellations on a case-by-case basis, the legislation contemplates an automatic outcome — if the permit is no longer required, it falls away.
Not There Yet
There are two important caveats.
First, section 69D is not yet in operation. The broader reforms are being rolled out in stages, and timing for this provision is still unclear.
Second, it is not yet confirmed whether the provision will apply to past planning scheme amendments, such as VC286.
If it does, it would effectively resolve the current uncertainty for a large number of existing liquor permits. If not, the current “grey area” may persist for some time.
What This Means in Practice
For now, we are still operating in a transitional environment.
That means:
If a permit is creating a real issue
(for example, conflicting conditions or a licence variation being held up)
→ It may still be appropriate to:
- amend the permit, or
- seek cancellation
If the permit is not causing any immediate problem
→ In many cases, it is reasonable to:
- leave it in place
- monitor how the legislative changes unfold
If council is insisting on an amendment
→ It is worth:
- stepping back and reviewing whether that is actually required
- considering whether a simpler planning confirmation approach is sufficient
The Direction of Travel Is Clear
While the current position is not entirely settled, the broader policy direction is becoming increasingly clear:
- planning schemes no longer regulate liquor
- duplication between planning and licensing is being removed
- and there is a move towards eliminating legacy controls that no longer serve a statutory purpose
Section 69D appears to be the mechanism that will complete that transition — but we’re not quite there yet.
Need a Second Opinion?
If you’re dealing with an existing permit issued under Clause 52.27 and aren’t sure whether it still applies — or you’re being asked to amend something that doesn’t seem to make sense — it’s worth getting it checked.
We’re already working through this issue across a range of venues and can provide clear, practical advice based on your specific circumstances.