When Councils Get Liquor Planning Wrong After VC286
Amendment VC286 was introduced to remove duplicated regulation between the planning system and liquor licensing. Its intent was clear: planning schemes no longer regulate the sale and consumption of liquor.
Yet despite this, some councils are continuing to insist that applicants must amend historic planning permits issued solely under former Clause 52.27 in order to vary an existing liquor licence. In our professional view, that position is often unnecessary — and in many cases, not supported by the current statutory framework.
VC286 Removed Liquor From the Planning Scheme — Entirely
From 1 July 2025, Amendment VC286 deleted Clause 52.27 (Licensed Premises) from all Victorian planning schemes. This was not a partial reform or a re-draft — the clause was removed outright, with no replacement controls regulating liquor use through planning.
Importantly, VC286 contains no savings or transitional provisions preserving permits issued solely under Clause 52.27.
The explanatory material for VC286 makes the intent clear: to eliminate duplicated regulation and leave liquor control to the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 and the Victorian Liquor Commission. Planning approval is no longer part of that framework.
Section 16 of the Liquor Control Reform Act — What LCV Actually Tests
Section 16(1) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 provides that (subject to limited exceptions) it is a condition of every licence and BYO permit that the use of the licensed premises does not contravene the planning scheme applying to that premises.
That statutory test is critical. It is not a test against historic permits. It is not a test of whether a permit once existed. It is a test of whether the current proposal contravenes the planning scheme as it stands today.
If the planning scheme no longer regulates liquor — which it does not — then a liquor licence variation cannot contravene it on that basis.
What VCAT Has Said (and What It Hasn’t)
In Ballarat Cinemas Pty Ltd v Ballarat City Council [2025] VCAT 1029, the Tribunal considered the status of permits issued solely under Clause 52.27.
The Tribunal noted that VC286 contains no savings provisions and observed:
“The implication is that a permit issued only under clause 52.27 has no continuing effect even though it has not expired.”
This is an important statement and provides strong support for the view that such permits may no longer have any practical or operative effect.
However, it is equally important to recognise that:
- the Tribunal still formally cancelled the permits under section 87
- the decision does not establish a universal rule applying to all permits
- the broader legal position remains unsettled
In other words, while the direction of travel is clear, this is not yet a completely closed question in all circumstances.
Why Requiring Permit Amendments Is Often Unnecessary
Requiring an amendment to a Clause 52.27 permit in order to vary a liquor licence is, in many cases, difficult to justify having regard to the current framework:
- the planning scheme no longer regulates liquor
- Clause 52.27 has been removed in its entirety
- the LCRA test is scheme-based, not permit-based
- recent VCAT reasoning suggests these permits may no longer have operative effect
At a minimum, there is a strong argument that permits issued solely for liquor under Clause 52.27 no longer perform any meaningful statutory function.
That said, each site must still be considered on its merits — particularly where permits also authorise buildings and works or other land uses.
What Councils Should Be Doing
Where a liquor licence variation is proposed, the appropriate approach in most cases is for council to confirm whether the proposal contravenes the planning scheme as it currently stands. In many situations, this can be addressed through a simple confirmation letter along the lines of:
“The proposed variation to the liquor licence does not contravene the planning scheme as in force on the date of this letter.”
Further planning approval should only be required where another current planning control is triggered — for example:
- buildings and works
- heritage controls
- signage
- or a separate land-use issue unrelated to liquor regulation
A Note on What May Be Coming Next
There are also broader legislative reforms underway which may further clarify this issue — including provisions that would automatically extinguish permits where they are no longer required due to changes in the planning scheme.
Those provisions are not yet in operation, but they reinforce the policy direction established by VC286.
Stuck in “Regulatory Limbo”?
If you (or your client) are being told you must amend an old Clause 52.27 permit just to progress a liquor licence variation, it’s worth taking a step back and properly reviewing the position.
We can:
- review the planning controls and confirm the correct statutory position
- prepare a short, targeted submission to council
- assist in obtaining appropriate planning confirmation
- support escalation where required
Get in touch with OTL Consulting Group / On Tap Liquor Consulting if you want us to step in and get it moving.