The tension between the apparent intent of the control and VCAT’s view on the scope of the apparent valid considerations remained unresolved for more than a decade.

Licence regulation

The Liquor Control Reform Act 1988 governs the liquor licensing process. Section 44 (2b) notes that the Commission may refuse to grant an uncontested application on any of the following grounds:

(i) that the granting of the application would detract from or be detrimental to the amenity of the area in which the premises to which the application relates are situated;

(ii) that the granting of the application would be conducive to or encourage harm;

(iii) if the applicant or proposed transferee is a natural person—that the applicant or proposed transferee does not have an adequate knowledge of this Act;

(iv) if the applicant or proposed transferee is a body corporate—that no director of the applicant or proposed transferee has an adequate knowledge of this Act;

(v) that the application has not been made, displayed or advertised in accordance with this Act;

(d) in the case of an application for a licence that applies to a large packaged liquor outlet, that the net economic and social impact of granting the application would be detrimental to the wellbeing of the local community.

These are other refusal grounds for BYO permits and clubs.

The Act articulates that harm in this context means harm arising from the misuse and abuse of alcohol, including:

a) harm to minors, vulnerable persons or communities, including groups within communities; and

b) family violence;

c) and anti-social behaviour, including behaviour that causes personal injury or property damage

It also notes the definition of amenity as:

1. For the purposes of this Act, the amenity of an area is the quality that the area has of being pleasant and agreeable.
2. Factors that may be taken into account in determining whether the grant, variation or relocation of a licence would detract from or be detrimental to the amenity of an area include:

******

a) the possibility of nuisance or vandalism;

b) the harmony and coherence of the environment;

c) any other prescribed matters.

It also notes that nothing within this definition is intended to limit the definition of amenity.

Based on what is included in the Liquor Control Reform Act 1988, it could be argued that not only is the licensing process more comprehensive (including considerations of amenity, harm, social and economic impact, and the applicant), but also provides greater clarity on the definition of amenity and harm.

Removing the planning assessment requirement in one sense clarifies the process by removing uncertainty about whether harm should be considered within it. It also addresses criticism that the previous system amounted to duplicate regulation. What is less clear is how Liquor Control Victoria is evaluating the social harms associated with alcohol and what specific responsibilities councils hold in these assessments.

The July 2025 reforms

The reforms implemented in July 2025 removed the permit requirement for licensed premises previously set out in clause 52.27 of planning schemes. Permits may still be necessary for the broader use of land, such as operating a bar, restaurant, or bottle shop, which allows for some regulatory involvement through the planning system. However, earlier changes to commercial zones have resulted in most of these uses no longer requiring planning permission in commercial areas. As a result, removing clause 52.27 has reduced the involvement of the planning system in overseeing licensed premises.

What are the implications?

The removal of planning permit requirements for licensed premises has been treated as a narrowly targeted reform, aimed at eliminating regulatory duplication without prompting changes to other related processes. No changes were made to the liquor licensing process, and the state government released minimal guidance to support implementation. For example, it remains unclear whether venues are still bound by conditions attached to their existing planning permits. Meanwhile, local policies that previously guided assessments remain in planning schemes, despite now applying only in very limited circumstances.

This has left uncertainty about future regulation of licensed premises, especially regarding how councils can comment on applications. Previously, councils were the first to assess proposed licensed premises through the planning permit process, which often included input from council social planners on potential for social harm. Now, with the removal of the planning permit requirement, councils must provide input through the liquor licensing process.

The Liquor Control Reform Act 1988 notes that local government can object to a licence application. This includes:

• All licence types are on the ground that the grant, variation or relocation would detract from or be detrimental to the amenity of the area in which the premises are situated.
• In addition to the above, packaged or late-night licences on the ground that the grant, variation or relocation would be conducive to or encourage harm.

The Commission is required to provide a copy of every liquor licence application to the council of the municipal district where the proposed premises are located. This means that local government can still have a say on the amenity and potential harm of some licence applications. However, their role has shifted from their previous role as an assessor to a potential objector to applications.

Given that these applications are no longer assessed through a planning permit process, councils will now likely rely on their social planning teams to review these applications when referred. This marks a significant shift for many councils as the level of resourcing devoted to social planning at councils varies considerably, along with social planning, liquor licencing assessment skills and knowledge. In addition, councils will no longer receive the planning application fee to help cover the assessment of these applications, meaning any review they choose to undertake will need to be funded from their own budgets.

What can councils do?

There are several possible responses that council should consider in response to these reforms.

Review capacity: It will be important for councils to assess their staffing and expertise to understand whether they can effectively respond to liquor applications in the new system and who might be best placed to do so – for example, social planners or statutory planners.

Build internal knowledge: There is limited guidance in relation to how to assess the amenity and harm of a liquor application. Developing an internal policy can help to provide clarity and guidance when responding to liquor referrals. Some councils have existing policies in their planning schemes that may form the foundation of such a policy, although these are generally focused on amenity issues rather than social harm.

Focus resources: If capacity is an issue, councils could focus resources on specific types of liquor licenses. This could include the assessment of all packaged liquor and late-night applications, applications that are in areas of vulnerability or specific areas where cumulative impact may be an issue.

Share tools and resources: A key strength of local governments is their ability to share knowledge. With such a degree of change, as councils develop internal processes, systems, templates and tools, it will be important that this knowledge is shared across the sector.

How can the sector further support councils?

Guidance: There is still limited guidance available for how Liquor Control Victoria and councils assess a liquor licence application, including evaluating harm, amenity, social and economic impacts, and cumulative impacts. Liquor Control Victoria should consider developing guidance materials to support these assessments.