Layers of regulation

Article

In short

• We're not against regulation. Orderly planning, safe buildings, harm minimisation and protecting neighbours all matter.
• But hospitality regulation in Victoria comes in layers: planning, building, liquor, local laws and environmental controls. Each is run by a different body.
• Four agencies can enforce against a venue: council, Liquor Control Victoria (LCV), Victoria Police and the EPA. They often cover the same ground and don't talk to each other.
• One complaint can be sent to several of them at once, starting several investigations. The onus falls on the venue.
• Small operators are hit hardest. Reform should mean fewer applications, consistent controls, and complaints sent to the body that is actually responsible.

Why we're writing about hospitality regulation in Victoria

Most of our work is helping venues get through the system as it is. This article is different. It sets out Plan2Pour's position on how hospitality regulation in Victoria works, and why we think it needs reform.

We've run licensed venues ourselves and now deal with councils, LCV and police licensing units every week. We see the same pattern again and again. It isn't one bad rule. It's how the rules stack up.

We're not against regulation

Let's be clear about this first. Regulation exists for good reasons. Planning keeps land use orderly and protects neighbours. Building rules keep venues safe and accessible. Liquor laws minimise harm. Noise rules protect people's sleep.

Our argument is not that any of these should go. It's that the same issues are controlled several times, by different bodies, through different processes, with no one looking at the whole.

What are the layers of regulation for a venue?

Picture a small restaurant opening in a shopping strip. Before it pours a drink, it may deal with:

1. Planning (council). A planning permit for the use, depending on the zone, and for any building works or car parking reduction.
2. Building (building surveyor). A building permit and occupancy approval for the fit-out.
3. Liquor (LCV). A liquor licence, with its own hours, capacity, licensed area and conditions.
4. Local laws (council). Footpath trading permits, signs and other local-law approvals, which vary from council to council.
5. Environment (EPA). Noise from the venue, including music, under the EPA noise framework.

On top of that sit employment law, tax, music licensing and food business registration. Each layer has its own forms, fees, timeframes and specialists.

Where do the layers overlap?

The same few questions come up in almost every layer: how many people, how late, how loud and where.

• Capacity can be set by the building approval, the liquor licence and, in some cases, a planning permit.
• Hours can be set by the liquor licence and a planning permit, and affected by local-law permits for outdoor areas.
• Noise can be dealt with under the EPA framework, by council, and through licence conditions.

When the numbers don't agree, the venue is held to the lowest of them, and often has to argue about which one applies.

There has been one step in the right direction. On 1 July 2025, Amendment VC286 removed the separate planning permit for liquor. Liquor is now dealt with through the licence, not twice. But many venues are still carrying old liquor conditions on their permits, and some councils still enforce them. We explain this in VC286: what changed for venues.

One complaint, several investigations

Here is the problem in its sharpest form. A single noise complaint can be sent to council, LCV, Victoria Police and the EPA at the same time. Each one can open its own file. Each one can ask the venue for a response. None of them is required to check what the others are doing.

The venue then answers the same complaint three or four times, to three or four bodies, under three or four sets of rules. The onus is on the venue to show it complied. If the complaint was unfounded, or made for other reasons, there's no real recourse.

Enforcement in this system tends to be reactive. It starts when someone complains, not when there's evidence of a real problem. And it's often punitive, with letters and notices before a conversation.

Why are small operators hit hardest?

A large operator can treat consultants, specialist reports and appeals as a line item. A small operator can't. When planning certainty depends on who can pay for the reports, the peer reviews and the appeal, the outcome goes to the budget, not the merits. In effect, it's pay to play.

Small venues work on thin margins. They often can't pivot when an application stalls, and they still face rising fees each year. Rent keeps running while the approvals don't.

The effects go beyond one business. When the barriers to entry are this high, small operators stay out and larger players fill the gap. Local streets lose diverse venues, local jobs and local entertainment. And operators who do open can struggle to pay themselves a fair wage.

Complaints should go to the right body

We're not saying people shouldn't complain. Genuine complaints deserve a proper answer. But a complaint should go to the body that is actually responsible for that issue, not to a shopping list of agencies.

• Noise goes to the EPA (and council).
• Liquor goes to LCV.
• Planning and development goes to council.
• Building goes to the building surveyor or the Victorian Building Authority.

One complaint, one body, one investigation. That's fairer for neighbours too. They get a clear answer from the body with the right powers, instead of several partial ones.

What should change?

Our position comes down to this: fewer applications and consistent controls.

• One regulator per matter. Building for occupancy, LCV for liquor supply and capacity, the EPA for noise. Others shouldn't regulate the same thing again through their own permits.
• Respect what the planning scheme already allows. Where the zone allows a use without a permit, the operator should be able to open under one set of rules, not be regulated again through unrelated permits for works or parking.
• Consistent rules across councils, especially for footpath trading and outdoor dining.
• Faster decisions on simple matters, so a small change doesn't take months.
• Complaints routed to the right body, with a single investigation.

What this means for venues now

Until things change, the practical answer is to know which body is responsible for what, respond early and in writing, and don't accept a condition or a demand without asking where it comes from. Our council and police page covers how we deal with council, LCV, police and the EPA when they get involved, and our noise complaints service covers the most common trigger. To learn more about who we are and why we hold this view, see about Plan2Pour.

Questions