The Victorian Government's planning reforms continue to reshape the operation of the planning system. One provision that has received relatively little attention, but may have significant practical consequences when it commences, is the new section 69D of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 

Section 69D was introduced under the Planning Amendment (Better Decisions Made Faster) Act 2026 that received Royal Assent on 17 February 2026. Unless proclaimed earlier, it will commence automatically on 29 October 2027, being the Act's default commencement date.

When commenced, section 69D will provide that where a subdivision or planning scheme amendment means a permit is no longer required for a use or development previously approved by a planning permit, the permit and any conditions applicable to that use or development cease to have effect.

While the provision appears straightforward, its implications may be significant. In particular, it raises the question of whether Parliament intends to qualify the principles established by the Supreme Court in Benedetti v Moonee Valley City Council [2005] VSC 434.

For many years, Victorian planning practitioners have worked on the basis that a planning permit does not necessarily lose effect simply because planning controls change.

In Benedetti, the Supreme Court held that a permit condition could continue to operate after development had been completed because the landowner continued to receive the benefit of the permit.

That principle has subsequently been applied by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), including in Box v Moreland CC [2014] VCAT 246, where permit conditions continued to bind an owner even though a permit would no longer have been required under the planning controls then in force.

The result is that historic permit conditions frequently continue to regulate land long after the original permit trigger has disappeared.

In our view, the legislation does not expressly overturn Benedetti.

However, section 69D appears to adopt a different approach. Under Benedetti, permit obligations may continue while the owner continues to enjoy the benefit of the permit. Under section 69D, a permit or conditions of the permit may cease to have effect once the planning system no longer requires it.

Accordingly, the better view is that section 69D operates as a statutory qualification to the Benedetti principle, rather than a wholesale rejection of it.

While section 69D establishes the substantive rule, the legislation presently provides little guidance regarding how it will operate in practice. Several important questions remain.

Will It apply to existing permits?

On its face, section 69D appears capable of applying to permits already on foot when it commences. However, there does not appear to be any specific transitional regime or grandfathering provision dealing with existing permits.

If that interpretation is correct, permits granted years, or even decades, ago could potentially cease to have effect once section 69D commences.

How will permit holders know a permit has ceased?

The mechanism appears to operate automatically.

Unlike permit cancellation provisions, there is currently no prescribed process involving council certification, Ministerial declaration or VCAT confirmation. As a result, disputes may arise regarding whether a permit has ceased and which permit conditions, if any, have fallen away.

Which conditions cease to have effect?

Section 69D does not provide that all permit conditions cease. Rather, it states that conditions "applicable to the use or development" cease to have effect.

Some conditions are clearly linked to a particular approval, such as:

• hours of operation;
• patron limits;
• restrictions on a particular use;
• management plans; or
• requirements linked to specific buildings and works.

Where the underlying use or development no longer requires a permit, it may be relatively straightforward to conclude that these conditions also fall away.

The position is less clear for conditions with an ongoing or broader planning purpose, such as:

• landscaping obligations;
• drainage and infrastructure works;
• environmental management requirements;
• acoustic attenuation measures; or
• conditions linked to section 173 agreements.

Whether these conditions survive because they serve an independent planning purpose or cease because they are "applicable to" the use or development, remains uncertain.

This issue may ultimately become one of the most significant practical consequences of section 69D.

Section 69D may prove to be one of the most significant, but least discussed, elements of Victoria's recent planning reforms.

While Benedetti established that permit conditions can continue to bind landowners long after development has been completed, section 69D appears aimed at a different objective: removing permits and permit conditions where the planning system no longer requires them.

The comments of VCAT in Ballarat Cinemas Pty Ltd v Ballarat CC [2025] VCAT 1029 suggest that the provision is intended to address the practical difficulties created by obsolete permits that remain on foot despite the disappearance of the underlying permit trigger.

Whether section 69D ultimately resolves those issues or simply shifts the debate to new questions of interpretation remains to be seen. The scope of conditions that cease to have effect, may prove to be the most significant debates once the provision commences.

For developers and landowners, this is a provision worth watching closely as the anticipated commencement date of 29 October 2027 approaches.