Not the ‘vibe’ – VCAT confirms operator identity is irrelevant to planning permit decisions

McDonald’s Australia Limited v Darebin CC [2026] VCAT 283 (24 April 2026)

(a) Key takeaway

In the recent Northcote McDonald’s case, VCAT has delivered a clear message: councils cannot refuse a permit amendment simply because the community objects to a particular brand or operator.

Where a use is permitted as of right under the planning scheme, the identity of the operator — and any community sentiment against them — is irrelevant to the permit decision. For developers seeking to activate commercial sites with existing approvals, this decision provides significant certainty.

(b) What happened

VCAT overturned Darebin City Council’s refusal to amend a planning permit for 319–325 High Street, Northcote — a vacant, fire-damaged commercial building that had been unoccupied for several years. McDonald’s sought to amend the existing permit to allow building works, add a loading bay, and remove outdated conditions including restricted operating hours.

Council refused the application in November 2025, citing inconsistency with the “vision and intent” of the Northcote Activity Centre, amenity impacts from late-night trade, traffic concerns, and rooftop plant visibility. The refusal was supported by a community campaign attracting over 11,000 petition signatures.

(c) Why VCAT overturned the refusal

The Tribunal was unequivocal: “This proceeding is not about whether McDonalds should be permitted to operate in Northcote.” A fast food restaurant (classified as a “Convenience restaurant” under the planning scheme) is an as-of-right use in the Commercial 1 Zone — no permit is required for the use itself. That was the position when the original permit was issued in 2001 and remains the position today.

The Tribunal confirmed it had no jurisdiction to consider McDonald’s corporate practices, food quality, health impacts, or whether the brand aligns with the character of the Northcote strip. None of those matters constitute relevant planning considerations.

The only live questions were the building design, the loading bay, and whether old permit conditions should be removed.

• Building design — approved. The proposed alterations were found to deliver acceptable outcomes: glazing to High Street, outdoor dining for activation, and a 24-hour pedestrian entrance. The rear elevation was not considered exemplary, but VCAT confirmed the planning scheme does not require it to activate the adjacent car park. The relevant test is “acceptable”, not “ideal”.
• Loading bay — approved. Expert evidence confirmed the new loading bay would not cause pedestrian safety issues, supported by good sightlines, only two truck movements per day on average, a wide 7.7-metre accessway, and an existing mixed-traffic environment.
• Outdated conditions — removed. The operating hours restriction was deleted because the site is located within a higher-order activity centre that encourages late-night trade, and the zone already permits unrestricted hours for as-of-right uses. The rooftop plant condition was also removed given the proposed building improvements would largely screen equipment from the street. New, more targeted conditions were imposed covering landscaping, waste management, and delivery vehicle restrictions.

(d) What this means for developers

This decision provides welcome clarity for anyone acquiring or activating commercial sites. The key practical takeaways for developers are:

• Operator identity is not a planning matter. The planning system regulates land use categories and built form — not who the operator is. If the use is as of right, any operator within that use class can take up occupancy under an existing approval. This provides powerful certainty when assessing feasibility on a site with an existing permit.
• Community opposition does not override the planning scheme. Regardless of the scale of community opposition — even 11,000 petition signatures — if the objection is not grounded in a legitimate planning consideration, it will not be sustained at VCAT. Subjective objections to an operator’s brand or character are not valid refusal grounds.
• Site activation is a legitimate planning benefit. Bringing a long-vacant, fire-damaged building back into productive use was viewed positively — particularly where it delivers 24-hour activity and passive surveillance to a precinct that currently presents safety concerns.
• Legacy conditions can be challenged. If your site has existing permit conditions that restrict matters the zone now allows as of right (such as operating hours), this decision supports having those conditions deleted. Permit conditions cannot regulate matters for which no permit is required.

Looking ahead

This decision is likely to carry significant weight in future disputes involving operator identity. Developers and landowners should be alert to opportunities to rely on this reasoning when activating sites or defending against community-driven refusals that lack a proper planning basis.

This update is intended as general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact us if you require advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

If you found this insight article useful and you would like to subscribe to Gadens’ updates, click here.

Authored by: 

Andrea Towson, Partner
Laura Kilpatrick, Graduate