• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

No building or development works were proposed. The tables in the proposed saloon would be hired out for a fee, but none would be coin, card, or token operated. Light refreshments might be supplied; no alcohol would be consumed on the premises (Reasons [2]). The Tribunal, presided over by Deputy President Helen Gibson at a Practice Day Hearing, considered the definitions in the Melbourne Planning Scheme, relevantly "Place of assembly", "Leisure and recreation", "Minor sports and recreation facility" and "Indoor recreation facility", and applied ordinary meaning (the Macquarie Dictionary) to inform construction. The Tribunal declared that a non-coin operated billiard and snooker saloon is a "place of assembly" (Order; Reasons [19]).

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal's decision turns on characterisation of land use by reference to the planning scheme's definitions, read in context, informed by ordinary meaning. The Tribunal identified a useful binary to decide this case: whether the primary character of the use is (a) congregating for entertainment/meetings, the hallmark of "place of assembly", or (b) involvement in observable physical activity/exercise, the hallmark of "leisure and recreation" (Reasons [15], [18]).

Key steps in the Tribunal's reasoning:

• Reproduce and focus on the scheme definitions: "place of assembly" as "Land where people congregate for religious or cultural activities, entertainment, or meetings" (Reasons [8]); "leisure and recreation" as "Land used for leisure, recreation, or sport" and associated sub-definitions including "Indoor recreation facility" for "A building used for indoor leisure, recreation, or sport" (Reasons [9]–[11]).
• Use dictionary meaning: The Tribunal quoted the Macquarie Dictionary definition of "recreation" to show that "recreation" often carries an idea of "agreeable exercise" or diversion, and thereby to anchor the notion that "leisure and recreation" typically connotes activities involving exercise (Reasons [16]–[17]).
• Draw a principled distinction by reference to the examples in the scheme: Dancing school is included in "indoor recreation facility" because dancing there is the primary activity and involves exercise; a nightclub is in "place of assembly" because dancing is optional and incidental to congregation and entertainment (Reasons [17]).
• Apply that distinction to billiards and snooker: playing these games does not involve the degree of strenuous exercise that characterises "leisure and recreation" uses. Instead the primary character is congregation for entertainment; importantly, the mechanical fact of whether tables are coin-operated does not alter the physical nature of the activity (Reasons [17], [19]).
• Reject the Council's argument that the policy choice to treat coin-operated amusement parlours as requiring a permit logically forces non-coin billiard halls into a permit-requiring category; the Tribunal found no logic in that inference and placed no weight on it (Reasons [20]).

On that analysis the Tribunal concluded that a non-coin operated billiard and snooker saloon fits within "place of assembly" and is thus a use permitted as of right in Schedule 1 to the Capital City Zone (Order; Reasons [19], [21]).

Before and after state of the law

Before this decision, the planning scheme definitions were available but their application to borderline indoor recreational uses such as billiard saloons required characterisation. This decision clarifies how those particular definitions should be read when distinguishing between "place of assembly" and "leisure and recreation".

After this decision, for similar factual circumstances (non-coin operated billiard/snooker premises), practitioners and responsible authorities should treat such uses as capable of being "places of assembly" where the primary nature of the use is congregation for entertainment rather than physical exertion. The decision emphasises that incidental features (such as charging by time, or coin-operation) do not necessarily change classification if the underlying character remains congregation/entertainment.

This is a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and therefore persuasive within Victorian planning practice. It is a useful precedent for similar classification disputes before VCAT and municipal planners but it is not a binding appellate authority beyond VCAT's jurisdiction.

Key passages with plain-English translation

1. "Land where people congregate for religious or cultural activities, entertainment, or meetings" (Reasons [8]).

   • Plain English: The planning scheme treats as "place of assembly" any land whose main function is to have people come together for some shared purpose like entertainment, worship, cultural events, or meetings.

2. "Land used for leisure, recreation, or sport" (Reasons [9]).

   • Plain English: "Leisure and recreation" covers places where the main activity is doing things for fun or exercise, including sports.

3. "I consider that in general terms, the various uses falling within the leisure and recreation group all involve a degree of physical activity and the expending of energy..." (Reasons [15]).

   • Plain English: The Tribunal says that leisure/recreation uses are typically ones where people are physically active or use energy, think sports, dancing schools, gym-type activities.

4. "Looking at the range of uses included in the place of assembly group... the common thread... is that they are places where people congregate... It is the act of congregating that is important, rather than any activity that may occur as a consequence." (Reasons [18]).

   • Plain English: What unites places of assembly is people coming together; the social gathering itself is primary, not incidental activities that might take place there.

5. "No greater activity or exercise is involved in playing billiards or snooker on a table that is coin, card or token operated than on one that is not." (Reasons [19]).

   • Plain English: Whether a table is coin-operated does not change the physical nature of playing the game; therefore coin-operation is not a meaningful distinction for classification.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision is directly applicable where:

• The proposed use involves people congregating principally to play billiards or snooker (or similar low-exertion indoor pastimes), and the premises are located within a zoning schedule that distinguishes between "place of assembly" and "leisure and recreation".
• There is no substantive building work and the issue is one of use classification under the planning scheme definitions.
• The tables or equipment are not coin, card or token operated (though the reasoning addresses the irrelevance of coin-operation to the physical character).
• The responsible authority argues the use is an 'indoor recreation facility' because fees are charged by time or because the activity is actively participatory.

Less directly applicable but informative for similar disputes where the activity is marginal between 'congregation/entertainment' and 'active recreation', for example, a social club offering low-exertion games, or an indoor games venue where the prime attraction is social gathering rather than physical exercise.

How later courts have treated it

The judgment itself contains no citations to other cases and the Tribunal did not rely on any higher court authority in the reasons. The decision is a VCAT determination and will be treated as persuasive authority in subsequent VCAT matters or by council officers interpreting similar planning scheme definitions. It is not an appellate authority, so higher courts are not bound by it.

Practitioners should check for later VCAT decisions or Victorian Supreme Court decisions that may have considered the same definitional boundary. If a later case addresses the same issue and distinguishes the facts (for example, where the activity involves measurable exercise, spectators, or substantial physical exertion), that later case may limit the persuasive weight of Liao.

As the Tribunal relied on scheme definitions and ordinary meaning, the extent to which later decisions follow or distinguish Liao will turn on (a) any amendments to the planning scheme definitions, and (b) the specific factual character of the competing uses in those later cases. Users should search subsequent VCAT decisions for references to Liao & Anor v Melbourne CC [2009] VCAT 2313 when dealing with similar classification disputes.

Still-open questions

1. Degree of activity threshold: The Tribunal's decision rests on a qualitative assessment that billiards/snooker do not involve the degree of strenuous activity characteristic of 'leisure and recreation'. The precise line, how much physical exertion or active involvement is necessary to push a use into 'leisure and recreation', remains a fact-sensitive question for future cases. What level of exertion would make a use 'recreation' rather than 'congregation'? The decision gives guidance but not a numerical or bright-line test (see Reasons [15], [17]).

2. Mixed or dual-character uses: Where an indoor venue offers both social congregation (entertainment) and structured physical activity (e.g. a venue that operates billiards but also has a substantial active sports training program), how should the primary character be determined? The Tribunal's approach suggests the primary purpose governs, but further decisions will have to grapple with genuinely mixed uses.

3. Role of commercial charging models: The Council attempted to draw a distinction based on charging by time and on coin-operation. The Tribunal rejected coin-operation as determinative (Reasons [19]–[20]). But whether different charging regimes might reflect or indicate a different primary purpose (for example, a commercialised sports coaching facility charging by time and with structured training) remains open and fact-dependent.

4. Relevance of spectatorship or scale: The 'minor sports and recreation facility' definition mentions "without substantial provision for spectators" (Reasons [10]). The decision did not examine scenarios where billiards or similar games are played with significant spectatorship or competition structure. If a venue stages competitive tournaments with organised spectators and facilities, could that push the use into recreation or sports categories? That is unresolved here.

5. Applicability across different scheme zones or later scheme revisions: Different planning schemes or later amendments may define classes differently. The principles in Liao depend on the specific scheme language. Users must check the current wording of applicable scheme definitions.

Conclusion: Liao & Anor v Melbourne CC provides a clear, practical approach to classifying non-coin operated billiard and snooker saloons under the Melbourne Planning Scheme: their primary character is congregational entertainment, making them "places of assembly". The decision is analytically useful whenever a dispute turns on whether a use is essentially about congregation/entertainment or primarily about active recreation, but practitioners should treat its conclusions as fact-specific and monitor subsequent case law for refinements on the boundaries identified above.