Melbourne’s character and liveability is being bulldozed – we should all be alarmed

Melbourne has long been celebrated for its character – leafy streets, vibrant neighbourhoods and a patchwork of communities shaped by decades of deliberate, collaborative planning. But that legacy is now at risk.

On March 31, the Victorian government introduced a sweeping overhaul of the state’s residential planning controls. In one swift move, it discarded more than $1 billion worth of strategic work carried out by councils and communities over the past 25 years.

The state government’s planning changes could have a major impact on Melbourne’s cityscape.Credit: Joe Armao

The changes remove barriers to multi-unit development across Victoria, encouraging such development in quiet residential streets and the loss of trees, and impacting heritage. The distinctive qualities that define Melbourne and its suburbs will be lost.

This isn’t just a catastrophic waste of public investment – it’s a direct assault on the systems that protect what makes Melbourne liveable.

The planning shift was introduced without proper consultation with Victoria’s local councils. No evidence was presented to justify its sweeping changes. Yet the government has pressed ahead, determined to fast-track development, stripping away local input and gutting planning protections.

The justification? A supposed need to accelerate affordable housing supply. But the real barriers to housing affordability lie in taxes, construction costs and labour shortages. Thousands of approved homes are not being built – not because of planning delays, but because of these systemic issues, most of which the government itself created, and which the amendments do nothing to address.

Even worse, the changes remove fundamental planning considerations such as environmental impacts, neighbourhood character and amendments that address risks such as bushfire, contamination and flooding. These aren’t bureaucratic hurdles. They are critical safeguards that ensure developments are safe, sustainable and suited to their surroundings. Ignoring them isn’t reform – it’s recklessness.

The outcome will be all too familiar: cookie-cutter developments, weakened community protections, soulless urban sprawl and a continual slide down the world’s liveability standings. Astonishingly, while the government is erasing requirements to assess neighbourhood character, it has titled one of the new provisions “Neighbourhood Character”. It’s lip service at best – gaslighting at worst.

Robert Hoddle, who designed Melbourne’s grid, would be turning in his grave. This is not how we build a better city.

The planning system isn’t the problem – it’s the public safeguard that keeps development aligned with community needs and environmental realities. We can absolutely build more housing, but not at the cost of quality, identity and long-term liveability.

Robert Hoddle, who designed Melbourne’s grid, would be turning in his grave. This is not how we build a better city.

Over the past month, the Victorian upper house convened a select committee to examine these planning changes. The inquiry heard from planning experts, councils, industry bodies and the Department of Transport and Planning. The planning minister did not appear and the government failed to provide any evidence to support its changes.

The select committee, with members from Labor, the Coalition, the Greens and independents, delivered a damning assessment of the amendments, including that the process lacked consultation, was not supported by evidence and most notably that it removed essential checks and balances.

The committee issued 14 recommendations, including one calling for public consultation on the changes before any implementation.

Following these findings, the Coalition moved to rescind the amendment in the upper house. Labor opposed the rescission and disappointingly, the Greens – while acknowledging the amendment’s flaws – sided with Labor, defeating the motion.

Despite the clear findings, community and industry concern, and expert warnings, as at today these planning changes remain in place.

What we are left with is a planning system stripped of nuance, balance, integrity and, most worryingly, protections. This is a rollback of everything that has made Melbourne a city of substance and soul.

Without immediate intervention – through legal challenge, community mobilisation or political pressure – the consequences will be devastating and long-lasting. Councils and industry groups are exploring their options. For the sake of our city’s future, we must hope these efforts succeed. Because there is no value in building homes in a lifeless city, devoid of character, charm or cohesion.

A truly liveable Melbourne is not just about increasing supply. It’s about building communities, preserving identity and planning for the generations to come.

This moment is a test not just for our politicians, but for all of us who care about the future of our suburbs, our streets and our shared home.

David Vorchheimer is former president of the Planning Institute of Australia (Victoria division), a former senior adviser to premier Ted Baillieu and a principal at Russell Kennedy.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.