Planning reforms continue to focus on maximising residential density in and around activity centres and public transport hubs. This is a sound planning policy that has been consistent over the quarter century I have worked as a town planner in Victoria, and one that is being strongly pursued by the State government.
One of the more controversial aspects of these reforms is the inclusion of several properties currently protected under a Heritage Overlay (HO) within the newly introduced Housing Choice and Transport Zone (HCTZ). These properties have been identified as especially suitable for increasing housing supply and density, due to their proximity to activity centres, public transport, jobs, and services.
This raises the question: should existing HOs be removed to make way for the additional housing that Victoria needs?
Removing HOs can allow greater flexibility for redevelopment, enabling more homes to be delivered in areas close to transport, schools, and employment. Planning in Victoria has often spoken about the missing middle. Removing HOs in the HCTZ that surround Camberwell Junction would enable a significant boost in dwelling numbers within this infrastructure rich middle ring suburb. Particularly in a municipality like Boroondara, where Victorian, Edwardian and Californian Bungalows dwellings are a plenty, is it necessary to retain them all?
HOs introduce another layer of planning control that can slow down approvals and create uncertainty for landowners and developers. Removing them in the HCTZ could speed up the planning process and reduce complexity and uncertainty.
The first rule of economics – supply and demand. When properties are more readily redeveloped, supply increases and prices may stabilise or fall, improving affordability.
Heritage controls generally conflict with broader housing policy objectives, such as 20-minute cities, climate resilience through compact urban form, and transit-oriented development. Removing HOs in the HCTZ would ensure heritage protection does not impede residential development where strategic policy and sound planning principles encourage it most.
Heritage places contribute to the unique character and the story of Melbourne’s development and growth. The removal of the HOs risks irreversible loss of historic fabric, diminishing neighbourhood identity and aesthetic diversity, especially in older suburbs where streetscapes have remained largely intact.
Demolishing heritage structures to make way for new development may offer additional housing density and diversity. But once lost, demolished heritage buildings cannot be returned. This raises questions about the appropriateness of such a trade-off and what the greater legacy is to be left for future generations.
Many people value local heritage highly, seeing it as a source of pride and continuity. Buyers are often drawn to these areas specifically for the heritage character, reassured by the expectation that not much will change. Removing protections with or without consultation can erode trust in planning systems and lead to strong local opposition, especially if outcomes favour higher density or poor-quality development.
Removing HOs in the HCTZ presents a clear tension between protecting the past and preparing for the future. While it could unlock land for urgently needed housing and promote compact urban growth, it also risks eroding the character and cultural fabric that make Victoria’s cities and towns unique.
Rather than blanket removal, a more nuanced approach is warranted. This involves reviewing and refining existing HOs to ensure only the most significant buildings or precincts are retained, while releasing others where the heritage value is marginal or outdated. Where HOs may be removed, a design-led framework allowing increased density while respecting the heritage context may strike the appropriate balance between character preservation and additional housing.
Any change must be evidence-based and strategically justified and accompanied by meaningful industry and community engagement. Contemplating the appropriateness of the HOs will require a careful, place-by-place review rather than a broad-brush approach. In my opinion, this is the only logical path forward to reconcile our heritage values with Victoria’s pressing need for more housing in well-located areas.
The opinions expressed in this article are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies or position of Ratio. This article has been prepared to open dialogue about the planning system in Victoria and to encourage bold and courageous thinking about how we can improve planning in Victoria.
I plan on releasing a series of articles that challenge our system and would be keen to hear from readers on your suggestions for improving the planning system.
With more articles to come, I would be keen to hear your suggestions for improving the planning system in Victoria.
You can contact Sam at mail@ratio.com.au
