Insights

Public open space contributions in Victoria: A preferred approach

Posted July 02, 2026

Author(s):

Jo Noesgaard, Marcus Spiller, Aline Raad

Experts in this area:

Sectors:

Open Space

Types:

Local government

Access to public open space across Melbourne could decline by almost 25% over the next two decades unless the way councils fund parks and open space changes.

In a revised and expanded edition of their 2024 paper, Dr Marcus Spiller, Jo Noesgaard, and Aline Raad argue that current public open space (POS) contribution settings are no longer keeping pace with Melbourne’s rapid population growth, urban consolidation and changing climate conditions.

The revised edition comes as Melbourne faces continued population growth, housing pressure and urban densification, alongside increasing expectations on public open space to support recreation, cooling, biodiversity and community wellbeing.

In addition, the updated paper further develops the proposed methodology for calculating open space contributions in rural and regional local government areas.

With the implementation of the State Government Housing Targets, many rural and regional local government areas across Victoria are earmarked for additional growth. As with metropolitan areas, additional growth needs to be supported by essential infrastructure, such as open space. The majority of rural and regional councils are reliant on the Subdivision Act to raise contributions. This method is largely based on negotiation per development, which is costly, time consuming, and results in inconsistent application across projects.

Rural and regional areas present a different context to metropolitan municipalities, and require a different approach. However, the open space still works as a network across the municipality.

Public open space, including parks, gardens and sporting reserves, plays a critical role in supporting healthy, resilient and liveable communities. Yet across the State, most councils apply open space contribution rates of 5% or less under Clause 53.01 of the Victoria Planning Provisions.

Melbourne’s acclaimed liveability is underpinned by abundant greenspaces. These will be key assets as we adapt to a changing climate. So, it’s worrying that we do not have an adequate funding model to improve open space as the population grows.
— Dr Marcus Spiller, Principal and Partner

SGS modelling in the paper estimates that municipal public open space provision could fall from around 23.5 square metres per person in 2023 to 18 square metres per person by 2043 if current average contribution rates remain unchanged.

The paper proposes a standards-based approach to calculating POS contributions. Rather than dealing with individual developments in isolation, the methodology treats each municipality as a single integrated planning unit with a single open space network. Contributions would apply to all development that benefits from the network, regardless of timing or land use type.

The proposed approach is built around a benchmark of 30 square metres of public open space per person. According to the paper, this benchmark has a long history in Victorian planning, aligns with international practice, and broadly reflects historic levels of council-managed public open space provision across metropolitan Melbourne.

As with any other form of infrastructure, we need quantitative sufficiency standards for the provision of public open space if communities are going to have reasonable assurance that they will get the greenspaces they need. Thirty square metres per head is a fair standard. It has a long history of application in Victoria, dating back to measured recreation needs in the 1954 plan prepared by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. It aligns with international standards and reflects the current average provision of municipal open space across our metropolitan municipalities.
— Dr Marcus Spiller, Principal and Partner

The paper also highlights the growing pressure on public open space in higher-density communities, where residents often have limited access to private open space, and parks must support a wider range of environmental, recreational and social functions.

With Melbourne expected to continue growing rapidly, the paper argues that public open space should be planned and funded with the same long-term thinking applied to other essential infrastructure.