Melbourne 2030 has been subject to criticism concerning the basis of some of its policy objectives, inconsistencies between policies, poor implementation and departures from its principles by the Victorian government.
Monash University published a critique of the policy in its book "Melbourne 2030: Planning Rhetoric Versus Urban Reality". The Melbourne media has also published several stories about the flaws in the policy.
Policy objectives Encouraging intensification in
activity centres sustains existing development pressure in some of the oldest parts of inner-city and middle-ring suburbs that are also often heritage precincts. The
National Trust of Victoria has expressed concern about the effect on
inner city heritage areas, particularly in sensitive suburbs such as
Carlton,
Fitzroy,
Collingwood and
South Yarra. Some media commentators claimed that the policy would destroy Melbourne's
character. Some of the organisations that have spoken out against Melbourne 2030's objectives: • Collingwood Action Group – specifically with regard to the development of Smith Street • Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association A large rally was held in 2004 by community groups in opposition to the policy.
Inconsistencies of opponents Opponents of the blueprint are inconsistent in their arguments against the Melbourne 2030 blueprint. For example, although much criticism has been directed at increasing density in the inner suburbs of Melbourne, opponents are also highly critical of the releasing of new land on the fringes of Melbourne. However, it is these same groups who oppose the
urban sprawl of Melbourne, the only other option short of refusing residence to new arrivals. Other infrastructure concerns included the availability of water for the growing metropolis. Victorian opposition leader
Ted Baillieu has criticised the policy of "no new dams" while allowing the population to increase by another million.
Policy implementation The high-profile resistance campaign against the redevelopment proposals for
Camberwell railway station, headed by Geoffrey Rush, provide an example of how politically difficult it could be to implement policies for intensification of suburban
activity centres. To achieve the objectives, the State Government stripped local councils of many of their planning powers and escalating decisions to VCAT. Many felt that the policy had become further flawed by the underestimated population projections contained in the report when figures were released showing higher than expected population growth for Melbourne.
Policy departures At the same time, proponents have been critical of the implementation of Melbourne 2030 with many believing that the government is abandoning key aspects of the strategy. For example, after a boom in new housing construction in outer Melbourne, the government released more land for outer
suburban development beyond the urban growth boundary.{{cite web | first = Samantha | last = Donovan |date= 4 March 2008 | work = ABC | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/04/2179871.htm ==Other Planning policies==