Planning solution is in the state’s regions

To submit a letter to The Age , email letters@theage.com.au . Please include your home address and telephone number. No attachments, please include your letter in the body of the email. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.

At last decentralisation is being raised as a solution to manage Melbourne’s burgeoning housing crisis. Access to good-quality, affordable housing is fundamental to society, but the short-term solutions of the Victorian government only compromise our long-term future. The Whitlam government began a program of decentralisation, developing cities like Albury-Wodonga. If these policies had not been abandoned by the Fraser government, Melbourne would be a much more liveable city today. With Melbourne’s population set to grow to more than 10 million by 2101, the priority should be to secure quality of life, the environment, jobs and prosperity for future generations. Decentralisation is complex, long term, expensive and difficult to implement, but the prospects of infinite growth are simply unsustainable, and show poor regard for future generations. If planning encompassed all of Victoria, redirecting growth towards regional cities rather than just its capital, it could ultimately restore Melbourne’s status as the world’s most liveable city. Bryan Long, Balwyn

Climate resilience must play a factor It is helpful to understand the nuts and bolts of Melbourne on track for megacity status: How will it cope? But equally important is understanding the sustainable-living implications of where we are heading. Climate change is no longer a future problem. Melbourne is already experiencing hotter, drier and more volatile conditions, with growing risks from extreme heat, drought, flooding, water scarcity and declining urban tree canopy and biodiversity. These risks become more significant as it moves towards a population of up to 10 million. Greater density and development will intensify pressure on water, energy, open space, sporting facilities and urban cooling. The question is whether our planning framework is adequately integrating climate resilience into the decisions shaping this future. Climate, biodiversity, water and urban forest policies mean little if they do not influence statutory planning and development decisions. Paul Caine, Glen Huntly

Looking outside growth for answers The word ″⁣cope″⁣ in the heading ″⁣ Melbourne on track for megacity status: How will it cope? ″⁣ (28/8) is revealing. I could cope with becoming overweight. But it would force me to spend much of my budget on new clothes, and damage my health. Being able to cope is not a criterion for wisdom. The same goes for urban planning. The infrastructure needed to cope with Melbourne’s historic growth has blown the government’s budget. And the congestion on our roads in our schools and hospitals, and the loss of green spaces have lessened our well-being. I cannot see us even reducing the infrastructure backlog – just to maintain services, not improve them – while Melbourne keeps growing. When will the penny drop that ″⁣growth″⁣ is not a solution? It is one of the drivers of so many problems.