In a move that’s sparking heated debate, a rooming house has been greenlit in Melbourne’s drug-troubled Abbotsford neighborhood, despite fierce opposition from locals and council members. But here’s where it gets controversial: the decision, handed down by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), has reignited a fiery discussion about housing, addiction, and community safety in one of the city’s most challenged areas.
On Tuesday, VCAT member Christopher Harty ordered Yarra Council to issue a permit for the rooming house, set to occupy the historic State Savings Bank building at the corner of Victoria and Hoddle streets. This ruling comes after a dramatic council showdown last June, where five independent councillors defied their planning officers’ recommendations and the mayor’s stance to block the project. The building, a derelict Italianate palazzo-style structure from 1884, has long been a target for vandals and squatters, leaving it in a state of disrepair.
But this is the part most people miss: While the council cited concerns about the potential behavior of tenants—given the site’s proximity to the North Richmond Medically Supervised Injecting Room—VCAT dismissed these worries as irrelevant to planning considerations. Harty emphasized that the planning system cannot control the behavior or status of future residents, a point that has left some locals fuming.
Christine Maynard, a vocal opponent, argued that the decision ignores the harsh realities of life in the area. “Do you really think Victoria Street needs a rooming house for junkies and homeless people?” she asked, reflecting the frustration of many residents who fear the project will exacerbate existing social issues.
However, the proposal has its champions. Fiona Patten, a former state MP and chair of the 2021 homelessness inquiry, and Judy Ryan, secretary of Victoria Street Drug Solutions, have thrown their support behind the project. Ryan celebrated the ruling, stating, “[I’m] delighted with the outcome. A rooming house complements Yarra’s vision for housing and is sorely needed in our community.”
Yet, the victory may be short-lived. Developer representative John Chow, while welcoming the decision, criticized the tribunal’s reduction of the rooming house’s capacity from 17 to 13 rooms. “Thirteen rooms is ridiculous,” Chow said, pointing out the financial strain on the owner, who may now consider selling the site or pursuing a higher-density commercial redevelopment. Maynard echoed this skepticism, labeling the building a “dump” that would require over $1 million in renovations to meet safety standards.
The tribunal has imposed strict conditions on the project, including merging small bedrooms to meet floor-area standards, converting a car parking space into a communal outdoor area, and ensuring an on-site manager is available 24/7 for neighbor complaints. The developer has two years to begin construction before the permit expires.
Here’s the burning question: Is this rooming house a step toward addressing Melbourne’s housing crisis, or a recipe for deepening the area’s social challenges? The debate is far from over, and we want to hear from you. Do you think this project will benefit the community, or are the concerns of locals justified? Let us know in the comments below, and join the conversation on a decision that’s dividing opinions across the city.
