We heard nuanced feedback on the vision:

• 53 per cent of survey participants love or like the draft vision.
• 29 per cent of survey participants don’t like or really don't like the draft vision.
  • Survey participants who responded that they do not like the draft vision called for greater or less emphasis on particular words in the vision statement. For example, some participants called for greater emphasis on bushland (37 per cent), and/or wildlife (34 per cent) and preserving the dark night sky (24 per cent). 29 per cent of survey responses called for less emphasis on sport in the vision statement.
• 18 per cent of survey participants are not sure how to rate the vision.
  • Comments included calls for better preservation of bushland, concerns about the consultation process and less emphasis on sports fields.

Wurundjeri involvement in the park

Feedback on celebrating Aboriginal culture and furthering self-determination showed significant support overall, with popular actions including incorporating Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung art and language (57 per cent of survey respondents preferred this action) and establishing a co-designed Place of Knowledge Exchange (43 per cent preferred). A few respondents (2 per cent of survey comments) raised concerns that the plan might be tokenistic or lack alignment with First Nations' desires, and a few (2 per cent of comments) questioned the need for this recognition.

Over the past four years, City of Melbourne has been working in partnership with the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation on the master plan and other projects in Royal Park. This relationship has continued to grow, grounded in mutual respect and a shared commitment to the future of the park.

Calls for a stronger emphasis on protection of the environment for passive recreation in open space

We heard about the importance of passive recreation in open space for supporting mental health through connection to nature, and providing recreation options for those who do not play organised sport.

• 54 per cent of submissions (81 submissions) emphasised the need for putting nature first.
• 23 per cent of submissions (34 submissions) talked about the value of the wild bushland character.
• 20 per cent of survey respondents (250 respondents) wrote a comment about the need to protect or increase the bushland and wild landscape feel of the park.

Calls for stronger biodiversity protection and enhancement

Participants highlighted the importance of planning to support flora and fauna in the park, including avoiding fragmentation of bushland and grassland areas with paths, and keeping the park dark at night.

• 46 per cent of submissions (70 submissions) raised the need for greater biodiversity planning and coverage.
• 17 per cent of survey respondents (210 respondents) wrote a comment about the need to protect space for wildlife and protect/enhance biodiversity, and 12 per cent (148 survey respondents) wrote about preserving the dark sky (88 included both topics in their comment).

Calls for alternative water sources

Participants are aware of the need to build resilience to water security in the park.

• 90 per cent of survey respondents (1072 respondents) are supportive of exploring opportunities to use alternative water sources to keep the park cool, green and growing with 55 per cent of respondents being ‘very supportive’ and 35 per cent ‘supportive’. 7 per cent were unsure, 2 per cent not supportive and 1 per cent really not supportive.
• Water capture strategies: Feedback from submissions indicate support for implementing alternative water capture strategies to enhance the resilience of watering plants, particularly in response to dry spells and climate change. There were also suggestions from sport clubs for the master plan to consider demands for ground maintenance in future water use plans.
• Water management and quality: Comments also highlighted the importance of water management to maintain the bushland character of the park.

Calls for climate change action

Several comments referred to the need to build climate change resilience within Royal Park:

• We heard about climate change action in relation to the risks of heat and drought to protect natural spaces, biodiversity and habitat.
• Some participants expressed a desire to see less paved areas and more permeable surfaces across the hard surfaces, for example the circuit paths.

Calls for additional landscape architecture expertise

A number of submissions were received from members of the landscape architecture community, including the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA), highlighting concerns around insufficient industry engagement in the development of this plan. They noted that the profession had played a significant role in shaping the two previous master plan iterations (1984 and 1997) and felt that deeper collaboration in this process would have strengthened the outcome.

Contrasting views regarding expansion of formal sports facilities that requires careful design consideration to balance the sport and recreation needs of the park with landscape character.

• 54 per cent of submissions (81 submissions) indicated that they did not want any expansion of sports facilities, with a suggestion that spaces for these facilities be found elsewhere, where they won’t impact Royal Park’s natural spaces.14 per cent of survey respondents (177 respondents) included a comment calling for less emphasis on or opposition for expanding sports fields.
• 426 signatures across 2 petitions, 8 per cent of survey respondents (101 respondents) and 7 per cent of submissions (11 submissions) supported the expansion of sporting facilities to cater for a growing population.

Improve playspaces in Royal Park:

• 65 per cent of survey respondents were supportive of this action. It was also a top 7 priority action for 33 per cent of pop-up participants for Theme 3.

Design and construct all park pedestrian entrances to be welcoming, accessible, and safe.

• 76 per cent of survey respondents expressed support for this action. In pop-up sessions, 18 per cent of participants selected it as a top 7 priority action for Theme 4.

Design and construct additional infrastructure along the Capital City Trail, including lighting, seating, drinking fountains, and bike repair stations.

• Support for this action was 69 per cent among survey respondents. It was also a top 7 priority action for 18 per cent of pop-up participants for Theme 4.

Implement walking, wheeling, and running circuits that connect key features and destinations within the park.

• This action had 67 per cent support from survey respondents. Additionally, 33 per cent of pop-up participants selected it as a top 7 priority action for Theme 4.

Support for lighting strategic movement corridors with sensitive and wildlife friendly technology

• 72 per cent of survey respondents were very supportive or supportive of this action, with 41 per cent ‘very supportive’ and 31 per cent ‘supportive’.

In terms of priority actions, the upgrade and where needed add extra amenities to the park (e.g. seats, shade structures, drinking fountains, toilets, and bins).

• This action received 81 per cent support from survey respondents. Additionally, 46 per cent of pop-up participants selected this as one of their top 7 priority actions for Theme 5.

Provide a safe evening route to public transport.

• This action received 69 per cent support from survey respondents. It was also a top 7 priority action for 18 per cent of pop-up participants for Theme 4.

Simplify and consolidate car parking to reduce the car parking footprint within Royal Park.

• This action was supported by 67 per cent of survey respondents. Notably, 65 per cent of pop-up participants also selected this as a top 7 priority action for Theme 6, making it one of the highest-ranked in pop-ups.

• ‘I like Royal Park - I commute through in on my bike most days, and I probably wouldn't bike to work if I had to do the journey on regular streets. However, one of the most unpleasant things about Royal Park is that it is bisected by a heavily trafficked arterial road and scarred by patches of car parking throughout. This ruins the sense of peace and quiet you might otherwise expect of a park of this extent. And it makes certain access points feel quite dangerous.’
• ‘I like that there is a good balance between maintaining the beauty of the green space, whilst increasing access for people who might otherwise not use the space.’
• ‘A good balance between the different functions of the park and recognition of the importance of organised community sport.’
• ‘Royal Park is my go-to chill spot –—it just vibes different from the city. When I’m there, it feels calm and peaceful, way away from all the busy traffic. Plus it's not underused. It’s heavily used by people in the neighbourhood, including myself.’
• ‘I use Royal Park 4-5 times a week between my club, social events and my own workouts. It would be great to see the lighting improved throughout the entire park and improved facilities.’
• ‘I like that such care has been taken to reach out to the community for response. I like that the three primary focuses seem to prioritise aboriginal incorporation, support of ecology and accessibility.’
• ‘It's great as is - I like going there with my family (young kids) because it's a wild unkempt area in a city of manicured parks. The bike paths are great, the areas are great, it's informal. Locking up space for organised sport is silly and only benefits a few. Healthy and active is great - but more people will benefit from that by leaving it as is.’
• ‘Elevation of indigenous importance and continued development of relationship with local elders would be great. Not keen on increasing sporting facilities that diminish natural habitat for fauna’
• ‘I think there is too much focus on paths, roads and sports fields. The most precious part of Royal Park is its flora and fauna and biodiversity. I’d like to see the wilderness areas of the park expanded and protected.’

Legislation and regulatory frameworks

Legislation and regulatory frameworks govern the legal obligations for land use, accessibility, environmental protection, and heritage considerations in park planning and management. Compliance ensures that planning aligns with local, state, and federal policies.

Planning and design principles

A well-planned public park is inclusive, welcoming, and responsive to the diverse needs of its community. It should offer safe, accessible spaces that encourage connection with nature, support health and wellbeing, and foster social interaction across all ages and abilities. Strong park planning integrates local identity, cultural values, and environmental sustainability, creating green infrastructure that builds climate resilience and celebrates place. Parks must be adaptable, multifunctional, and connected to the wider urban fabric, ensuring they remain relevant and vibrant as communities grow and change. At its core, good park planning balances beauty, function, and care for Country, delivering spaces that are loved, used, and protected for generations.

Site analysis and technical studies

Detailed assessments of topography, soil, hydrology, and existing vegetation inform design decisions and highlight site limitations or risks. Technical studies ensure that park planning responds sensitively and effectively to the physical characteristics of the land.

Infrastructure and assets

Infrastructure and assets include essential built elements such as paths, lighting, play equipment, irrigation, and amenities that support usability and safety. Well-planned infrastructure enhances user experience and operational efficiency. Assets in our parks are managed under an Asset Management Plan and renewal of existing assets are planned in our parks on a yearly basis.

Community and stakeholder engagement

Engaging local communities, Traditional Owners, and stakeholders ensures the park reflects diverse values, needs, and cultural connections. Inclusive engagement builds support, trust, and a sense of ownership over the final outcome.

As well as this most recent phase of community engagement, we also sought community feedback on a Discussion Paper in late 2023. Feedback on the Discussion Paper informed the draft Master Plan.

Additionally, the Discussion Paper was informed by a number of background investigations.

Environmental constraints and opportunities

Environmental constraints and opportunities including existing ecological values, flood zones, and habitat areas that may limit or inspire the design approach. Sustainable planning seeks to protect sensitive environments while enhancing biodiversity and climate resilience.

Demographic and demand data

Population profiles, growth forecasts, and user behaviour inform what facilities and spaces are needed. This data helps align the park’s functions with the needs of current and future users. Data in the Park and intercept surveys over 3 years have given us a lot of information on how the park is used.

Project timelines and delivery stages

The Royal Park Master Plan has been delivered in stages from early 2021 to mid-2026.

The project began with background research, technical studies, and site analysis, followed by early community and stakeholder engagement to understand key values and issues. A Discussion Paper was developed to ask the community key questions in 2023. This consultation informed the development of a Draft Master Plan in 2024, which was tested through a second phase of engagement.

The final plan will be refined based on feedback and presented to Council for endorsement, with the aim of completing and launching the Master Plan by June 2026. Implementation of specific actions will likely occur in the 26/27 financial year, subject to detailed planning and budget allocation.

Neighbourhood context and land use

The surrounding land use, built form, and movement patterns shape how a park integrates with its community. Understanding context ensures the park complements local character and connects well with adjacent uses.

We heard support for all Discussion Paper themes from diverse community members and stakeholders.

For example:

• In the future, participants are keen for Royal Park to be a place that is shared by everyone, multi-use and flexible for a range of community needs including organised sport, recreation, exercise and enjoyment of nature.
• We heard that many participants love and value the natural landscapes of Royal Park including the plants, and animals as well as big trees providing shade.
• We heard that participants want Royal Park to remain a raw, natural place with a focus on increasing trees, expanding plantings and vegetation. Protecting and enhancing native habitats, while also keeping the park intact and restricting the expansion of built form in the park, was also important.
• Participants also expressed support for Aboriginal culture and connection to Country to be acknowledged and celebrated at Royal Park in future. Participants would like to see this achieved through:

• native planting (1,045 or 77.1%)
• educational and interpretive signage (792 or 58.5%)
• celebrations of sites of cultural and historical significance (761 or 56.2%)
• public art (740 or 54.6%)
• storytelling (517 or 38.2%)
• activities, programs and events (482 or 35.6%).

We also heard mixed views around car parking and lighting that highlight areas for further technical exploration during the development of draft master plan.

• Most locals who walk or cycle to the park do not require more car parking. However, regional visitors would prefer easier to navigate parking options (e.g. signs to indicate when car parks are full to help navigation when driving).
• Some park users would like to see lighting along high volume areas of the park, particularly to and from public transport. Others are concerned about the impact of lighting on ecology.

Royal Park is well-utilised with people visiting and enjoying the paths and all precincts.

• 55.3% visit Royal Park South
• 48% use the pathways through the park
• 30.3% visit Royal Park North
• 24.6% visit Royal Park Central
• 23.5% visit Royal Park East
• 18.3% visit Royal Park West.

These findings show that use of parts of the park decreases as accessibility decreases. The more you have to cross barriers, such as road, rail and tram, the less likely you are to visit that part of the park.

Safety issues prevent some people from visiting certain areas within the park, with over 350 comments relating to safety improvements. Many of these issues resonate with the Safety Audit undertaken in 2023.

Areas of concern include:

• areas near paths and roads where there are cars, traffic and bikes travelling at speed
• dark areas or spaces not well-lit
• Royal Park Train Station and tram stops, especially at night
• unkept, exposed or neglected areas including car parks
• areas where there is anti-social behaviour.