Home owners moving into a 941-home estate being built on Melbourne's former Kingswood Golf Course in Dingley Village have been told they cannot install artificial grass on their properties. The ban, set out in planning controls for the development, reflects a significant shift in how councils across Australia are approaching synthetic turf in new residential areas.
The restriction at Dingley Village is part of a growing trend. Councils from the Gold Coast to Victoria to Canberra have introduced or are considering restrictions on artificial turf, driven by mounting evidence about environmental and public health risks. The debate has become sharp enough that what was once treated as a straightforward landscaping choice now carries regulatory weight in new housing developments.
The heat and microplastic problem
Artificial turf absorbs sunlight and heats up significantly more than natural grass, contributing substantially to the urban heat island effect. Dr Paul Cheung, an urban heating researcher at the University of Melbourne, warns that synthetic surfaces make backyards and public spaces substantially hotter during large parts of the day. Australia's National Climate Risk Assessment reported that if global heating reaches three degrees Celsius by the end of the century, heat-related mortality rates could rise by as much as 444 per cent in Sydney and 259 per cent in Melbourne.
The microplastic concern cuts deeper. The grass disintegrates into microplastics, which make their way into waterways and can potentially be inhaled by people. Some artificial grass contains PFAS (per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances), which is not good for stormwater. The NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer released a review in October 2022 of synthetic turf in public spaces and sporting contexts, which noted that both rubber infill and turf fibre blades have been found in waterways.
The restrictions emerging across councils do target something specific: they focus on new installations and shared spaces, not retroactively removing existing grass from established homes. What exists instead is a growing patchwork of local rules, most of them focused on land that councils own or manage directly. In Melbourne, Maribyrnong City Council has used planning controls to restrict synthetic grass in certain visible or publicly exposed settings, particularly where biodiversity and heat concerns intersect.
Why residents choose it anyway
The bans do not account for circumstances where homeowners have legitimate reasons to install synthetic turf. Water restrictions remain a reality in many parts of Australia, irrigation costs have risen, and maintaining healthy natural grass in small or heavily shaded courtyards can be difficult without ongoing inputs. For some households, reduced mowing and maintenance are practical considerations tied to time, accessibility, or noise rather than convenience alone.
Residents in newer suburbs have pushed back against outright bans. Some argue that artificial grass can be more environmentally friendly than its natural alternative, using less water and requiring very little maintenance, and that for residents in areas prone to erosion or on sloped blocks, synthetic grass is the more practical option.
A targeted approach emerging
The case for restricting artificial turf is strongest where collective impacts are unavoidable. Street verges, nature strips, and publicly managed land sit at the top of that list, as these spaces connect directly to shared infrastructure. This distinction matters: councils are not telling homeowners what to do across the board in private backyards, but they are tightening controls on shared and visible areas.
The Kingswood Golf Course redevelopment in Dingley Village, being developed by Satterley Property Group, will create approximately 941 new homes across 15 stages. The artificial grass restriction sits within broader design guidelines for the estate, which also includes affordable housing targets and environmental protections.
As cities continue to densify and summer temperatures rise, these landscape rules will likely tighten further. The question is no longer whether councils should act on artificial turf, but how precisely they should draw the line between private choice and collective responsibility.