October 16, 2026

Chalk And Cheese!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

The following is simply a case of ‘chalk and cheese’ when we compare how Bayside approaches its commitment to growing its tree canopy and the overall Urban Forest Strategy, compared to the lack of transparency that epitomises the Glen Eira approach.

The following quotes come from the Bayside Officer’s report September 15th 2026 –(https://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-09/15_september_2026_council_meeting_agenda_0.pdf)

The UFS Annual Report 2024–25 is the third annual report since the adoption of the Urban Forest Strategy in February 2022. The aim of the Annual Report is to identify trends associated with tree and vegetation removal and identify actions Council can take to increase canopy to meet the 2040 target of 30% canopy cover.

COMMENT – We do not remember Glen Eira publishing one single report on its ‘progress’ with the UFS.

Between July 2024 and June 2025, Council received 361 local law tree removal applications. 183 (51%) were approved, 88 (24%) were refused and 90 (25%) had lapsed, were withdrawn or a permit was not required. This is a decrease of 36 applications from the number received in 2023–24 (397 applications); however, higher than the number of applications received in 2022–23 (316 applications).

COMMENT – No report has been forthcoming in Glen Eira identifying the number of local law applications that have either been granted permits, refused or withdrawn. In response to a public question in May 2026, council did provide a breakdown of applications in the various categories. But it should not take a resident’s public question to elicit such information from council.

To further implement the Urban Forest Strategy 2022–40, Council resolved to introduce an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) to ‘provide greater consideration to the effect of any new development on the tree and the trees ability to grow to maturity as well as whether any alternatives, including the redesign or relocation of proposed new development are possible’ (Action to Strategy 4.2).

COMMENT – Glen Eira has consistently argued against introducing tree protection measures such as environmental overlays into its planning scheme. Their rationale has been: too expensive, takes too long; relies on ministerial approval and they are ‘happy’ with just the Local Law. Worth noting that the proposed Bayside Amendment to introduce this into their planning scheme has been authorised by the Minister for advertising in July 2026.

In 2024–25 Bayside experienced a 57% increase in infringements issued for unauthorised damage and removal of trees. The 37 Infringements were spread across the Bayside suburbs.

COMMENT: In Glen Eira we have no idea as to how many infringements have been handed out, and for what reasons. Nor do we know whether infringement notices have increased or decreased.

From 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, Council planted 1612 trees across public parks and within road reserves. The highest number of trees were planted in Brighton (287), Brighton East (247) Beaumaris (239), and Hampton (181).

Across Bayside, 66% (1063) were native, 16% (257) of overall plantings were indigenous, and 18% (292) were exotic. At the suburb level, Beaumaris (114), Black Rock (32), Sandringham (32) and Brighton East (23) had the highest rates of indigenous species planted.

COMMENT – Whilst the planting of indigenous trees is stated as an objective in the Glen Eira UFS, we again have no idea how many such trees have indeed been planted in our parks, car parks, etc. In response to a public question in May this year, council did admit that only 2% of indigenous plantings were trees!

In 2024/25, 976 trees were removed from public land, a 53% increase from 2023/24. Notably, the largest proportion of removals occurred among young trees, suggesting higher mortality rates within the first few years following establishment, shortly after the watering program.

COMMENT – Since 2021/22 Glen Eira has not published who many trees have been removed. All they state is the number of trees planted.

Officers consider that Clause 52.37 strikes an appropriate balance between achieving canopy cover and facilitating appropriate development. However, if there is appetite from Councillors to re-consider the application of a municipal wide VPO, Council officers can revisit this and present this back to Councillors at a future meeting.

COMMENT – Quite staggering that officers in Bayside are leaving the decision to try and introduce a municipal wide overlay in councillors hands. We doubt very much whether this has ever happened in Glen Eira.

CONCLUSION

Glen Eira has certainly dropped the ball on its commitment to the adopted UFS. As we’ve stated previously, this will continue until this council is willing to appropriately fund its action plans, seek genuine consultation with both experts and community, as well as being completely transparent and accountable for the state of things via regular reports, updates, which include full analyses of shortcomings. If these aims are not acted upon then the coming years will see the continued decline of our tree canopy as well as increases in urban island heat effect and concrete being the chief legacy of this council.

 

October 5, 2026

Planning Scheme Review – #1

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

The last time the community was permitted to provide input into a planning scheme review was in 2016. Thus ten years have passed, three previous reviews have come and gone and council still sees no need to allow residents to have their say on this important document which is up for decision at Tuesday’s council meeting.

The main argument council provides for the refusal to allow ‘consultation’ is (and we quote) –

Given the short time frame set by DTP, there was insufficient time to engage with the community.

However, once the Planning Scheme Review Report is endorsed by Council it will be published on Council’s website. (!!!!!!!!!!)

Council tells us that they received the order from the Minister in January 2026 that the review was to be completed by the end of October. That is a full 9 months! Ironically, when a public question was asked on the 2/5/2023 in regards to community consultation for the upcoming 2023 planning scheme review, the final paragraph of council’s answer was:

Council officers regularly brief Department of Transport and Planning representatives on the progress of our strategic planning work program and have committed to provide a review within 6 months to the Department. Once the internal review is nearing completion, Council will be in a better position to confirm the nature of any further consultation.

Needless to say, there was no community consultation then! However, council still thought that it could get things done in 6 months! Now they have 9, and we assume ongoing ‘discussions’ with the department and Minister have continued, but this isn’t enough to engage the community in 2026!

We certainly acknowledge that the last 18 months or so has seen a landslide of government changes to the planning scheme, all of which have, and will have, a dramatic impact on councils. But it’s not as if councils weren’t forewarned as to what was happening. Submissions were asked for and sent off, as well as continued ‘advocacy’.  

Thankfully, not all councils operate as Glen Eira does. To various extents, they value their communities and do provide them with the opportunity to have a say!

The following group of councils are ALL providing community consultations for their 2026 Planning Scheme Reviews. Most are regional councils so may not be impacted as severely with the Activity Centre changes as our metropolitan neighbours. But they do have their own issues to deal with that have been impacted by legislative changes – ie huge population growth in many, environment, etc.

We should also point out that not all councils have released their reviews and the processes involved. Some have asked for extensions.

The focus of this post has been on the lack of engagement with the community. Our next post will evaluate the actual review and compare it with other councils.

Cardinia – https://www.cardinia.vic.gov.au/news/draft-planning-scheme-review-part-b-public-exhibition

Mornington Peninsula – https://shape.mornpen.vic.gov.au/mps-planning-scheme-review-2026

Moonee Valley – https://yoursay.mvcc.vic.gov.au/planning-scheme-review

Mansfield – https://www.mansfield.vic.gov.au/community/news/local-knowledge-sought-2026-planning-scheme-review

Macedon Ranges – https://yoursay.mrsc.vic.gov.au/Planning-Scheme-Review

Yarra Ranges – https://shaping.yarraranges.vic.gov.au/yarra-ranges-planning-scheme-review-2026

Mansfield – https://www.mansfield.vic.gov.au/community/news/local-knowledge-sought-2026-planning-scheme-review

Kingston – https://www.yourkingstonyoursay.com.au/planning-scheme-review

Greater Dandenong – https://yoursay.greaterdandenong.vic.gov.au/strategic-planning-work-program

Whittlesea – https://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/Services/Building-planning-and-development/Strategic-planning/Planning-scheme-and-amendments/Planning-scheme-review

South Gippsland – https://www.southgippsland.vic.gov.au/PlanningSchemeReview2026

Baw Baw – https://www.bawbawconnect.com.au/planning-scheme-amendment-c157bawb South Gippsland – https://www.facebook.com/southgippslandshirecouncil/posts/-were-reviewing-the-south-gippsland-planning-scheme-and-we-want-you-to-share-you/1475486824605666/

 

October 3, 2026

Going Backwards At A Great Rate!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

The agenda for the upcoming council meeting includes the 2025/26 Annual Report. We have previously commented on the lack of detail (and therefore transparency) especially in relation to the Urban Forest Strategy and the goal of increasing our overall tree canopy to 22% by 2040.

The following is conclusive proof that we are indeed going backwards when it comes to our tree canopy. All of these figures are taken from the respective Annual Reports. What they clearly show is:

  1. A failure in the past 5 years to nominate the number of ‘replacement’ trees. Hence, we have no idea as to whether Glen Eira is increasing its number of trees, or falling further behind. Also, please remember that these numbers do not include what has been happening on private property.
  2. The numbers of ‘new’ trees planted was relatively steady (approx. 1000 per annum) up until 2019/20. Since then, it has been on a downward spiral.

Here is the data:

2011/12 – 1,684 street trees (526 replacement and 1,158 additional)

2012/13 – Plant 1,600 street trees (estimated to be 1,000 replacement trees and 600 additional trees).

2013/14 – We planted 1,681 street trees (1,080 replacement and 601 additional) and lifted the number of future plantings to 2,000 per year.

2014/15 – We planted 2,360 street trees (1,360 replacement and 1,000 additional)

2015/16 – We planted 1,050 replacement and 950 additional street trees.

2016/17 – . 2090 trees planted

2017/18 – . We planted 2,038 street trees (913 replacement and 1,125 additional)

2018/19 –  We planted 2,077 street trees (940 replacement and 1,137 additional).

2019/20 –  We planted 950 street trees (684 replacement and 266 additional) which was 1,050 under target due to COVID-19 restrictions.

2020/21 – We planted 1,854 trees (854 replacement and 1,000 additional).

2021/22 – 1008 trees planted

2022/23 – 872 trees planted

2023/24 – 2,241 trees planted

2024/25 – 1,189 trees planted in streets, parks and reserves

2025/26 –  1003 trees planted

 

September 22, 2026

The Current State Of Play

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[5] Comments 

In 2002 our overall tree canopy was 25%. Two decades later we were told that it had declined to 12.5% – literally halved. The cause was largely put down to urban development on private land. With the introduction of the Urban Forest Strategy (UFS) in 2021, the target increase was eventually set at 22% by 2040. It bears remembering that council had to be dragged screaming to this figure since the draft UFS had officers recommending a target of 14% by 2040.

Since the introduction of the UFS, practically nothing has been published as to how well Glen Eira is doing in achieving this target. We don’t know:

  • How many canopy trees have been removed on private land
  • Given that we don’t know how many planted new trees are ‘replacements’ for those already lost, the overall planting figures in parks and streets provided by council are meaningless. Without knowing how many trees are removed each year in these areas, the planting figures fail to reveal the true nature of our increasing or declining tree canopy.
  • Nor do we know what council’s success rate is in the planting of new trees, nor how much wastage and poor maintenance, costs ratepayers. Anecdotal evidence tells us that many new plantings simply do not survive the long haul to maturity.
  • Do we actually have a pruning schedule? A watering schedule? An inspection schedule? If so, why aren’t these in the public domain?

To sum it all up, we have no idea if we are in fact anywhere near the target of 22% by 2040. For all we know, and suspect, we believe that we are continuing to go backwards, and fast, given recent history. If we are indeed going backwards, then it raises the important issue as to ultimate targets to address the decline. Namely, is 22% enough to halt further decline? Is the current funding allocated, sufficient?

Finally, we present the following stats as a comparison to what other councils set their targets at. Some of these UFS were introduced between 2021-24 and hence will soon be updated we assume. Some councils in the western suburbs have lower tree canopy coverage, but they have also been provided with massive funds from the State Government to increase their overall coverage. The telling point is that for the vast majority of these councils, a figure of 22% by 2040 was obviously seen as inadequate. Not so Glen Eira!!!!!

GLEN EIRA – 22% by 2040

BASS COAST – 40% by 2040

BAYSIDE – 30% by 2040

BANYULE – 30% by 2050

BRIMBANK – 30% by 2046

BOROONDARA – 30% by 2030

HOBSON’S BAY – 30% by 2040

MELBOURNE – 40% by 2040

MERRIBEK – 29% by 2050

MONASH – 30% by 2040

MOONEE VALLEY – 30% by 2040

NILLUMBIK – 40% by 2040

PORT PHILLIP – 30% by 2040 (to be included in 2026)

WHITEHORSE – 30% by 2050

 

September 17, 2026

We Have A (Continuing) Problem Houston!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[4] Comments 

For years now, we have queried the usefulness, validity, and objectives of the various consultation processes adopted by our council. Of particular concern, surveys have always been at the top of our list. Not only are they designed to create the illusion of genuine consultation, but they are also designed to produce so called results that either support already made decisions, or are so vague and meaningless that the answers can be manipulated any way wished.

The latest example of this sham comes in the form of the Community Voice survey on Growing Glen Eira’s urban forest. Here is one of the questions presented in this survey.

Increasing tree canopy on private property

Trees and vegetation on private land are an important part of Glen Eira’s urban forest. As Glen Eira grows, maintaining and increasing tree canopy requires action on both public and private land.

We’d like to understand what residents are already doing, what more they would like to do, and any opportunities or barriers they experience.

Which of the following apply to you?  Select all that apply

 I have planted one or more trees where I live

I plant or maintain shrubs, garden beds or other vegetation where I live

I have created habitat for wildlife where I live

I have reduced hard surfaces and increased garden areas where I live

I grow plants in a courtyard, balcony or other small space

I would like to do more to increase trees and greenery where I live

None of the above

Other (please specify)

COMMENTS

The stated title of this survey is ‘growing the urban forest’. Tree canopy coverage is a crucial element of any urban forest and has been admitted so by council – especially when the reason for the drastic decline in our tree canopy is the continued moonscaping of private land. This was the reasoning behind the introduction of council’s recent Canopy Tree Protection Local Law.

Thus, instead of a question that looks at the wider implications of  how we can ‘increase our tree canopy’ (ie the heading for this question) the focus is exclusively on ‘where I live’. Asking residents whether or not they have planted a tree on their property, or reduced hard surfaces etc. tells us nothing about –

  1. How many new trees residents may have planted compared to how many have been lost
  2. Nor does it tell us anything about what has been happening throughout the municipality and how many trees have been lost to development
  3. Even the last question about the desire to ‘increase trees and greenery where I live’ is meaningless without providing respondents with options that are available. Furthermore it again focuses on the individual’s property rather than the wider community. There is not a single word that explores what council can do to stem continued canopy loss.

The point of all the above is that residents alone are powerless to stop development and subsequent moonscaping. That is the role of councils and appropriate legislation, enforcement and vigilant monitoring.

Council is now in the throes of ‘refreshing’ the Urban Forest Strategy. They have already admitted that they have no idea how many canopy trees have been lost on private land. Nor have they told us how many trees have been lost on public land. For years now, all we have been told is that council plants anything between 1000 and 2000 trees per annum. No mention of how many are replacement. We have no idea whether our tree canopy is in fact anywhere near the target of 22% by 2040, or whether it has in fact declined. Even the government’s recently announced target of 30% coverage by 2050 seems a million miles away for Glen Eira.

Other councils (ie Whitehorse) have put their money where their mouth is by using the latest technology (IE LIDAR) to accurately evaluate their tree canopy. They have also introduced amendments that go into the planning scheme and hence have more power to stop canopy tree loss on development sites. In Glen Eira, the argument has always been it takes too long, costs too much, and we’re happy with our Local Law alone.

If the current ‘refresh’ of the Urban Forest Strategy is to be a genuine attempt to introduce measures and data that will help increase our tree canopy  and maintain sustainability in the municipality, then the questions set in the current survey simply do not do the job. They are nothing more that ‘feel good’ nonsense that tells us nothing and certainly does not point to any potential future plan of action.

 

August 19, 2026

Total Failure!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[2] Comments 

Glen Eira Council has failed dismally in informing its residents as to the impact of the State Government’s ad hoc planning changes – which have all been done in indecent haste and without genuine consultation. There is no excuse why, we estimate, most of our community has no idea as to what these changes mean for their neighbourhoods and their amenity or legal rights. All that Glen Eira has managed to do is bury some waffling statements on the website that lack detail and a comprehensive analyses of consequences.

To illustrate how far other councils have gone to keep their residents informed and engaged, we’ve uploaded just one paragraph from a series of officer reports from the August 17th meeting at Boroondara. Please note all the avenues pursued by this council to ensure that their community is aware of what is happening and how it affects them.

Source: https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/media/121981/download?inline

 

July 24, 2026

Read & Weep #2: Elsternwick

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[2] Comments 

Below are the HTCZ catchment rezonings for Elsternwick. We follow this up with a map showing the current areas under Heritage overlays. Please note how many remain in the ‘inner catchment zone’ – ie 4 to 6 storeys in height.

 

July 22, 2026

Read & Weep!- Bentleigh & McKinnon

Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[7] Comments 

The government has today gazetted Amendment C285 which includes the final planning rules for our activity centres and surrounds. This post concentrates on these surrounds and what has changed. Areas now zoned HCTZ2 are rezoned to allow 3 storey apartment blocks and HCTZ1 four storeys and up to 6 on large sites over 1000 square metres. Heritage in these areas is largely ignored and they are in both HCTZ zones. The following gazetted map clearly outlines what has up to now largely been NRZ is finally gone!

CLICK TO ENLARGE

PS: Here’s a media release from Liveable Victoria. Nothing yet from Glen Eira!!!!

 

July 15, 2026

Fighting Back – Unlike Glen Eira!!!!!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[2] Comments 

At last several councils have decided to fight the State Government’s ad hoc planning decisions with concerted legal action. The latest comes from Boroondara and their appeal to the supreme court. In contrast Glen Eira sits back and continues to be silent and compliant, despite the fact that our municipality is being torn to shreds with amendment after amendment that lacks evidence, transparency and full accountability.

Here is the Boroondara media release. (See: https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/your-council/news-and-media/media-centre/media-releases-and-statements/boroondara-seeks-judicial-review-ministerial-planning-permit)

Boroondara seeks judicial review on Ministerial planning permit

Tue 14 July 2026

The City of Boroondara has served Supreme Court proceedings on the Victorian Minister for Planning, Sonya Kilkenny MP, in relation to a planning permit she issued for the redevelopment of the Leo’s supermarket site in Kew. 

The Minister’s decision is being challenged because she did not appropriately consider the applicable planning controls and whether the developer had permission to use Council land to build the project.

The planning permit allows for the development of four towers on the site with a maximum height of 18 storeys, exceeding the government’s own height controls for the site (16 storeys), which were only recently published on 18 March 2026. The previous height limit for this site in the Kew Structure and Place Plan was 9 storeys and was approved by the Minister for Planning on 4 May 2017.  

The development also proposes substantial alterations to council-owned and operated land, which Council has not consented to. If changes are to be approved to this land, Council is firm that the variations need to deliver a positive result for all community members, not just the developer and residents in the new development.  

Cr Wes Gault, the Mayor of Boroondara, stressed the legal action was a last resort to achieve important changes to the project. 

“We have not made this decision lightly, but we are requesting this judicial review in the best interest of our community and residents,” he said. 

“We are not opposed to this development – in fact we agree that this is a great site for a new mixed-use development – but we want to ensure the best result for our community with a building that better fits in the space, has affordable housing, and includes a public environment that delivers for all of us.”

“We submitted extensive feedback on how this development could be improved when the Minister was considering this application, and we are disappointed that few changes were made based on this considered and constructive feedback.”

We have also asked for a meeting with the Minister for Planning in the hope these matters can be resolved without the need to continue our legal proceedings.

Specific changes the City of Boroondara would like to see include: 

  • Modifications to the building’s design to reduce overshadowing concerns and comply with the government’s own Activity Centre controls;
  • guarantees that affordable housing will be built on site;
  • better landscaping, pedestrian flows, and building materials on council owned land. This land currently delivers a public benefit, and developer modifications to this space would need to be of a high quality and fit Council expectations; 
  • ensuring that any reliance on Council land for vehicular and pedestrian access is well designed, safe and fair; and
  • ensuring access to the Council-owned land is well considered and equitable to all community members.

Boroondara is committed to ensuring that future growth is supported by great services and required infrastructure and has a long track record of supporting high-quality mixed-use developments, with thousands of new residents moving to Boroondara in recent years. 

This consistent and successful growth in Boroondara over the last 30 years, where there are few large undeveloped sites, should not be directly compared to Melbourne’s rapidly growing outer suburbs where housing estates are built in greenfield areas. 

Councillor Gault concluded by highlighting that the legal action would not change Council’s ongoing work with the Victorian Government on a range of projects from library redevelopments to the development of new sporting and parkland precincts. 

“As Councillors, we will always advocate to the Victorian Government in the best interest of our residents, and I hope we can work together to resolve this matter quickly.”

The proposed development falls within the Kew Activity Centre, one of seven within the City of Boroondara. More broadly, Council has a range of concerns regarding the use of the DFP planning permit pathway. Council believes local councils should be the decision makers for development applications lodged within their local areas, and residents should have more of a say in the developments that shape the future of their streets and neighbourhoods. 

 

July 8, 2026

More Coming Our Way!!!!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[3] Comments 

The government’s final new zonings of HCT1 and 2, are still unknown for Elsternwick, Bentleigh and a few other activity centres. However, what is already LAW, and in operation, includes the Carnegie, Murrumbeena and Hughesdale areas, as well as Moorabbin. In an earlier post, we highlighted how these changes have impacted on Moorabbin, where countless sites were given the green light to ‘upgrade’ from 2 storey height limits, to now 3 and 4. (See: https://gleneira.blog/2026/03/26/moorabbin-before-and-after/)

Below we feature what council has had to say about some of these changes. As per usual, the negatives are totally ignored, and instead, we are told about the most miniscule of ‘positives’. No mention is made of the areas affected, nor how they will specifically be impacted. Nor are we told on what basis some of the areas can become 6 storeys. Surely, if the objective is to inform the community, then much, much more detail, and commentary is required than what we get in the following!!!!!

Catchments

Residential areas surrounding each activity centre, extending up to one kilometre, will be rezoned. These inner and outer catchments will be included in either the:

  • Housing Choice and Transport Zone 1 (4–6 storeys), or
  • Housing Choice and Transport Zone 2 (3–4 storeys)

It is pleasing to see that the catchment area around Ormond and Mckinnon has been reduced in response to submissions made by both Council and the local community.

Existing heritage precincts have not been included in the inner catchment areas, with the exception of a small section of HO72 (western side of Orrong Road south of Glenhuntly Road). A small number of individually significant heritage places will be located within the inner catchment areas. 

Source: https://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/about-council/news/latest-news/state-government-finalises-activity-centre-plans

So residents can actually see the extent of change, we’ve uploaded the current zonings for Carnegie and its surrounds. Please note that the vast majority of these places have gone from a two storey height limit to anything between 4 and 6 storeys depending on the size of the allotment – eg Rosstown Road is now HCT1 (4-6 storeys) when it was NRZ (2 storeys). There are plenty of other such examples. But overall, the size of these catchments is overwhelming and totally destructive of what residents value about their local streets. And all council can state is that a lot is ‘pleasing’!!!!!!!!!

Check out the following image to discover what has occurred.

CLICK THE ABOVE TO ENLARGE

 

Next Page »