Not for the first time do we have to query the accuracy of a council report. We refer to the current agenda item 10.6. This is supposed to be an analysis of housing development in Glen Eira for the period 2021-2024.
Council has provided the following tables:
We have taken the time to go through council’s planning register to see whether these figures actually stand up to scrutiny. To make things as simple as possible, we decided to concentrate on the multi-dwelling applications for the year 2024 since this is the smallest category and thus less time consuming. Council tells us that for this category of dwellings there were only 23 applications decided in 2024 and that the total number of dwellings approved as a result of these applications was a paltry 142 dwellings (highlighted in yellow in the above image).
But council’s own planning register tells a completely different story and its only for this category of dwellings. We haven’t gone through the other categories as yet.
Listed further below are all the multi-unit applications, the number of proposed dwellings, and the dates when permits approving developments were issued. We’ve also sure that we’ve probably missed a few to boot. Several include ‘amended permits’ granted. However, we can only assume that development would not have started prior to the granting of the amendment.
Casting further doubt on council’s analysis is the failure to state the number of dwellings associated with several of these applications – and they are all large developments. For example: Horne Street, 600 North Road (8 Storeys); 144 Hawthorn Road (6 storeys). We make a conservative estimate that we’re looking at least another 100 dwellings just from these few applications.
Our tally comes up with the following numbers:
35 applications decided, (as opposed to councils claim of 23) and
246 dwellings approved (as opposed to council’s claim of 142) (PLUS THE APPROX 100 NOT LISTED AS DESCRIBED ABOVE.)
How can there be such a discrepancy between this report and council’s own planning register? Even when we’ve tried to correlate the above figures with the state government’s Planning Activity Website, there is a major difference between council’s numbers and what they are obliged to report to government. We limited our search to the 2024 calendar year as well as only residential development and permits granted in this year. The results show:
Admittedly the above figure of 240 also includes ‘single dwellings’ but these are only a minority and would not alter the discrepancy between council’s claim of only 142 new dwellings constructed.
Is it too much to therefore ask that council’s reports are beyond question? And how come that for the last few years, council’s budgets have all claimed to be based on approximately 1000 new rateable properties for each year? Why do we keep getting such rubbery figures? Is it incompetence, laziness, or merely a mindset to produce data that supports hidden agendas?
Finally please have a read of all the approved permit applications we list below:
216 Hawthorn Road CAULFIELD NORTH, 4 dwellings – 13/12/2024
7-15 Horne Street Elsternwick – no of dwellings not stated – amended permit issued 11/11/2024
52 Hill Street Bentleigh East – 4 dwellings – 18/10/2024
2 Rusden Street Elsternwick – 5 x 3 storey – 16/12/2024
168 Hawthorn Road Caulfield North – 4 x3 storey – amended permit – 21/8/2024
98-100 Truganini Road Carnegie – 12 dwellings – amended permit – 10/10/2024
1 Anderson Street Caulfield – 4 double storeys – amended permit – 12/12/2024
86 Bignell Road Bentleigh East – 3 double storeys – 17/10/2024
600-604 North Road Ormond – 8 storey building but no. of dwellings not listed – amended permit 21/11/2024
259 Orrong Road St Kilda East – 3 double storeys – 9/10/2024
9 Station Avenue McKinnon – 8 double storeys – amended permit issued – 14/6/2024
21 George Street Bentleigh East – 3 double storeys – 3/10/2024
583 North Road Ormond – 4 dwellings – 6/11/2024
15 Leamington Crescent Caulfield East – 3 double storeys – amended permit 20/2/2024
Unit 1 and Unit 2 1 Francesco Street Bentleigh East – 7 x 3 storey – 19/7/2024
136 Tucker Road Bentleigh – 3 double storeys – amended permit 19/4/2024
34-36 Jersey Parade Carnegie – 4 storey, 18 dwellings – 13/6/2024
1 and 1A Stephens Street Caulfield – 4 double storeys – 23/4/2024
71 McKinnon Road Mckinnon – 3 double storeys – 11/7/2024
6 Cobar Street Bentleigh East – 4 double storeys – 16/4/2024
Units 1 and 2, 49 Kangaroo Road Murrumbeena – 3 dwellings – 17/5/2024
30 Hobart Road Murrumbeena – 4 double storeys – 29/5/2024
108 Patterson Road and 70 Railway Crescent Bentleigh – 4 dwellings – amended 30/1/2024
35-39 Murrumbeena Road Murrumbeena – 32 apartments and 2 townhouses – 11/10/2024
144 Hawthorn Road Caulfield North – 6 storey, no of dwellings not stated – amended permit 24.1.2024
292 Hawthorn Road Caulfield – 13 dwellings – amended permit 31/5/2024
216 Hawthorn Road Caulfield North – 5 dwellings – 19/2/2024
51 Clarence Street Elsternwick – 4 dwellings – 19/2/2024
296 Jasper Road Mckinnon – 3 double storeys – 16/1/2024
679-683 Glen Huntly Road Caulfield – 6 storey, 50 dwellings – amended permit – 30/1/2024
23 Loranne Street Bentleigh – 3 dwellings – 12/6/2024
Unit 1-3 14 James Street Glen Huntly – 5 dwellings – amended permit – 29/5/2024
11 Perth Street Murrumbeena – 5 x 3 storeys – amended permit – 31/5/2024
52 Whitmuir Road McKinnon – 4 dwellings – 21/3/2024
226 Hawthorn Road, Caulfield North – 7 dwellings – 22/1/2024
Glen Eira Debates 
December 14, 2025 at 5:52 PM
I’m not in the least bit surprised that council is underestimating the number of dwellings being delivered. The reasons are harder to fathom. It may simply be lazy bureaucratic bungling, hardly unknown in today’s climate of inexperience and minimal fact-checking. Alternatively, it could be a deliberate attempt to avoid frightening the horses with the truth. Not to be discounted some silly person relied on AI to do the job for them.
December 15, 2025 at 8:54 AM
Trust has to be earned, based on demonstrated competence. I wouldn’t accept anything Council said without supporting evidence. In this particular case, if an officer makes a claim, it should be a simple matter for them to provide a list identifying each property and the number of units/dwellings being attributed to it. It is normal in business to conduct audits to verify financial information is accurate and backed by receipts. If the information in officer reports is material to decisions being made, then they too should be independently audited.
December 15, 2025 at 9:37 AM
The only way that accurate figures can be collated is to assess and publish how many certificates of occupancy were handed out and their dates.
Council needs to explain in great detail how they have arrived at the figures they claim. It’s not good enough to provide officer reports that are practically word for word repetition of what was presented in 2021. Councillors also have to take some responsibility that when asking for reports they focus on clearly defined areas that can’t be manipulated or distorted. There isn’t even any explanation as to whether the numbers refer to calendar years or financial years in the report.
There’s also another report in this agenda that worries me. Council is going to vote on introducing parking meters in Elsternwick and Carnegie. The costs involved aren’t spelled out apart from what 2 officers will cost and a nominated small amount for the proposed installation of the sensors. We have no idea how many sensors will be installed, how many machines at entrances. Will there now be barriers at the car parks? How much is this all going to cost? Scores of questions could be asked and no real information provided to assure the community that this is a sound investment and will achieve council’s aims of fairer parking opportunities. Pages and pages accompany this report but nothing of real substance is provided, or substantiated. Yet, councillors are expected to make decisions based on nothing more than assertions. It’s laughable what is happening.
December 16, 2025 at 11:48 AM
The inaccuracy is so the government can justify more development !! More apartments for approval! They have done a deal with developers that is resulting in very bad planning with many multi-storey large apartment block with no natural light or fresh air into 2nd and 3 rd bedrooms. No one wants to buy them or live in them and many remain unsold or vacant.
‘good careful planning can have excellent desirable liveability but this is just shit!!!