Bayside council takes fight for secret activity centre plans to court
June 23, 2026 — 4:10pm
Bayside council has launched a court bid to access secret government documents which could pave the way for a broader legal challenge to the Allan government’s controversial plan to strip councils of their planning powers.
Documents, filed in the Supreme Court, reveal Bayside City Council wants the court to order Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny to hand over ministerial briefs and advice that she relied on when approving a controversial planning amendment for 25 activity centres.
The amendment overrides local government regulations in nine council areas and allows increased height limits and reduced planning barriers around transport hubs.
Bayside Council takes in the suburbs of Brighton, Brighton East, Hampton and Hampton East – four of the 25 designated activity centres.
The request for documents could force the release of advice, modelling and briefing documents underpinning the government’s decision to fast track high-density housing across nine Melbourne council areas including Banyule, Boroondara, Darebin, Glen Eira, Maribyrnong, Merri-bek, Monash and Stonnington.
The filing marks an escalation in the spat between the state government and councils over the planning reforms, which Labor argues will accelerate the approvals process and allow more houses in some of Melbourne’s best-connected suburbs where housing growth had slowed.
In a statement, Bayside Council said it was seeking to understand how planning decisions were made, including how particular areas, such as Bayside, were selected.
Bayside Mayor Debbie Taylor-Haynes said the council had a responsibility to chase the information on behalf of the community.
“This legal process is about transparency. Our community deserves to understand what sits behind a decision of this scale that could significantly reshape their neighbourhoods,” Taylor-Haynes said.
“Residents are asking fair questions about how these decisions were made, and what evidence informed the government’s approach. Council has sought this information through letters and freedom-of-information requests and been refused. We are now taking this next step to obtain the documents needed to properly inform our community.”
To justify its planning takeover, the government has repeatedly pointed to the slower growth in established suburbs compared to the city’s outer fringes.
In council areas such as Melton and Wyndham, housing grew by 433 per cent and 346 per cent respectively over the past 30 years. By comparison, inner-suburban council areas like Boroondara and Bayside grew by 24 per cent and 28 per cent respectively over the same period.
A spokesperson for the government told The Age it was focused on building more homes for young Victorians.
“Well-connected suburbs like Brighton and Kew can’t stay locked up forever while outer suburbs do the heavy lifting when it comes to building new homes,” the spokesperson said.
“As this matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”
The state government has indicated it will challenge the application.
The case will come before the court on Wednesday for a directions hearing.
The legal action comes as affected councils continue to express frustration over the government’s plan to relax planning rules to boost supply and improve affordability, over concern about a lack of consultation and fears the changes will alter neighbourhood character and impact local amenities.
Local Liberal MP James Newbury said the Bayside Council had shown “incredible courage” by standing up to the Allan government, and described Labor as a “bully” determined “on wrecking our community”.
“Bayside is like David standing up to whack Goliath in the nose. Every Council should find the same courage,” he said.
SOME THOUGHTS
In contrast to Glen Eira, Bayside is at least putting its money where its mouth is! We applaud their courage in taking on the state government – regardless of the outcome.
Glen Eira in its various submissions to government has continually stated that no evidence has been forthcoming to justify the tsunami of amendments that have been imposed on councils. That’s where Glen Eira stops.
We have no doubt that if a survey was taken today of Glen Eira residents, more than 80% would have no idea of what is happening in their suburbs as a result of government changes. Council’s website does not highlight the impact of these changes. In fact a public question asked on the 19th May and the promise made, is yet to eventuate – that is 5 weeks ago!!!!!
Here’s the question and answer:
Amendment C237glen Carnegie Structure Plan was formally lapsed on 14/5/26. The Victorian Government’s website for its recently finalised Carnegie Activity Centre plan does not provide the detail for what has been adopted/what has not been adopted out of the Carnegie Structure Plan into their Carnegie Activity Centre plan. We therefore request Council to provide a detailed comparison on Council’s website to help inform residents of Carnegie and Glen Eira
Response
The Minister for Planning has approved Amendment C278glen, which implements the state led activity centre plan for Carnegie. This largely replicates Council’s proposed Amendment C237glen, the Carnegie Structure Plan. This amendment introduces the new Built Form Overlay (BFO) control, which applies to the same core area identified in the adopted Carnegie Structure Plan.
In general terms, the building heights now established across the main commercial core are broadly consistent with those outlined in the Carnegie Structure Plan.
Council will provide a summary on its website outlining which elements of the Structure Plan have been directly translated into the planning controls, and where any variations have occurred
The resident’s question implied far more than the structure plan. It basically asks what changes have occurred to the entire activity centre. This council has not answered. Instead resorting to a focus on the structure plan itself – which basically covers only the commercial strip – and ignoring the impact on surrounding residential areas. Please also note the euphemisms employed – ie ‘generally consistent’; ‘in general terms’; ‘broadly consistent’’
We have repeatedly highlighted how other councils (Bayside, Boroondara, Stonnington) have websites that prominently feature the impacts on their municipalities of these government amendments. Residents of Glen Eira would be hard pressed to find any such information from their council. Why the reluctance to inform and/or educate? Why should it take at least 5 weeks to action a promise that was made? Why can other councils hold public forums and Glen Eira does nothing? Why can we only conclude that keeping the public ignorant is a sign of compliance by this administration and councillors?
Glen Eira Debates 
June 24, 2026 at 11:45 AM
The State Govt quoting “percentages” of outer suburbs over 30 years, such “In council areas such as Melton and Wyndham, housing grew by 433 per cent and 346 per cent respectively over the past 30 years. By comparison, inner-suburban council areas like Boroondara and Bayside grew by 24 per cent and 28 per cent respectively over the same period.” again is a state govt error in analysis as 30 years ago much of Melton was still paddocks and farmland.
So a percentage coming off a very very low base “looks” much larger than a percentage off a comparable base.
example increasing say a number in housing of 5 to 10 is a 100% increase, whereas increasing 40 to 45 (the same number in the increase in housing) is a 12.5% increase but still contributing the same number of houses.
The justification the state govt is using, the percentages, as a reason it says inner cities are not contributing includes a simple mathematical error.
State govt planning … blah, the councils plan better with local knowledge.