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361 local law tree removal applications. 183 (51%) were approved, 88 (24%) were refused and 90 (25%) had lapsed, were withdrawn or a permit was not required.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in Glen Eira identifying the number of local law applications that have either been granted permits, refused or withdrawn.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 16, 2026 at 2:43 PM
I see a few possibilities about what’s happening. You create a policy that looks good and does a great public relations job, and then forget all about it. Either your systems aren’t up to scratch to collate all the info, or you are that incompetent that you don’t know how to capture it. Or another possibility, you don’t want to spend the necesssary money. A lot easier to spend on glossy pamphlets that makes out how fantastic your council is, instead of allocating proper spending to what should be done. Any way you look at it, this mob aren’t doing the job they promised they would do.