Glen Eira Debates

Bayside council takes fight for secret activity centre plans to court

Annika Smethurst

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.

Source: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/bayside-council-takes-fight-for-secret-activity-centre-plans-to-court-20260623-p609ch.html

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 19^th 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?

Finally there is some commentary from Glen Eira on the state government’s proposed changes to all activity centres – especially the inclusion of expanded areas surrounding these activity centres. Once again, the proposed submission by Glen Eira palls into insignificance compared to the efforts produced by Boroondara and Bayside. These councils have held public forums, Q and A sessions, and prominently featured summaries and information on their websites. Glen Eira has done none of these things.

So now we come to the need for a formal submission by late October. We have read the submissions and copied verbatim some of the comments contained in the various officer reports. Whilst the final submission(s) have as yet to be written, the amount of detail provided by Boroondara compared to Glen Eira is staggering. What’s also insightful is the tone that each council applies. Boroondara sees nothing wrong with clear and unequivocal criticisms. Glen Eira on the other hand resorts to wishy-washy statements that basically mean nothing. Boroondara is also not averse to publishing so called ‘confidential’ documents. Glen Eira does not even mention the fact that they have received such documents!

Once more we have to ask why another council can produce work which informs the community with detailed analysis and Glen Eira can only produce some generic document that adds little to basic understanding of the potential impacts. Does it all boil down to the quality of our planning department? Or is this merely another instance of an administration that fully welcomes the government agenda and to hell with existing residents, liveability, heritage and a million other consequences?

Please read the following quotes carefully and realise how vastly different they read and what this actually means.

GLEN EIRA (16^th October agenda)

Generally, not supportive of the “deemed to comply” approach for heights, setbacks and street wall heights which will be applied in the core and catchment areas.

In the core commercial area of Carnegie, the proposed changes are positive for Council and the community, with draft maps proposing to retain the building heights adopted under the Carnegie Structure Plan (proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C237). This is pleasing to see and the result of strong advocacy by Council over 2024 and 2025.

Council has continually requested that DTP provide technical reports/data as part of their activity centre program, plans and draft maps. This will help us understand how the heights were developed, modelled and what was considered.

Council’s experience with the deemed to comply approach in the Moorabbin and Chadstone activity centres, is that Council is limited in its ability to encourage increased development within the catchment areas, where appropriate. This is due to the changes which essentially switch off policy and zone purpose considerations for townhouse development. The intent of the catchments is therefore not being achieved in these existing locations and Council is likely to see a similar result in the Carnegie Cluster unless changes are made to the planning controls.

The heights for Murrumbeena and Hughesdale core areas and for all the catchment areas are a significant change, particularly in the outer core areas. These proposed heights are contrary to the heights adopted in the Glen Eira Housing Strategy and a departure from the community’s expectations

It is unclear on how the catchment areas will integrate with the heritage places and precincts and Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO) in these areas, specifically in Carnegie and Murrumbeena. If the BFO and HCTZ are applied these controls will allow taller built forms in potential conflict with neighbourhood character and heritage streetscapes.

Directing housing into existing activity centres will reduce the impacts of significant growth on the environment in growth areas. Living more closely together can open opportunities for the sharing economy, increase local services and reduce the need for travel, and enable more people to live close to public transport

These changes coupled with the other recent changes to housing assessment provisions creates a substantially different planning context for Glen Eira and the community

OFFICER’S REPORT – 13 PAGES

BOROONDARA (6^th October minutes)

The draft standards have been circulated on a confidential basis and are not available for public distribution. This approach limits transparency and prevents meaningful community input. For proper consideration, the draft standards should be formally exhibited and open to feedback from the community

The introduction of new and improved standards for developments of 4–6 storeys is needed as it is recognised that larger built forms have the potential to generate greater visual bulk, overshadowing and amenity impacts compared with smaller developments. However, a number of the proposed standards reduce and weaken the existing requirements, particuarly relating to off-site amenity impacts such as overshadowing and overlooking

Through amendments VC243 and VC267 earlier this year, Clause 55 of the planning scheme, which relates to residential development up to 3 storeys, was amended to lower the standards and make them ‘deemed to comply’. This means that where the standard is met, the objective to the standard is automatically met. Developments that comply with the deemed to comply standards in Clause 55 are also exempt from third party appeals (objector reviews of a decision) to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Key changes to Clause 55 and 57 at the time included:

• The minimum street setback requirement reduced from 9 metres to 6 metres.

• The private open space requirement reduced from 40 square metres to 25 square metres at ground level.

• Site coverage requirements have been revised to include a sliding scale dependant on which zone the site is located (60% Neighbourhood Residential

Zone and Township Zone, 65% General Residential Zone and 70% Mixed Use Zone and the newly minted Housing Choice and Transport Zone).

• Overlooking standards no longer apply to bedroom windows.

• Options for two side and rear setback standards.

The submission will highlight the following concerns:

• Front setback changes will increase the dominance of buildings in the streetscape and reduce opportunities for tree planting in the front setback to one small or medium tree.

• 4 to 6 storey proposals are able to access a lesser street setback than 1 to 3 storey proposals. This may have a consequence of encouraging proposals with a greater height in the HCTZ compared to lower scale proposals such as townhouses.

Allowing bedroom windows to have a sole source of daylight to a light-court, instead of an external wall of the building, is considered to be a poor amenity outcome for the future occupants. It is inapt that a bedroom window is proposed to be afforded with the same level of amenity as a non-habitable room window such as a bathroom or laundry. It is considered that bedrooms should be included in Building Separation, which would improve the overall amenity of dwellings. At a minimum, daylight modelling should be required if light-courts are to be relied upon as a bedroom’s only source of daylight access

The draft mid-rise standards suggests that the proposed side and rear setback requirements effectively limits overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties, in a similar way to applying the existing overshadowing standard and protects neighbouring development opportunities. No modelling has been provided to demonstrate whether the outcome will offer less or equal protection and it is suggested that existing protection should not be reduced.

Sustainability considerations will maintain existing standards for permeability and stormwater management as well as energy efficiency. A level of documentation would be required from applicants to demonstrate compliance with cooling loads, but this would be the extent of assessment. With the operation of standards narrowing considerations, there will be a reduction in assessment of Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) features in development outcomes compared to what is currently offered with planning applications. This is contrary to the ambition to elevate ESD targets and draft standards fail to recognise the opportunity to embed stronger environmental sustainability measures within mid-rise apartment development which will be raised as a concern in the submission.

However, the draft has been circulated on a confidential basis and is not available for broader distribution (Attachment 1 – confidential). It is unclear why the draft has been circulated on a confidential basis as there is nothing of a confidential nature within the code. The standards are very similar to the standards that have already been introduced to the planning scheme for other residential development types, such as the townhouse and low rise code, so there are no concepts being tested with Councils and stakeholders that are not already publicly available. Even if new concepts are being tested for stakeholder input that are potentially controversial or sensitive, that does not make the material “confidential”.

Officer’s report – 22 pages

BOROONDARA (10^TH October)

The ACP’s rushed rollout and extremely compressed timeframes, the absence of evidence supporting the need for urgency, and disregard for proper planning processes – including transparent policy development and authentic consultation – have eroded public trust and accountability in its implementation

Another key methodological flaw to be highlighted is the lack of coordination and integration with other planning investigations that will have significant impact on the development capacity of the identified centres. Most notably the absence of updated flood mapping (not expected until late 2026), no provision of a comprehensive movement and place analysis and framework and no plan for place based and community infrastructure to support growth and deliver high density urban amenity.

General issues, inconsistencies and problematic outcomes include:

• Lack of justification for the density index approach to set the baseline for building heights and catchment distances as well as the methodology on how the density index was applied to centres.

• The lack of evidence (including urban design analysis and built form testing or modelling) to support the building heights across the centres.

• Lack of justification to exceed the 8 to 12-storey maximum set for Centres with a density index of 3.

• Excessive building heights resulting in overshadowing of footpaths in key locations contradicting principles of creating high quality, pedestrian-focussed public realm.

• The inconsistency in applying different building heights to adjoining sites with the same context and interface issues.

• The lack of building heights for identified strategic heights and failure to define how strategic sites were selected.

• Building heights not responding to sensitive interfaces such as low-rise heritage areas (e.g. Manningtree Road, Hawthorn).

• Applying uniform building heights across larger strategic sites where differential heights, setbacks and place-based built form response is required

Inclusion of heritage areas within the catchment. One of the most critical issues to be highlighted in the submission is the inclusion of heritage areas within the residential catchment (e.g. Grace Park Estate, Cranmore Estate and Environs amongst others). Apart from the inappropriate impact this would have on our city’s valued heritage areas, applying the inner catchment to heritage is inconsistent with DTP’s methodology described in the additional technical information and the approach taken in the pilot program. Applying a catchment growth area to any heritage area is inconsistent with the findings and recommendations of the Activity Centre (Pilot program) Standing Advisory Committee.

The most relevant and crucial point made at last night’s council meeting on the Woolies’ application came from Cr Daniel when she asked the following question. The audio also includes the response she received from the officer in charge:

How on earth it is possible to claim that the current application will not have any further ‘detriment’ on surrounding areas when:

• A six storey building will now be ‘acceptable’ as a nine storey building with many changes to setbacks, balconies, reconfiguration of apartments, etc.
• How is it possible to basically ignore almost completely the findings of the last VCAT hearing and claim that ‘on balance’ the crucial conditions imposed by VCAT can be ignored in favour of Woolworths?

What makes last night’s events even more unacceptable is the actual council submission itself. The last 3 pages of the submission list council’s recommendations. The final sentence states: Council does not object to the granting of a planning permit for application PA2403410, subject to the above recommendations being implemented. So what do these recommendations actually state? There is not a single word in these recommendations that have anything to do with the increased heights of both proposed towers nor the detailed findings of VCAT!!!!! The 3 pages of the recommendation consist entirely of commentary on such things as glazing, construction management plans etc. No recommendation is to be found in terms of heights, apartment reconfigurations, the impact on the proposed cultural centre and traffic movement etc.

Council does admittedly refer to the increase of heights in its first few pages. But these increases are largely seen in relation to council’s proposed structure plan via amendment C256 and how this new amendment reduced the existing 10 storey height to 8 storeys. Thus instead of objecting strongly to the woollies proposed heights as having a detrimental impact based on what VCAT found, the submission only refers to the newly proposed amendment and how the application  exceeds the 8 storey limit.  Given that both the 10 storey and now proposed 8 storey limit is ‘discretionary’, it will not be hard for Woolworths to argue that an increase in one or two storeys is okay if not ‘negligible’!!!!!!

Last night’s offerings especially by Karslake were indicative of what we consider to be the pro development agenda of this council. It is deliberately misleading for Karslake in her summation to present the issues against ‘rejection’ as a simple black and white dichotomy – ie we have to be in the game so rejection is not feasible! This does not mean that council’s submission could not have included some strong commentary urging the minister to reject the application based on previous findings and that if a permit was to be granted that the issues determined by VCAT be given serious consideration. This would not exclude the other recommendations made by council – but it would at least show strong support for community!

We’ve uploaded the full discussion on this item. Please listen carefully.  

We have repeatedly sought strong council opposition as to how the state government has been riding rough shod over councils. Glen Eira has largely been officially silent apart from a belated media release by McKenzie (who has now resigned!!!!) and some mealy mouthed submissions to various state run ‘consultations’. When compared to how Boroondara and others have acted recently we find Glen Eira’s responses woeful and a real desertion of their duty to residents. Here are a couple of paragraphs from Boroondara’s reactions last year to the imposed dwelling quotas for councils –

What Council is not supportive of is the additional ‘catchment area’ that extends a further 800m from the boundary of the centre and will allow for development height up to 6 storeys in heritage areas and low scale single dwelling leafy neighbourhoods. Neither Council nor the community have been consulted on this alarming new catchment area, which is illogical and representative of poor planning.

This vast catchment area encompasses 4,500 heritage listed properties. It is estimated that approximately 48% of this catchment area is land currently protected by the Heritage Overlay (refer to map provided). Council does not support this catchment area in any way and condemns the state government’s disregard for local heritage and amenity. This catchment area has been imposed with no evidence of any strategic analysis, assessment of local infrastructure capacity or consideration of the impact on local services and community facilities.

Any claims by the Minister for Planning that they have undertaken consultation with Council on the latest version of their plans are completely false

Source: https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/your-council/news-and-media/boroondara-news/councils-response-state-governments-latest-plan-camberwell-junction-activity-centre

Social media has been busy with the Woolworths’ new plans for Selwyn Street, Elsternwick. As pointed out repeatedly, they have gone directly to the planning minister with a new application that seeks to undermine previous VCAT decisions and restore heights that had been knocked on the head years ago. In other words, if you don’t get what you want, then simply ignore the umpire’s previous decision and have another go via one single individual – the planning minister. Even worse is that such an action effectively sidelines objectors and even council.

This is hypocrisy of the highest level – especially when we consider the Woolworths’ arguments at the second VCAT hearing, which they now clearly have forgotten. At this hearing, their argument was:

The Applicant’s closing submission highlights examples of this and points out a second VCAT hearing should not be about forum shopping and relitigating previously determined matters in the hope of securing a different outcome. The Applicant also highlights that the previous Tribunal comprised experienced legal and planning members and their reasoning was considerable in explaining why particular issues were acceptable.

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2022/1025.html

So these ‘experienced legal and planning members’ of VCAT, cannot now be ‘trusted’ to endorse Woolworths’ ambitions. They must be sidestepped and appealed to the planning minister in the hope of a fast tracked permit that is all for seeking a ‘different outcome’.

The only conclusions that can be drawn from these events is that our planning system is an entire mess that invariably favours developers. Council itself has been complicit in these events as its lousy planning over the years and unwillingness to take on major developments have shown – ie with the MRC, with the Virginia Estate, and now with Woolworths. It is residents who literally pay the costs of such folly and craven inaction.