GE Governance

Archived Posts from this Category

December 13, 2025

Should We Trust Them?

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

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

 

October 28, 2025

How Are Our Trees Doing?

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

We’ve decided to concentrate on council’s annual reports for this post – in particular focusing on an area that is repeatedly touted as vitally important to residents – increasing our overall tree canopy. We now have plenty of policies that are supposed to concentrate on environmental sustainability, urban forest creation, and protecting mature trees as well as reaching the target of 22% tree canopy coverage by 2040. So how well are we actually doing and can we trust the figures that council trots out?

Since the 2021/22 annual report residents have no idea as to how well the goal of increasing tree canopy is going. Why? Because every single annual report since then has consistently refused to provide the most essential data – ie how many trees have been lost and had to be replaced? If the only figure that is provided is the number of new tree plantings, then how on earth can we know whether the cited new plantings are in fact achieving the stated goal?

The list below features verbatim quotes from 2018/19 onwards. Readers will note that up until 2021/22, we were told not only how many new plantings there were, but how many trees had been lost throughout the year.

2018/19 – We planted 2,077 street trees (940 replacement and 1,137 additional). (page 13)

2019/20 –  We planted 950 street trees (684 replacement and 266 additional) which was 1,050 under target due to COVID-19 restrictions (PAGE 15)

2020/21 Annual report – We planted 1,854 trees (854 replacement and 1,000 additional). (page 15)

2021/22 – 1008 – NO MENTION OF REPLACEMENTS

2022/23 – 872 trees planted NO MENTION OF REPLACEMENTS –

2023/24 – 2,241 trees planted – NO MENTION OF REPLACEMENTS

2024/25 – 1189 planted – NO MENTION OF REPLACEMENTS

What’s even more frustrating is the nonsense that the following paragraph from 2022/23 report reveals –

The planting of the 800 trees will result in an estimated tree canopy increase to 12.8 per cent canopy cover for the municipality, which is helping Council achieve the Urban Forest Strategy 2040 target of 22 per cent canopy cover ( 2022/23 ANNUAL REPORT – PAGE 80)

How is the 12.8 percent figure arrived at, when we don’t know how many trees have gone? Does this mean that the 0.8 per cent increase is the result of only effectively 400 new plantings? 300? 600? Nor does the paragraph reveal that council’s coverage is only 12% at the previous assessment. Is a purported 0.8% increase really that great? And that’s without even knowing what the true number of plantings is.

Whilst we accept that annual reports are really nothing more than public relation exercises designed to provide as much positive news as possible, the onus must still be on full disclosure and accountability. Council continues to fail in these two essential requirements.

 

October 13, 2025

Pathetic And Uninformative!

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

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 (16th 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 (6th 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 (10TH 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.

 

October 9, 2025

Why The Silence?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
[6] Comments 

Indeed! – why the silence from Glen Eira council? Why can other councils go public and voice their strong opposition to the state government’s ad hoc planning agenda that lacks strategic justification, genuine consultation, and full transparency? Why can other councils’ websites include valuable summaries of the current state of play, plus links to relevant government documents and surveys? Nothing like this exists for Glen Eira residents who have much to lose given that we have 9 railway stations, and 13 nominated activity centres.

The latest outrage is featured in this Age article. Please note the stance taken by Boroondara and their officer’s (public) report.

Mid-rise developments could loom over suburbs, secret documents reveal

By Lachlan Abbott

Mid-rise apartment developments could loom closer to heritage homes and overshadow solar panels, under confidential Victorian draft planning guidelines.

The Department of Transport and Planning is finalising new “deemed-to-comply” design standards for four- to six-storey residential developments that would exempt proposals from time-consuming appeals.

Camberwell resident Jane Oldham worries mid-rise apartment design will worsen under the new code and harm Boroondara, where heritage homes are prevalent.

The draft rules were recently shared with councils for feedback in a document marked confidential, but Boroondara Council revealed details at a meeting on Monday night.

Jane Oldham, of the Boroondara Community Group, spoke at the meeting against the draft standards, which propose approval for street setbacks of 4½ metres, lower than the already reduced six-metre requirement under the low-rise code announced earlier this year.

Oldham was concerned that the changes would lead to mid-rise buildings jammed together, reducing privacy, sunlight and green space.

“Why people like suburbs such as Camberwell, I think, is the heritage, the character, the greenery,” Oldham said. “And that will definitely be lost. We can do better.”

The Allan government has argued the mid-rise code would make the planning system easier and boost housing supply while maintaining amenity.

The standards have not been finalised.

In a statement, Boroondara Mayor Sophie Torney said the broader community deserved honesty and criticised the state government for keeping under wraps the options that have been canvassed.

“Boroondara believes in open, transparent decision-making,” she said. “Communities have a right to know what’s being proposed in their own neighbourhoods before decisions are made, not after.”

Boroondara Mayor Sophie Torney says the state has ignored locals in their plans for the Hawthorn, Glenferrie, Auburn and Kew Junction activity centres.Credit: Eamon Gallagher

The new mid-rise code is most applicable to the Housing Choice and Transport Zones in Melbourne’s 60 new activity centres, which are slated for four- to six-storey development.

Affluent eastern suburbs are overrepresented in the state government’s activity centre program, as the state government says outer suburbs have shouldered too much of the home-building load in recent decades. The only way to make housing fairer for young Victorians is to build more homes faster,” a state government spokesperson said. “This is exactly why we’ve been overhauling our planning system, because the status quo is not an option.”

Boroondara is among several councils that have strongly criticised the approach so far.

On Monday night, Torney expressed particular concern that the proposed mid-rise standards did not have a clause to prevent buildings from blocking sunlight to solar panels, which was included in the low-rise standards announced earlier this year.

“We’re literally building shadows over the very homes we want to electrify, and not ensuring new apartment builds potentially have solar,” Torney said.

“That makes no sense to me, and it’s in direct contrast to the government’s energy policies.”

In their submission to the government, Boroondara council officers also took issue with a proposal to deem bedrooms compliant if their sole sunlight source was a window facing an internal-light courtyard, rather than an outward-facing window.

The proposed 4.5-metre setback standard also caused consternation, as the council said it would incentivise higher development while the minimum low-rise setback was six metres.

“The irony at the moment [is] under the existing scenario for a single dwelling, it has to be further back again,” Boroondara’s urban living director Scott Walker said on Monday.

“Now that’s going to get changed … but we’ve got quite a paradoxical standard scenario at the moment.”

Whitehorse City Council also expressed “significant concerns” about the draft mid-rise standards at a meeting in September.

Planning Institute of Victoria president Pat Fensham, having viewed the mid-rise code proposals in the Boroondara council document, said he was also concerned there appeared to be no provision for councils to consider local design issues.

He argued this meant site-specific environmental problems could be missed under a narrow assessment of whether a mid-rise proposal was “deemed to comply” with built-form standards.

“You can’t anticipate all the impacts. Local context matters,” he said.

YIMBY Melbourne lead organiser Jonathan O’Brien, whose group has urged governments to address “the missing middle” of housing development, supported the state government’s overall approach when he viewed the proposals detailed in the Boroondara council documents.

“We see codification like this, even if it’s imperfect, as an absolute improvement,” he said.

Source: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/mid-rise-developments-could-loom-over-suburbs-secret-documents-reveal-20251007-p5n0mv.html

 

September 11, 2025

Latest Government Planning Intervention(s)

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

The State Government has now released the next swathe of planning interventions for 25 activity centres. Whilst it may be argued that Glen Eira does slightly better than Bayside or Boroondara in terms of height limits, the overall impact of the proposed changes are catastrophic for residential amenity and urban living.

At the time of writing, we have not sighted any response from Glen Eira on their website. In contrast both Bayside and Boroondara were quick out of the blocks in condemning this latest intervention. See: https://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/news/statement-activity-centres-program-consultation

and

https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/services/planning-and-building/planning/planning-scheme-and-amendments/victorian-government-planning-initiatives/victorian-government-changes-planning#toc-council-s-responses-and-reports

Once again there is nothing in these newly released documents which provide any information on: infrastructure costs, traffic, open space, etc. All we’re told is that developers can now build to their heart’s content and bypass resident objections in most cases. Even the government run consultation surveys are again nothing more than a tick the box exercise (see the Boroondara link for access details). We are still to see what plans are in store for Bentleigh, Elsternwick, Glen Huntly and others.

It is indeed extreme folly to believe that what will eventuate will be affordable housing. These inner suburbs basically cater for ‘luxury’ apartments selling between $2m and $3m or dog boxes that in no way suit a family.

Here’s what is proposed for Carnegie –

Whilst the council structure plan remains the same (and already includes allowance for 12 storeys) the surrounding areas are severely impacted. Please note that the light blue sections in the above image can now be built to 3 storeys and the darker blue to 4 storeys. If the land is ‘large’ (and this isn’t defined) then the limits go to 4 storeys or even 6 storeys.

When this is compared to the current zonings, then hundreds upon hundreds of sites are being earmarked for height increases and therefore a massive density rise. For example here are our current zonings:

  • All the areas shown as light pink in the following image are currently zoned as NRZ (neighbourhood residential zone) meaning they are either single or double storey dwellings. They can now become 3 and 4 storeys if they are on an average 500 square metre site, or if larger, the option is to go to 6 storeys.
  • There are very few 3 storey town houses, which means that most developments will consist of apartment blocks and not town houses. Besides, building an apartment means that more dwellings can be squeezed in compared to town houses.

What we are witnessing is the creation of unsustainable development that will become an urban wasteland that consists of apartment blocks following apartment blocks with no regard for heritage, open space, environment, and certainly no cheaper housing that suits families and downsizers. If our councillors aren’t screaming blue murder right now, then they are not doing their jobs in representing their constituents.

 

May 14, 2025

The Select Committee Report

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, Miscellaneous
[5] Comments 

The select committee’s report on its investigation into the recent planning provision amendments has now been released. In many respects, the report is a damning indictment of both process and the lack of transparency by this government. It is available via this link – https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-involved/inquiries/VPPamendments/reports

The report contains 12 recommendations and 20 findings most of which are highly critical of government. These findings/recommendations are significant in that they highlight many of the issues that Glen Eira’s submission basically ignored and which we commented upon in our previous post! What is disappointing is that there is no specific recommendation regarding the proposed removal of third party objection rights. The committee basically states that this element has a long and important role in the state’s planning history!

We’ve highlighted some of the major comments and conclusions below. They are quoted verbatim.

A major problem facing the Committee was the absence of requested modelling from the Government, to demonstrate that the amendments will achieve their objectives. Without that modelling, the Committee was reluctant to downplay the many unintended consequences arising from the new planning provisions that were identified by users of the planning system.

Of the many unintended consequences identified by stakeholders, the most concerning for me related to the new townhouse and low-rise code: the removal of consideration of flood risks from the planning process, the reduction of environmentally sustainable development standards in major local government areas, and the excessive removal of existing trees. Surely we can address Victoria’s housing challenges without also creating these new risks (from introduction by chair – David Ettershank)

Finding No. 5 – Little convincing evidence was advanced to the Inquiry that the State Government’s announced planning changes will guarantee additional housing and no substantive evidence was advanced that the Government’s plan would with certainty provide additional affordable housing.

FINDING 6: The Victorian Government did not properly consult on these three amendments and the Committee is of the view that the Minister has inappropriately exempted herself from expected consultation.

RECOMMENDATION 4: At a minimum, modification of planning scheme amendments should be undertaken after a round of genuine consultation with councils and communities.

FINDING 9: The Committee acknowledges that the concerns expressed by many submitters that heritage and heritage values are at serious risk of being compromised by these planning amendments are valid. Protections should be available to protect our city and its magnificent heritage buildings and zones.

RECOMMENDATION 7: The decision guidelines of clause 65 of the Victoria Planning Provisions should apply to all decisions made under clause 55. This is most important where risks to human life and health, and to the environment, should be identified and managed.

FINDING 15: Without being presented with any evidence to the contrary, the Committee is concerned that clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions may lead to the excessive removal of existing trees and reduce tree canopy.

RECOMMENDATION 9: That the Victorian Government publish and release modelling regarding the expected impact of the planning scheme amendments on tree canopy and vegetation in areas affected by the changes.

RECOMMENDATION 10: That the Victorian Government make improvements to clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions including the addition of a separate landscaping objective and standards, and changes to the tree canopy cover objective and standards. The introduction of any improvements should be undertaken as early as possible.

RECOMMENDATION 11: That the Victorian Government promptly review and improve the environmentally sustainable development standards in clause 55 of the Victoria Planning Provisions with a view to ensuring the statewide standards meet the higher standards found in 28 local government areas.

FINDING 18: The planning amendments mark a reduction in long standing third party appeal rights in the planning system.

 

May 9, 2025

Incompetent Or Colluding?

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

There are only two possible conclusions to be drawn from Glen Eira council’s submission into the state government’s select committee review of recent government planning amendments – either our planning officers are entirely incompetent or, they are basically on side with the proposed changes and therefore will not be as critical as they should in their dealings with government.

Yes, council in its submission addresses what most other councils point out:

  1. The removal of third party objection rights
  2. The lack of consultation and release of documents that justify the proposed changes
  3. The ungodly haste of these changes
  4. The lack of infrastructure funding information

But that’s where it stops. The failure to highlight, or even mention some of the following is inexcusable –

  • The increasing control of the Minister over planning permits
  • The reduction in private open space everywhere
  • The failure to ensure that tree canopies will increase
  • The destruction of local residential amenity
  • Heritage, environment, flooding, and neighbourhood character in general
  • Housing targets compared to Victoria in Future figures

Here was an opportunity to delve deep into the consequences of these amendments and show how they will change the face of Melbourne forever if they become ‘law’. This council failed to do. Instead all we got were largely minor criticisms of wording, their ambiguity, and the ‘risks’ this presented to council – not the community at large!!!!!

For starters, please compare the Glen Eira’s overall interpretation compared to other councils. Note the tone!

…. it is way too early to make a call on whether these amendments will result in more housing being built and whether the type of housing that will be built will be affordable and meet the diversity needs of home seekers. The question as to whether the three amendments give proper effect, to the objectives of ‘planning’ and the’ planning framework’ in Victoria is, to some degree, considered premature.

BAYSIDE – The change that could occur through the Amendments should not be underestimated. It has the potential to very substantially change the face of Melbourne because of how large the affected areas are. None of this is consistent with the “fairness” objective of planning in Victoria.

STONNINGTON – Stonnington was disappointed that these amendments were largely announced through the media, representing major urban planning and public policy by stealth, which risks poor long term liveability outcomes for residents.

KNOX – Knox officers do not believe that the proposed provisions will achieve better design outcomes and as drafted, are not fit for purpose and risk a range of unintended consequences

MAROONDAH – A key assumption behind recent changes to the VPPs is that having a standardised approach to development across Victoria will deliver an increased number of dwellings. With the attempt to standardise development types in activity centres, as well as the deemed to comply approach for Rescode ……to encourage and approve development that responds to local amenity, place and neighbourhood character is now a thing of the past

The majority of other councils concentrated heavily on the impacts of the removal of their existing residential zone schedules and what this would mean in terms of reduced open space availability given the increased site coverages and its effects on tree removal and protection of tree canopy targets. For instance, Glen Eira currently has a 50% coverage in its residential NRZ1 zone. This will now be 60% with a reduction in private open space requirements, front setbacks reduced to 6 m instead of current 9 metres. There are other mooted changes that will impact horribly on local streets and neighbourhoods throughout the municipality. So what is Glen Eira’s response to these threats? Please read the following extract carefully –

No mention is made of how this might affect tree canopy targets, nor whether the increased site coverage could simply result in larger dwellings. What’s even more amusing is the continued emphases on ‘risks’ to councils. But it has always been up to council to determine the appropriateness of landscaping. This hasn’t changed..

Here are the views of some other councils –

STONNINGTON – New requirements require a minimum of 10% canopy cover for sites 1000 square metres or less, and 20% for sites over 1000 square metres. The majority of residential lots in Stonnington are less than 1000 square metres. 10 per cent canopy cover will not raise greening to reach the target identified in Plan for Victoria and is significantly lower than what is currently being provided in new developments throughout residential areas in Stonnington.

The one-size-fits-all approach of codified design standards will discourage high quality architecture in favour of cookie-cutter development that is not site responsive

Further evidence of the piecemeal approach to planning currently occurring in Victoria is the fact that none of the VC Amendments make any reference to either Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 or the belated announcement of Plan for Victoria.

BOROONDARA – The 10% canopy cover target is also inconsistent with the 30% canopy cover target contained in Plan for Victoria and significantly lower than Boroondara’s own target of 27%. In established areas the 10% canopy cover will often be less than currently exists so development will result in a reduction. This places too much onus on public land to make up the shortfall and achieve the tree canopy target.

Removal of environmental considerations is highly concerning. The deemed to comply nature of the Code means that local planning policies designed to achieve better environmental outcomes (i.e. Environmental Sustainable Design and tree protection) will be removed from consideration. Where a development is deemed to -comply only the minimal environmental considerations within the Code can be considered. This is highly problematic and not consistent with the delivery of future housing which is sustainable and reduces energy use for future residents

MAROONDAH – Removing the locally varied Clause 55 standards in the schedule to the zones as well as reducing the number of standards that could be varied in future, is more about the State s intent to maximise building footprints which often equates to larger homes, and not additional dwelling numbers, as opposed to achieving well designed dwellings that are site responsive designs that respond to the local amenity and conditions. There has been no evidence published by the State as to why the removal of local variations or how the new Code standards are necessary to meet housing targets..

Finally a summation of what these changes will mean for residents.

KNOX – Removing neighbourhood character consideration means that a development in Boronia or Ferntree Gully is assessed in the same way as a development in Elsternwick or Richmond.

New residential development in Knox, along with the rest of Victoria, will become a homogenous cookie‐cutter outcome that bears little relationship to its surrounding neighbourhood MAROONDAH – This flawed approach will result in all dwellings in Victoria being constructed to the same standards and design outcomes with no consideration of local context and character.

It has not been adequately evidenced by the Victorian Government as to how the revised Code will provide the capacity to deliver more housing. Expanding the building footprint permitted, reducing open space requirements and allowing dwellings to be larger, taller and of cheaper quality building materials, does not necessarily result in more or better housing.

There is much, much more that could be said in regards to council’s submission. Overall, it fails dismally by almost completely ignoring the impacts on local neighbourhoods. Heritage does not even rate a mention, and neither does decreasing open space. Why other councils can focus on these issues and Glen Eira chooses to basically ignore them is the crucial question.

We urge readers to acquaint themselves with the content of the various submissions. They can be accessed via this link – https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-involved/inquiries/VPPamendments/submissions

 

February 28, 2025

The Upcoming Planning Disaster!

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

Over the past week or so we have had announcement after announcement regarding the proposed changes to our activity centres. All bereft of strategic justification and lacking essential detail as to eventual heights, open space provision or infrastructure and its appropriate funding. We await the gazetting of other plans.

This tsunami of proposed changes will undoubtedly impact Glen Eira more than other councils and most will be without third party objection rights.

We itemise below each of these proposals –

Moorabbin

The changes to the Moorabbin major activity centre will affect Glen Eira in many ways. The latest version is depicted in the image below. Please note that Glen Eira sites feature north of South Road and north/east of Nepean Highway. The other areas included are within the Kingston and Bayside areas.

A summary of the most important changes are:

  • Catchment areas increased all the way from South Road to Patterson Road. Highly questionable whether this range is really 800m or simply as the crow flies.
  • The areas marked light blue are currently zoned as NRZ (ie two storey height limit). They will now be rezoned as suitable for up to three storeys and some four storeys depending on land size.
  • Most of the green coloured sites now have a three storey height limit which will be increased to six storeys.
  • Car parking requirements remain unknown

Thus hundreds of Glen Eira sites are impacted.

Railway Stations/Activity Centres

Yesterday’s announcement of another list of activity centres about to be changed forever has Glen Eira featuring prominently. We will now have 5 areas designated for major high density development – Bentleigh, Ormond, Glen Huntly, Elsternwick, and Caulfield. No other details as to heights, setbacks, parking, infrastructure, etc. has been released, nor most importantly what size their respective ‘catchment areas’ will be. We have no idea as to whether we are looking at 10 or 12 storeys (even though North Road has already been granted the ‘right’ for 10 storeys as this stage).

The only other council to have 5 areas nominated is Stonnington. What’s important to bear in mind is that Glen Eira is only 38.9 square km in size compared to most other councils. We also lack the commercial areas that Stonnington and other councils have – ie we are basically a residential municipality compared with the size of the commercial areas in other councils. (ie Glen Eira has 3.8% of land zoned commercial compared to Stonnington nearing 9%). With the prospect of all these areas suddenly becoming high density, this could mean that close to half of our municipality will now be a developer’s paradise. Glen Huntly currently has, according to profile.id data, a population density of 5,824 persons per square km – the highest in Glen Eira as well as being one of the smallest suburbs. Parts of our drainage system feature pipes that are 100 years old; our roads are often narrow, and congestion is already a major headache.

Equitable distribution of increased population planning does not seem to exist for this government. As long as there are railway stations, then the myth continues to be propagated that this is suitable for high density regardless of the fact that:

  • People living in one or two bedroom apartments still own cars as we’ve recently illustrated
  • More dwellings does not mean more affordable housing. When three bedroom apartments can sell for over $3m and two bedroom apartments for $1.4m then affordable housing is truly a myth in most of Glen Eira.

The tsunami of recent media releases by this government appears to mirror the Trump techniques – inundate readers with a deluge so that the ability to clearly focus, question, and assess becomes limited. Secondly resort to spin and more spin that simply makes no sense except to push a political agenda creating the impression that government is actually doing something.

Unless our council is prepared to become far more proactive and critical, as other councils have, then Glen Eira is basically doomed. It will, in our opinion, become the ghettos of either high priced luxury apartments, or our future slums with no real advance on affordable homes or protecting existing residential amenity.  

 

February 26, 2025

Woolies Wins!

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

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

 

February 24, 2025

Woolworths’ Hypocrisy!!!!!

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

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.

 

Next Page »