Below are the HTCZ catchment rezonings for Elsternwick. We follow this up with a map showing the current areas under Heritage overlays. Please note how many remain in the ‘inner catchment zone’ – ie 4 to 6 storeys in height.
GE Transport
Archived Posts from this Category
July 24, 2026
Read & Weep #2: Elsternwick
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[2] Comments
July 22, 2026
Read & Weep!- Bentleigh & McKinnon
Posted by gleneira under GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[5] Comments
The government has today gazetted Amendment C285 which includes the final planning rules for our activity centres and surrounds. This post concentrates on these surrounds and what has changed. Areas now zoned HCTZ2 are rezoned to allow 3 storey apartment blocks and HCTZ1 four storeys and up to 6 on large sites over 1000 square metres. Heritage in these areas is largely ignored and they are in both HCTZ zones. The following gazetted map clearly outlines what has up to now largely been NRZ is finally gone!
CLICK TO ENLARGE
PS: Here’s a media release from Liveable Victoria. Nothing yet from Glen Eira!!!!
July 15, 2026
Fighting Back – Unlike Glen Eira!!!!!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[2] Comments
At last several councils have decided to fight the State Government’s ad hoc planning decisions with concerted legal action. The latest comes from Boroondara and their appeal to the supreme court. In contrast Glen Eira sits back and continues to be silent and compliant, despite the fact that our municipality is being torn to shreds with amendment after amendment that lacks evidence, transparency and full accountability.
Here is the Boroondara media release. (See: https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/your-council/news-and-media/media-centre/media-releases-and-statements/boroondara-seeks-judicial-review-ministerial-planning-permit)
Boroondara seeks judicial review on Ministerial planning permit
Tue 14 July 2026
The City of Boroondara has served Supreme Court proceedings on the Victorian Minister for Planning, Sonya Kilkenny MP, in relation to a planning permit she issued for the redevelopment of the Leo’s supermarket site in Kew.
The Minister’s decision is being challenged because she did not appropriately consider the applicable planning controls and whether the developer had permission to use Council land to build the project.
The planning permit allows for the development of four towers on the site with a maximum height of 18 storeys, exceeding the government’s own height controls for the site (16 storeys), which were only recently published on 18 March 2026. The previous height limit for this site in the Kew Structure and Place Plan was 9 storeys and was approved by the Minister for Planning on 4 May 2017.
The development also proposes substantial alterations to council-owned and operated land, which Council has not consented to. If changes are to be approved to this land, Council is firm that the variations need to deliver a positive result for all community members, not just the developer and residents in the new development.
Cr Wes Gault, the Mayor of Boroondara, stressed the legal action was a last resort to achieve important changes to the project.
“We have not made this decision lightly, but we are requesting this judicial review in the best interest of our community and residents,” he said.
“We are not opposed to this development – in fact we agree that this is a great site for a new mixed-use development – but we want to ensure the best result for our community with a building that better fits in the space, has affordable housing, and includes a public environment that delivers for all of us.”
“We submitted extensive feedback on how this development could be improved when the Minister was considering this application, and we are disappointed that few changes were made based on this considered and constructive feedback.”
We have also asked for a meeting with the Minister for Planning in the hope these matters can be resolved without the need to continue our legal proceedings.
Specific changes the City of Boroondara would like to see include:
- Modifications to the building’s design to reduce overshadowing concerns and comply with the government’s own Activity Centre controls;
- guarantees that affordable housing will be built on site;
- better landscaping, pedestrian flows, and building materials on council owned land. This land currently delivers a public benefit, and developer modifications to this space would need to be of a high quality and fit Council expectations;
- ensuring that any reliance on Council land for vehicular and pedestrian access is well designed, safe and fair; and
- ensuring access to the Council-owned land is well considered and equitable to all community members.
Boroondara is committed to ensuring that future growth is supported by great services and required infrastructure and has a long track record of supporting high-quality mixed-use developments, with thousands of new residents moving to Boroondara in recent years.
This consistent and successful growth in Boroondara over the last 30 years, where there are few large undeveloped sites, should not be directly compared to Melbourne’s rapidly growing outer suburbs where housing estates are built in greenfield areas.
Councillor Gault concluded by highlighting that the legal action would not change Council’s ongoing work with the Victorian Government on a range of projects from library redevelopments to the development of new sporting and parkland precincts.
“As Councillors, we will always advocate to the Victorian Government in the best interest of our residents, and I hope we can work together to resolve this matter quickly.”
The proposed development falls within the Kew Activity Centre, one of seven within the City of Boroondara. More broadly, Council has a range of concerns regarding the use of the DFP planning permit pathway. Council believes local councils should be the decision makers for development applications lodged within their local areas, and residents should have more of a say in the developments that shape the future of their streets and neighbourhoods.
July 8, 2026
More Coming Our Way!!!!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[3] Comments
The government’s final new zonings of HCT1 and 2, are still unknown for Elsternwick, Bentleigh and a few other activity centres. However, what is already LAW, and in operation, includes the Carnegie, Murrumbeena and Hughesdale areas, as well as Moorabbin. In an earlier post, we highlighted how these changes have impacted on Moorabbin, where countless sites were given the green light to ‘upgrade’ from 2 storey height limits, to now 3 and 4. (See: https://gleneira.blog/2026/03/26/moorabbin-before-and-after/)
Below we feature what council has had to say about some of these changes. As per usual, the negatives are totally ignored, and instead, we are told about the most miniscule of ‘positives’. No mention is made of the areas affected, nor how they will specifically be impacted. Nor are we told on what basis some of the areas can become 6 storeys. Surely, if the objective is to inform the community, then much, much more detail, and commentary is required than what we get in the following!!!!!
Catchments
Residential areas surrounding each activity centre, extending up to one kilometre, will be rezoned. These inner and outer catchments will be included in either the:
- Housing Choice and Transport Zone 1 (4–6 storeys), or
- Housing Choice and Transport Zone 2 (3–4 storeys)
It is pleasing to see that the catchment area around Ormond and Mckinnon has been reduced in response to submissions made by both Council and the local community.
Existing heritage precincts have not been included in the inner catchment areas, with the exception of a small section of HO72 (western side of Orrong Road south of Glenhuntly Road). A small number of individually significant heritage places will be located within the inner catchment areas.
So residents can actually see the extent of change, we’ve uploaded the current zonings for Carnegie and its surrounds. Please note that the vast majority of these places have gone from a two storey height limit to anything between 4 and 6 storeys depending on the size of the allotment – eg Rosstown Road is now HCT1 (4-6 storeys) when it was NRZ (2 storeys). There are plenty of other such examples. But overall, the size of these catchments is overwhelming and totally destructive of what residents value about their local streets. And all council can state is that a lot is ‘pleasing’!!!!!!!!!
Check out the following image to discover what has occurred.
CLICK THE ABOVE TO ENLARGE
June 24, 2026
Bayside Versus Glen Eira
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[3] Comments
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?
April 30, 2026
Carnegie
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[2] Comments
A short note to inform residents that council’s proposed structure plan for Carnegie (amendment c237) has been REFUSED by the Department. The date of refusal is yesterday – 29/4/2026).
We could not find anything on council’s website regarding this latest decision, nor anything about its ramifications. What we do anticipate of course is that the same actions will follow for Bentleigh, Elsternwick, and Caulfield Station!
April 14, 2026
Population Targets & Appropriate Density
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[7] Comments
We have scoured both government and council documents and nowhere is there to be found any mention of what might constitute appropriate population density. Instead we have ‘population targets’ that councils are meant to achieve by 2051. The latest gazetted government amendment contains the following table. We have included the size of each of these municipalities.
Glen Eira is expected to accommodate another 63,500 new residents. Council is happy with 55,000. Please check out one of our previous posts on this issue and council’s lame response to these targets. (https://gleneira.blog/2024/08/20/councils-stand-on-housing-targets/)
No one is denying that our population is increasing and that housing is required. What we do question is why should Glen Eira be expected to accommodate 63,500 new residents in an area that is one of the smallest in the middle ring suburbs. Other councils that are told to increase their populations by 60,000+ are often double the size of Glen Eira!
On the projected population figures forecast for our cohort of councils Bayside currently has a density factor of 2882 persons per square km; Boroondara 2968; Darebin 3041; Kingston 1841; Manninghanm 1173; Marybyrong 3041; Merribek 3712; Monash 2601 and Whitehorse 2884. None of this has been taken into account. (Source: profile.id.com.au)
If we take an even closer look at what is happening in Glen Eira (circa 2025) we find the following breakdown of our suburbs.
The City of Glen Eira Estimated Resident Population for 2025 is 163,025, with a population density of 4,216 persons per square km. (source: https://profile.id.com.au/glen-eira)
| Suburb | Population | Area – Square Km | Density/pop per square km |
| Bentleigh | 19,108 | 4.81 | 4141 |
| Bentleigh East | 32,304 | 8.98 | 3598 |
| Carnegie | 20,550 | 3.69 | 5575 |
| Caulfield North & East | 20,056 | 5.45 | 3677 |
| Caulfield South | 13,073 | 3.27 | 3996 |
| Caulfield | 6,153 | 1.47 | 4178 |
| Caulfield North | 20,056 | 5.45 | 3677 |
| Elsternwick & Gardenvale | 12,827 | 2.86 | 4485 |
| Glen Huntly | 5,643 | 0.89 | 6318 |
| McKinnon | 7,448 | 1.59 | 4689 |
| Murrumbeena | 10,842 | 2.63 | 4125 |
| Ormond | 9,632 | 2.07 | 4650 |
| St.Kilda East | 4,579 | 0.96 | 4789 |
Add another 63,500 residents and our population per square km approaches 5961 persons. And even if we build enough homes to house this population, what does it mean for liveability, infrastructure, open space, overshadowing, schools, hospitals, traffic, etc. etc. etc. None of this has been taken into account, yet it is the crucial question that needs to be addressed. Do we really want, or even need, to become the Calcutta of the south east and forego all that we value as basic residential standards and environment?
March 30, 2026
Spin And Dishonesty!
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[3] Comments
The State Government has released more documents outlining its latest vision for the so called ‘transport zones’. What needs to be called out here in the strongest terms is the dishonesty that is encapsulated in these images and the spin that surrounds them.
Why dishonest? For starters, residents should expect:
- Legends for each map that outlines in detail the building heights, the setback requirements, the controls that will apply to heritage areas.
Here is the image that shows what is happening to Carnegie, Murrumbeena, and Hughesdale. None of the above mentioned categories are provided with this image.
If we then take a closer look at Murrumbeena, from another document, we find the following –
Whilst height limits are included this time, there is no reference to what is happening in the inner and outer catchment areas, nor for our heritage sites. Referring back to the first image above, we can see how the dark and light blue areas have dramatically expanded. But we should not have to try and piece together information from different maps and still get no clear summary in one spot. That is dishonest and illustrates the attempt to obfuscate and make things as nebulous and difficult for the community as possible. This isn’t ‘information provision’ with the objective of truly informing communities. It is more of the same – spin designed to allay criticism and community revolt. Shame on this government and more shame on our council for not tackling these issues head on but resorting to simply regurgitating the government proposals with no summaries, no real criticism, and no attempt to truly inform residents.
One simple example of this compliance by Glen Eira is evident in the following image from Bayside. Nothing has been said by Glen Eira on this issue. Most people wouldn’t even know that this has occurred. Yet Bayside in its official publication (akin to our Glen Eira News) can address this issue directly and provide real information and criticism.
Compare the above in both tone and content to what Glen Eira habitually produces! No detail, no real comments apart from how wonderful their earlier structure planning and housing strategies are, and then the final insult – go the Engage Victoria for further information!!! Woeful!
March 28, 2026
The Mushroom Municipality
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport[4] Comments
Why, oh why, are residents in Glen Eira treated like mushrooms that have to continually be kept in the dark? Why can other councils publish their most recent communications with government/departments with no qualms and in Glen Eira residents are left with no idea as to what is really going on.
The latest example of this comes from Monash City Council, where we learn that in January this year, Kilkenny wrote to all councils informing them of a ‘tool’ that the government had developed in order to assess whether each council was meeting its dwelling targets. Even more interesting is the information that councils must undergo a full planning scheme review by late October 2026. Readers will remember that the last council review that incorporated full community consultation took place in 2016. That is literally a decade since the community has had any say as to how this planning scheme might work and/or what needs to be done. Since 2016, we have had ‘internal’ reviews that basically did nothing nor was any justification provided for some tiny changes.
As per usual questions abound –
- Given that it is now nearly April, will council incorporate full community consultation on the mandated planning scheme review? If so, when will this start? If not, why not?
- What preliminary conclusion has the state government made in regards to Glen Eira meeting its dwelling targets? Will council publish this information?
- Will council publish the tool used to make this assessment and its rationale and methodology?
- Will council commit to full and comprehensive reporting of its contacts with government and the department as other council do?
- Are councillors provided with the hard copy communications between officers and government and/or department? If not, why not?
Below we publish the letter from Kilkenny that was sent to all councils. Please read carefully and consider the questions we have raised.
March 26, 2026
Moorabbin: Before And After
Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport1 Comment
Moorabbin has been designated as a Major Activity Centre and encompasses Glen Eira, Kingston and also parts of Bayside. The Glen Eira area is north of South Road. Prior to early 2025, the zoning for this area was GRZ1 – ie mandatory 3 storey height limit. The areas further north were all NRZ – ie 2 storey height limit as shown in the following image.
The government then introduced HCT zonings which were defined as follows:
The result of these government amendments is an increase in height limits over a huge area. The GRZ zoning has now become RGZ (ie four storeys) and what was the NRZ zoning can now see three storeys on normal sites and four on large sites. This is shown in the image below.
The rationale for these changes is that catchment areas are supposed to be 800 metres from the core of the various activity centres. As the crow flies, this may be so. However, residents cannot fly and for them to walk to the core would be far more than 800 metres and certainly more than a 10 minute walk depending where they are coming from. This reminds us of council’s introduction of the residential zoning in 2013, when circles were simply drawn on the map with no consideration of which areas are heritage, which are in flood zones, and which are large sites. This is not planning. All it does it provide more and more land for overdevelopment and the destruction of residential amenity.
Council did submit their submission on the proposed introduction of the new zoning and Built Form Overlays in October 2025. It was a pretty dismal response to what was being mooted. Here are some quotes from this submission. Make up your own mind as to how well council represented resident views via such comments.
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.
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
Glen Eira Debates 