March 18, 2026

Council’s Response(s) To Government Planning Changes

Posted by gleneira under GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
Leave a Comment 

Submissions on the state government’s latest planning travesties, close on March 22nd, 2026. Glen Eira council has put up several media releases encouraging residents to view the Engage Victoria website and hopefully, submit their views. Is this enough however? Interestingly, the February 2026 council media release concluded with this sentence:

We encourage everyone to learn more and share their views via the Victorian Government’s Engage Victoria website at www.engage.vic.gov.au/traintramzones.

Do residents really ‘learn more’ by reading the government spin? Do they achieve anything from a survey that is unashamedly geared towards confirming proposed planning changes? If we are correct in characterising the Engage Victoria exercise as nothing more than another sham consultation, then what is, and should be, the roles of councils?

Should councils, cut through the spin and provide residents with:

  • A clear summary of proposed height changes for all activity centres nominated?
  • Debunk government claims when and where appropriate?
  • Provide clear statements as to the impact of proposed changes on heritage, environment, sustainable development, traffic, infrastructure, open space, economy, density, and scores of other potential impacts?

March 22nd is literally days away and we are yet to see council’s submission. On Tuesday there was a council meeting. Why was there no submission presented? Does this mean that residents will not be privy to the submission that is eventually submitted? Or will we be shown this submission only after it has already gone in? Why can Stonnington get off its backside and produce a superb submission that was tabled at their March 16th council meeting?  Given that councils have had plenty of warning as to closing dates, why haven’t we seen anything from Glen Eira?

What we find as particularly impressive about the Stonnington submission and its information sharing with the community is the series of maps which show residents exactly what is proposed. Here is one of these maps:

It is difficult to be any clearer than the above. Residents can immediately see the current planning controls regarding the increases in proposed heights. In Glen Eira none of this has really been spelt out for the community.

Stonnington has also engaged its own consultants to do 3D planning analyses, as well as breaking down how much of their municipality is likely to be changed. They claim that 70% of Stonnington will covered by the activity centre planning proposals. When one looks at what is proposed for Glen Eira we think that it is even higher for our municipality. Will Glen Eira even bother to do this work to ‘inform’ residents? We doubt it!!!!!

Finally a few quotes taken from the Stonnington March 16th submission and the accompanying officer’s report –

The proposed heights exceed those established within Stonnington’s existing strategic work as shown in Council’s height comparison maps at Attachment 3. This is likely to impact the heritage significance and character of our historic streetscapes, undermine pedestrian scale, reduce sunlight to streets and parks, and detract from residential amenity.

An alternative extent and application of Housing Choice and Transport Zones (HCTZ1 and HCTZ2) is recommended based on local conditions. Stonnington’s approach excludes areas with heritage and neighbourhood character overlays, and alters the application of the HCTZ (from HCTZ1 to HCTZ2) to existing and proposed Neighbourhood Residential Zones (NRZ) in the Housing Strategy

There is a disconnect between the stated objectives of the Activity Centres Program and the Stage 2 maps released for consultation. No modelling, testing, sight line diagrams or analysis has been provided to demonstrate how these maps meet these design principles. It is unclear what setbacks would apply to street and residential interfaces to manage adverse impacts associated with tall buildings. Council’s modelling shows some of these principles, such as ‘sunny streets’ cannot be met by the heights proposed

State Government’s Activity Centres Program has been progressed over a short timeframe by using a consistent approach across metropolitan Melbourne to activity centre planning. As a result, their maps are not adequately tailored to local conditions.

Nor are they informed by an evidence base, such as built form modelling and testing that provide an understanding of heritage impacts, sunlight access, wind, views from the public realm and neighbouring sites

The State Government’s Train and Tram Zone Activity Centres (TTZAC) Program (including the Chadstone pilot centre) affects a large proportion of land within Stonnington – as shown in the adjacent figure. Approximately 70 per cent per cent of Stonnington is impacted.

In the absence of growth targets per centre, it is unclear if the level of change proposed is purposefully (and effectively) meeting this stated outcome. Transparent targets would provide a baseline understanding of how much housing, employment and services the areas need to accommodate over time. Without this context, decisions about building heights and density and infrastructure upgrades risk being ad hoc or misaligned with the needs of the community and may not take into account the existing development that has occurred across these major centres

The proposed inner and outer catchments include highly valued heritage precincts with some of the most substantially intact, consistent Victorian, Federation and interwar housing in Stonnington. Approximately one third of the properties within the residential area proposed for the Housing Choice and Transport Zone (HCTZ) with increased heights is covered by a Heritage Overlay or a Neighbourhood Character Overlay. Most of these areas along with residential streets of consistent character are currently within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone or General Residential Zone with a 9m height limit (2 storeys), whereas heights of between 3-6 storeys will now be allowed.

Whilst the State Government has stated that existing Heritage Overlays will remain in place with planning permit triggers and assessment unchanged, the proposed controls create an inherent tension by establishing an underlying zone promoting higher growth.

The existing NRZ includes this relevant purpose ‘To manage and ensure that development is responsive to the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics’ which will no longer apply when it’s rezoned to the HCTZ.

The areas identified for increased density and growth (Housing Choice and Transport Zone) appear to apply blanket zoning changes without any clear justification beyond distance to the centre. The inner catchment has been applied to areas adjacent to the centre regardless of clear constraints such as Heritage Overlays, Neighbourhood Character Overlays and flooding risk.

Stonnington’s adopted Housing Strategy has considered building heights within the catchments, and provides a context-responsive approach, allowing for realistic levels of growth based on existing constraints and opportunities.

Council considers that all areas where precinct Heritage Overlays or Neighbourhood Character Overlays apply, should be removed from the proposed inner or outer catchment.

 

February 26, 2026

Aged Care

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

Council appears to have learnt a lesson from its last disastrous effort to sell off our aged care facilities when the decision was made in secret and without community consultation prior to the decision making. This time at least, there is some notification and community consultation prior to the ultimate decision.

Over the past few years council has slowly but surely divested itself of some fundamental community services (ie child care, aged care; home support) and the refrain remains the same – costs are too high and will impact on other services unless we get rid of them! The result, despite cutting the previously mentioned services, council has still voted to apply for a 5% rate hike. What therefore needs to be asked is – how well is council dealing with our financial resources? How can you cut back on so many services and staff, and still claim to be unable to ensure financial sustainability?

The following media release is important. Please read carefully. We have bolded and underlined sections for emphases.

Have your say on the future of Warrawee Community

Residential aged care is a specialised and highly regulated service, and the sector has seen significant change in recent years.  

For over 30 years, Warrawee Community — Glen Eira’s 90-bed residential aged care facility in Bentleigh East — has been a place of care and connection for local residents.  

Recent Australian Government reforms have strengthened registration requirements and tightened governance, compliance and safety standards for all residential aged care providers. These changes are designed to improve the quality of care — which is something we wholeheartedly support — but they also bring added complexity, regulation and cost, particularly for smaller, standalone providers like Council to continue operating sustainably. 

These reforms tend to favour larger providers who operate a number of facilities and have the scale to meet strengthened standards more efficiently.  

Keeping up with these requirements requires ongoing investment which impacts funding available for other important community services. We are the only council in Victoria — and one of very few in Australia — that operates a standalone residential aged care facility. The cost of delivering this service has risen sharply, and Warrawee is forecast to operate at a $5.5 million loss in 2025–26. This impacts Council’s ability to continue delivering more than 120 services across our municipality.  

A decision now needs to be made about the future of Warrawee Community. This is the beginning of an important conversation — one we’re committed to approaching with care, transparency and respect for everyone involved, to inform our future decision. 

The options we’re considering 

We are seeking community feedback on two possible options:  

  • continuing to operate Warrawee as a Council-run facility requiring ongoing investment.  
  • transferring ownership to a registered aged care provider that can continue delivering high-quality, local care at the site.  

This is a conversation about Warrawee Community continuing as business as usual or transferring ownership to a new provider — we are not considering closing the site.  

In both options, Warrawee remains a residential aged care home — that does not change.  

Cr Dr Zmood said Council’s priority is the wellbeing and stability of residents.  

“Warrawee Community is not closing.  

“Care continues as usual. We want to make sure residents keep receiving the high-quality care they know and trust, and that staff feel supported through this process.”  

She also emphasised that the community’s voice will directly shape the outcome.  

“No decision has been made,” she said.  

“This engagement process is about listening to you, gathering information, and understanding our community’s priorities before any decision is made.” 

Responsible long-term planning 

This decision is about planning carefully for the future and understanding what will best support our entire community now and for years to come.  

We need to review how we can best support older residents to ensure our services to our residents remain sustainable, compliant with sector reforms, equitable and aligned with community expectations.  

We know from previous conversations that residents want Council to focus on services that benefit the whole community and make fair, transparent decisions. Reviewing assets and services like Warrawee is part of responsible long-term planning. 

Read the report summary 

We’re committed to transparency, so we’ve created a summary of the Council report which includes all the information we can release. This is available on our Have Your Say page, and includes the full report except for sensitive commercial and staff information.  

How to get involved 

Your feedback will play a key role in the decision Council makes later this year.  

Hearing from all voices in our community is essential in helping us understand what matters most.  

Visit Have Your Say to learn more and complete the survey by Wednesday 25 March. 

www.haveyoursaygleneira.com.au/aged-care  

Several statements in the above media release emphasise that Warawee will not close and that the service will continue either as a council operation or by another organisation. We then have to query why in the accompanying Have Your Say survey pages, we find the following –

Does this mean that there is a real possibility that the site could be sold? Doesn’t this contradict what the above media release has stated? Will we be informed prior to any sell off decision or will we see a repeat of what occurred a few years back?

Going back over past budgets, we find a few interesting facts in terms of stated deficits.

2020/1 – $5.6M – to run 3 facilities

2021/2 – $7.39 (“including internal overheads”! – whatever this might mean!) – 2 facilities

2022/3 – $2.7M – one facility

2023/4 – $4.3M deficit – one facility

2024/5 – $4.95M – one facility

2025/6 -5.5M – one facility

We have no doubt that regulations, staffing and overall standards have changed. But again we have to question why only two years ago the deficit for running one facility was $2.7M and has more than doubled in the space of 2 years. Surely it can’t all be due to government changes? Or how much has this been caused by years of lack of attention to the facility and then having to upgrade?  Surely it would be informative if council produced some detailed information as to how this $5.5M deficit is calculated and verified?

The bottom line in our opinion is that if council is really there to serve the community, then it is the community who must decide whether they wish to subsidise this service.

 

February 23, 2026

View Of A Resident

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance, GE Service Performance
1 Comment 

We received the following email from a resident in response to our post on council’s desire to raise the rate to 5% for the following financial year. Here’s what was written:

Hello – there is another aspect – being the difference between Local Government Receipts that are not taxed and the community “worker/family” cash on hand to pay rates – which they have to earn and pay for their rates “after tax”.

The increase from 2.75% to 5.0% is an effective 2.25% increase or 81.82%

 increase on the effective rate (as always for any small percentage base) Local Government benefits as they do not pay tax on their receipts. But communities under economic and wage strain – the families the councils say are also vulnerable and others which are under cost of living pressure with high mortgages and families to feed only have after tax dollars to pay those rates


If Glen Eira is saying the average rate is ~$1,600 then a resident has to earn $2,080 to have the $1,600 cash (based on 28% tax +2% Medicare levy). The Council collected $113m in rates yet the before tax impact on residents (with assumptions) would be close to$146,900,000.
If now Glen Eira is saying to increase rates to 5% (2.25% addition to the base 2.75% – an 81% increase) then for the resident to pay the $1,600 X 5% next year = $1,680. But that is not where it stops. For the resident to earn $1,680 in the bank before tax they have to have gross wages of $2,184 – that is a part cause of inflation and the cost of living stress. Over 71,000 (and rising) number of rateable properties x the difference between $2,184 and $2,080 =$104 x 71,000 = $7.38 M – taken from Glen Eira before tax wages.


The potential rate increase is not good local government policy when balanced against the need and strategies to support communities – and their Health and Wellbeing plans, especially when the 2025 budget demonstrated an excess of $5M, which could be/should have been held aside, in trust, to assist with next years cash so called “stress”.


Fluff and bubble really – and blindness to the real world… really. Forensic real costs convert wages paid by employers to before tax – on the basis of statistics and “$1 for $1 equal  basis” with Local Government who do not pay tax.


(We do not have a mortgage and we are fortunate – but the argument above is for the wider good)

 

February 20, 2026

How Do You Feel About A 5% Rate Increase?

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Council Meeting(s), GE Governance
1 Comment 

Item 10.1 of the latest council agenda, contains this paragraph and its recommendation:

This report recommends moving forward on this a key element of the Strategy. It proposes a one-year 2.25 per cent variation above the announced rate cap of 2.75% for 2026–27, a total increase of 5 per cent in 2026–27 generating approximately $3 million additional rate revenue per year

The officer’s report goes on to claim that overall the community supports council’s ambition to increase rates and this is ‘evidenced’ by an enormous round of community consultation held over the past few years.

This approach reflects strong community input over the past two years. Through comprehensive engagement programs such as Our Priorities, Our Future (2023) and Our Place, Our Plan (2025), more than 3,200 participants took part in conversations about priorities, trade-offs and funding options. In the 2023 deliberative Community Priorities Panel, 73 per cent of members supported applying for a rate cap variation as part of a broader package of measures to strengthen Council’s financial sustainability.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? – 73% supporting a rate increase!!!!! A clear majority. However, when you go back to the actual Community Priorities Panel report, we can be forgiven for thinking that this is truly representative of the community. Please bear in mind that this committee consisted of up to 39 members only and therefore hardly constituting what could be considered as genuine community representation. Hardly surprising however that the report chooses to highlight this percentage and provides no other stats from the various surveys!!!!

Even when we investigate the results from the community survey on Our Priorities, Our Future, we find the following:

• The community may be open to increasing fees and/or charges to maintain current service levels, with 52 per cent of the community responding in the ‘maybe’ range, but ‘no’ is the most common single response at 37 per cent.

Please note the phrasing of the question. Instead of calling a spade a spade, (ie rate increase) the terminology becomes ‘fees and/or charges’. This is entirely different to a rate increase and we have no idea whether participants simply saw this as raising child care fees, entry costs to swimming pools, etc instead of reading this as an increase to rates.

When the question was finally asked as to how council’s finances could be increased and the methodology council should employ to achieve this, only 10% (166 responses) were in favour of rate increases.

Even more disturbing is council’s continued refrain, that Glen Eira residents have ‘some of the lowest rates in Victoria’. When rates are calculated, please remember that this is done according to property/site value. Clearly many Bayside suburbs would have a greater site value than those in Glen Eira, and the same could be said for Stonnington. Therefore their overall rates would be higher in these municipalities. But what also needs to be taken into account is not just the final rate, but the INTEREST RATE per annum which is applied to all properties. For well over a decade preceding the state government’s rate capping introduction (2016/17) Glen Eira was the highest by far in comparison to our neighbouring municipalities. Here is a comparison we made in April 2015 –

CONCLUSION

We do not doubt that prices for everything have increased dramatically. Nor do we doubt that governments have cut back on grants and attempted to pass on more costs to councils. But does any of this really justify a 5% rate increase across the board – especially in these times and when this is backed up by some very spurious claims as to overall community support.  Could we for once get an officer’s report that is not misleading and fabricated to evince councillor support?

The bottom line of course is how well council has run our finances. Did we really need an $80M mini GESAC pool? Did we really need to embark on gigantic loans that will take another decade to pay off? Questions abound. At the core is the issue of whether or not this council is truly listening to residents.

 

February 11, 2026

More Planning Mayhem!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Transport
[4] Comments 

The Government’s latest planning move has now been made public . In typical style it is the media that is informed first, rather than the community, or we assume even councils.  Maps featuring the remaining activity centres such as Caulfield and Glen Huntly feature in The Age. Bentleigh is also mentioned, but the media has not provided the maps for this activity centre.

We could not find any maps on the various government websites apart from a media release by the Premier. No link was provided to the maps.

Here is what is proposed for what is euphemistically called Caulfield even though it covers most of Caulfield North, Caulfield East and Caulfield South. Please note:

  1. The dark brown areas designated as ‘strategic development site’ with no height limits announced. The MRC must be laughing all the way to the bank!
  2. The expansion of the ‘inner catchment’ all the way to Hawthorn Road, with the possibility of up to 6 storeys on ‘large’ sites .
  3. Three storeys along major roads such as Bambra and all the way to Balaclava.

Another example of planning that has the potential to destroy what most communities regard as sacrosanct – heritage, sunlight, environment, etc. etc. And whether or not any of these planning moves actually achieve affordable housing, or even sustainable housing is highly questionable.

And for good measure, here’s Glen Huntly

PS: finally found a link to the latest ‘survey’ on these Phase 2 activity centre announcements. Below is the Bentleigh one –

The accompanying survey for Bentleigh is another sham exercise in ‘community consultation’. In regards to the proposed heights of up to ten storeys, the question regarding this is:

What range of heights do you think are suitable for the core of your area? Required

6 – 8 storeys

8 – 10 storeys

10 – 12 storeys

Greater than 12 storeys

No opportunity provided in the above question to even object to the 6 and 8 storey height limits. Before the ability to move on to another question, you are ‘required’ to select one of these options.

Another question which leaves much to be desired is – Where do you think the proposed highest building heights in the core should be located? Required

Most of the ‘survey’ is nothing more than motherhood statements. This isn’t consultation. It is an exercise to provide us with answers that basically support what is proposed!

 

February 7, 2026

Vale Our Tree Canopy!

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

The carnage depicted in our previous post is now 95% complete.

 

February 4, 2026

Carnage!!!!!

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

This is the tale of the complete failure of both council and the state government in terms of protecting our devastatingly low tree canopy and ensuring that moonscaping is drastically halted. For all the talk about stopping moonscaping and preserving canopy trees, the following example illustrates completely how far Glen Eira is failing in its objective.

Below we feature a street map view of a property that was granted a permit in 2021 for the construction of 2 double storeys. Three years later there was another application for a permit time extension. That was granted by council in April 2024. Full demolition started this week and will be completed in the next day or two.

What is not clear from the above image is the fact that the property contained at least 10 beautiful and fully grown canopy trees. All of these trees would have been at least 50-60 years old (including a superb box species and a magnificent saw banksia). All of these canopy trees had been carefully planted along the perimeter of the site apart from one that was approximately 3 metres inside the front fence.

The following photos show what the site looks like now and the carnage that has been wrought on these trees. They will all be gone in the next day or so according to the tradies working on demolition.

The questions therefore abound:

  1. Surely any decent architect could have designed dwellings where at least some of these perimeter canopy trees could have been preserved?
  2. Why was a permit granted that presumably allowed the removal of all of these trees? Was there really nothing that council could have done?
  3. How hard has council really tried to preserve its tree canopy, especially on private land? Yes, Council’s Tree Protection Canopy Law only came in last year so would not have been applicable to this planning application. This however does not absolve council of all blame. For years now, there have been options available to councils such as vegetation overlays (especially for classified trees) that several councils (ie Moonee Valley, Whitehorse) have introduced. But not Glen Eira. Their argument has been to wait for the state government to carry out the requisite work. Well in September 2025, the government introduced a new amendment that falls far short of truly protecting the environment and achieving the goal of 30% tree canopy coverage in the decades ahead across the state.

Boroondara at its December 2025 meeting pointed out the drawbacks of the state government amendment – cited below

During the course of the consultation, the Victorian Government introduced new tree planning controls through a Particular Provision at Clause 52.37 of the Planning Scheme. These new controls apply universally to all residential zoned land across Boroondara and metropolitan Melbourne and introduce new standard planning permit triggers for the removal, destruction or lopping of a canopy tree in the front and rear setback of a site.

While the introduction of consistent, state-wide tree controls is welcome, there are some concerns with the detailed permit triggers. Overall, the provision provides protection for canopy trees only in the front and rear setback of lots and makes no allowance for consideration of significant trees including works that may impact a significant tree.

Generally, it is considered that the new Particular Provision provides less protection for canopy trees and significant trees than the existing local law and the proposed new overlays. It is therefore recommended that Council continue to seek authorisation for the proposed new overlays as discussed in this report.

Boroondara is now pushing ahead to ensure that tree protection resides in the planning scheme and not simply in a council’s Local Law. This is something that Glen Eira should have sought years ago.

The example we’ve provided tells us how vulnerable our valuable trees are today – despite all the rhetoric on tree protection. The onus is clearly on councils to both introduce and enforce laws that are fail safe and do the job they are supposed to.

The issue is not about development versus tree protection. It’s far more fundamental than that. Development can occur and should occur if all necessary actions are taken to preserve the health of our dwindling canopy coverage on private property. Is the ability to build a few extra feet of dwelling space worth the loss of our most valuable vegetation and aspects of our neighbourhood character – especially in an era of dramatic climate change?

 

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

 

December 3, 2025

More Insanity On Parking!

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning
[3] Comments 

Today’s Age (https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/car-park-requirements-set-to-be-scrapped-in-planning-shake-up-20251202-p5nkak.html) carries a story on the government’s intention to remove the need for ANY onsite car parking spots in developments close to train stations and transport modes. To ‘compensate’, developers will have to pay $11,000 per dwelling for infrastructure of which council will receive 75% of the charge and the government the rest.

Insanity is one word to describe this latest action. Late in 2024 we published a post that analysed the state of car ownership in Glen Eira – particularly how residents living in both single bedroom and two bedroom homes owned cars. Our data came from the 2021 ABS census results. Here is the table produced at that time. We can only assume that car ownership has increased since then given the population increase.

We also wrote at the time the following:

If we do a simple calculation based on the above data, we can see that:

  • Only one quarter of residents in single bedroom homes do not own a car (ie 26%)
  • In two bedroom homes only 12.9% do not own a car

Thus if we have 75% of residents living in single bedroom homes owning cars, and 87% who reside in two bedroom dwellings also owning cars, what does this say about the requirements for adequate onsite parking? What does it say about off street parking becoming impossible for the majority of residents if onsite car parking waivers are the norm as illustrated with the recent Halstead Street application? And let’s not forget that council has already mooted that it intends to REDUCE the requirement for onsite parking in our major activity centres in the very near future.

The Age article also makes note of the government’s claim that 40% of onsite car spots remain empty. Really? How was this data collected and by whom? Did the analysis take place in the morning, afternoon, evenings, weekends? Put simply, the myth that living near public transport means that residents will not have cars is nonsense as proven by the ABS census.

Ad hoc planning, and virtue signalling is the hallmark of this government, as well as allocating 25% of any development contribution paid into its coffers instead of to councils.

 

November 5, 2025

A Request!

Posted by gleneira under Caulfield Racecourse/C60, Miscellaneous
[2] Comments 

We have been asked to publish the following comments regarding further shenanigans at Caulfield Racecourse.

In case many readers have missed the latest news we are pleased to announce that the MRC’s attempts to bypass the payment of $3M as an open space levy for its proposed subdivision has been knocked back by VCAT. They will now have to pay council this amount.

Here are the comments mentioned at the start:

Caulfield Racecourse Flying Club excluded by trust

In 1879, Caulfield Racecourse was bequeathed as a Crown Land Grant to the community for horse racing for 25 days of the year and for the rest of the time, as a recreational reserve and parkland. The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Act 2017 (Vic) gives effect to the current trust and encompasses the functions and duties of the trustees. However, there is some doubt whether the new trustees are complying with the purposes of the Act and objectives of the trust. “Truly inclusive open space” and “what the community can expect” is not living up to “making the reserve a place for everyone to use and enjoy” The new trustees are regulating and even banning some community groups who have used the land for many years for recreational activities. The Caulfield Racecourse Flying Club Inc (CRFC) is one such group that has used the Racecourse Reserve for over 50 years. It has been used for flying model aircraft probably since its inception. The former trustees had such a bad reputation for management of the Reserve that they were formally removed as trustees but at least identified CRFC as the controlling body for flying RC planes (1994 Regulations XI). The CRFC now holds no confidence that new trustees can be entrusted to do any better. The reserve is 54 hectares of near open space with at least 8 hectares of completely open grassland, well buffered by vacant land.  It has been ideal for flying model aeroplanes (or now sometimes drones) since the reserve was formed. CRFC was incorporated in 1988 and is now a member of the Australian Men’s Shed Association. “Open spaces are vital to our collective health and wellbeing.” CRFC members have been using the open area for many years and always under the auspices and sanction of the Trust at the time, DELWP and the Melbourne Racing Club reserve management. The Club was always insured by Victorian and Australian affiliates and complied with their safety guidelines. Now the Trustees have banned us. A ban on flying models is targeted at our club only and not non­members or other people. The process to get rid of us was a carefully planned ploy starting with absurd restrictions such as; restricting flying hours to 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM Monday to Friday (hardly recreational hours and well after the wind had come up); proof of insurance cover that covered us while travelling between the reserve and home. Further absurd restrictions were introduced to the point where if a member wanted to fly a model even as small as your hand, he must have 4 club officials present to act as ‘spotters’. We are a recreational club, participating in a recreational activity, in recreational reserve and yet we could only use it under the Trustee’s absurd protocol. We wonder what other recreational users will be banned for un founded safety reasons – fishermen, dog walkers (on-lead and off-lead), bicycle riders, joggers, disk golfers, kite flyers and rocket enthusiasts. All these have no insurance and yet our members would have $20 million cover including public liability. We now seek your help and advice regarding a dispute resolution process e.g. VCAT.

 Sincerely,

David Casley, President of the CRFC

 

Next Page »