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
1 Comment 

Bayside council takes fight for secret activity centre plans to court

Annika Smethurst

June 23, 2026 — 4:10pm

Bayside council has launched a court bid to access secret government documents which could pave the way for a broader legal challenge to the Allan government’s controversial plan to strip councils of their planning powers.

Documents, filed in the Supreme Court, reveal Bayside City Council wants the court to order Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny to hand over ministerial briefs and advice that she relied on when approving a controversial planning amendment for 25 activity centres.

The amendment overrides local government regulations in nine council areas and allows increased height limits and reduced planning barriers around transport hubs.

Bayside Council takes in the suburbs of Brighton, Brighton East, Hampton and Hampton East – four of the 25 designated activity centres.

The request for documents could force the release of advice, modelling and briefing documents underpinning the government’s decision to fast track high-density housing across nine Melbourne council areas including Banyule, Boroondara, Darebin, Glen Eira, Maribyrnong, Merri-bek, Monash and Stonnington.

The filing marks an escalation in the spat between the state government and councils over the planning reforms, which Labor argues will accelerate the approvals process and allow more houses in some of Melbourne’s best-connected suburbs where housing growth had slowed.

In a statement, Bayside Council said it was seeking to understand how planning decisions were made, including how particular areas, such as Bayside, were selected.

Bayside Mayor Debbie Taylor-Haynes said the council had a responsibility to chase the information on behalf of the community.

“This legal process is about transparency. Our community deserves to understand what sits behind a decision of this scale that could significantly reshape their neighbourhoods,” Taylor-Haynes said.

“Residents are asking fair questions about how these decisions were made, and what evidence informed the government’s approach. Council has sought this information through letters and freedom-of-information requests and been refused. We are now taking this next step to obtain the documents needed to properly inform our community.”

To justify its planning takeover, the government has repeatedly pointed to the slower growth in established suburbs compared to the city’s outer fringes.

In council areas such as Melton and Wyndham, housing grew by 433 per cent and 346 per cent respectively over the past 30 years. By comparison, inner-suburban council areas like Boroondara and Bayside grew by 24 per cent and 28 per cent respectively over the same period.

A spokesperson for the government told The Age it was focused on building more homes for young Victorians.

“Well-connected suburbs like Brighton and Kew can’t stay locked up forever while outer suburbs do the heavy lifting when it comes to building new homes,” the spokesperson said.

“As this matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”

The state government has indicated it will challenge the application.

The case will come before the court on Wednesday for a directions hearing.

The legal action comes as affected councils continue to express frustration over the government’s plan to relax planning rules to boost supply and improve affordability, over concern about a lack of consultation and fears the changes will alter neighbourhood character and impact local amenities.

Local Liberal MP James Newbury said the Bayside Council had shown “incredible courage” by standing up to the Allan government, and described Labor as a “bully” determined “on wrecking our community”.

“Bayside is like David standing up to whack Goliath in the nose. Every Council should find the same courage,” he said.

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

SOME THOUGHTS

In contrast to Glen Eira, Bayside is at least putting its money where its mouth is! We applaud their courage in taking on the state government – regardless of the outcome.

Glen Eira in its various submissions to government has continually stated that no evidence has been forthcoming to justify the tsunami of amendments that have been imposed on councils. That’s where Glen Eira stops.

We have no doubt that if a survey was taken today of Glen Eira residents, more than 80% would have no idea of what is happening in their suburbs as a result of government changes. Council’s website does not highlight the impact of these changes. In fact a public question asked on the 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?

 

June 19, 2026

Unbelievable!

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

Unbelievable is an understatement!!! It is simply staggering that after nearly 5 years since introducing an Urban Forest Strategy, and proclaiming time and time again how combating climate change and tree canopy loss is a top priority, Council has no idea as to how many canopy trees have been lost on private land – the major factor in our decreasing canopy. What this means is, that there is absolutely no way of determining whether the Urban Forest Strategy  and its target goal for canopy increase is in fact a ‘success’ or a dismal failure – despite all the spin and more policy introductions such as the Local Law.

Following a question to council, we finally have an admission as to how little attention has been paid to our environment and its long term sustainability. Here is the relevant question and the answer:

QUESTION: Council in its Urban Forest Strategy has identified that tree canopy removal on private land is largely responsible for the municipality’s overall tree canopy reduction over the past two decades. The latest agenda states in Item 10.4 that “Since the adoption of the Local Law in August 2024, Council has issued 662 canopy tree local law permits” This however does not reveal how many trees are involved in these permits. Therefore, my question is: of these 662 permits, how many canopy trees were actually granted approval for removal as opposed to simply the number of permits granted?

RESPONSE

At Glen Eira Council, the local law is administered per site and not per tree, so only one application is required for a property regardless of how many trees are being removed. Some permits may also include both removal and pruning of trees on sites. As such, we are unable to provide a specific number of trees that have been removed without manually checking each permit and what it allows. We are currently in the process of updating our records system to capture this information in the future.

Perhaps the above also explains the following:

  • Annual reports and quarterly reports proudly state the numbers of trees planted in parks and streets. But since 2021 or so, we have never been told how many trees are ‘replacement’ – ie how many have been lost! It’s all very well to keep stating ‘we are planting 1000 or 2000 trees per annum. But if we lose 800-1000 each year, is this actually increasing our tree canopy, or are we going backwards? Is the refusal to publish, or even keep such data, a cover up, where lip service and ineffectual policies replace positive action and proper funding?
  • When the Tree Canopy Protection Law was introduced, any refusal to grant a permit for tree removal  could be challenged via a formal objection. This objection would then be considered at a full council meeting with the relevant documentation made public. Councillors would then vote and decide whether or not to grant a permit for removal. This has now disappeared. Everything is decided by officers. Thus, there is no transparency and certainly no accountability as to why the various decisions have been made. We doubt that councillors are even aware of why and how many of these decisions occur.

Nothing appears to have halted moonscaping in our residential streets. We therefore are putting out a request to our readers. If you are driving or walking past a moonscaped site please forward us the address or even better, a photo of the site. We will endeavour to follow up and discover how many trees have been lost and why this has been permitted! Only when there is full transparency and decent funding can we truly believe that this council is fair dinkum in decreasing our appalling history of canopy loss.

Email us at: gedebates@gmail.com

 

May 13, 2026

When Will It Stop?

Posted by gleneira under GE Planning, GE Service Performance
[3] Comments 

We’ve been contacted by residents who are outraged by what has happened next door to them and council’s failure to stop the continuing carnage of our canopy trees.

Here’s what we have learnt:

  1. The property at 25 Fitzgibbon Crescent, Caulfield North was sold on the 3rd May 2026 with price undisclosed.
  2. In less than a week, three trees were gone according to residents, and one huge front tree lopped mercilessly. Whether it will also be fully removed remains to be seen.
  3. In March 2026, an application to remove one canopy tree was recorded in council’s planning register. No decision (ie permit or refusal) has yet been made according to the register. There was nothing about lopping a canopy tree, so this was done prior to any formal council decision.

The images below show the property from Street View, as well as Google Earth prior to the tree removals. We also include a photo of the current state of the front yard.

Once again we have to question council’s intentions here. Will the owner be fined for the destruction? does council keep any records to indicate what was there prior to any development application coming in? What happens if a planning application comes in a year down the track? Is it reasonable to expect council to have made a decision well before two months have gone by? Were neighbours informed as to the tree removal application? If not, why not? Perhaps if they were, then such damage might have been averted?

PS: For a detailed explanation of what the government’s latest amendments mean for protecting tree canopy, we recommend a read of the following from Stephen Rowley – a long time analyst of what’s wrong with the planning system and government changes.

See: https://www.sterow.com/?p=5734#more-5734

 

May 6, 2026

Budgets

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

At the time of writing, not all councils have finalised their upcoming 2026/7 budgets. Many were still in the throes of engaging residents for their ‘ideas’ which would assist in forming the final budget drafts. However, plenty of councils have already published their budget proposals.

We have concentrated on the proposed rate increases by these councils. Please remember that our council has decided that the current rate cap of 2.75% is not enough. So they will be arguing before the ESS for a variation of the rate cap that will mean a 5% rate increase for residents.

When we compare what Glen Eira is doing, as opposed to other councils, many questions surface. For starters:

  1. What does this say about Glen Eira’s financial acumen and its responsibility to rate payers?
  2. Why can other councils survive without applying for an increase above the rate cap – including one council that will even go below the current rate cap?
  3. How much money is wasted by our council?

Listed below are all the councils currently advertising their budgets. Please note carefully their intended rate increase!!!!!!

Ararat – 2.25%

Bass coast -2.75%

Bayside – 2.75%

Boroondara – 2.75%

Buloke – 2.75%

Cardinia – 2.75%

Casey – 2.75%

Central Goldfields – 2.75%

Gannawarra – 2.75%

Glenelg – 2.75%

Hobson’s Bay – 2.75%

Kingston – 2.75%

Knox – 2.75%

Latrobe – 2.75%

Maribyrnong – 2.75%

Melbourne 2.75%

Melton – 2.75%

Merri-bek – 2.75%

Moonee Valley – 2.75%

Nillumbik – 2.75%

Port Phillip – 2.75%

Queenscliff – 2.75%

South Gippsland – 2.75%

Stonnington – 2.75%

Surf coast – 2.75%

Warrnambool – 2.75%

Wellington – 2.75%

Wellington – 2.75%

West Wimmera – 2.75%

Whitehorse – 2.75%

Whittlesea – 2.75%

Yarra – 2.75%

Yarra Ranges – 2.75%

 

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)

SuburbPopulationArea – Square KmDensity/pop per square km
Bentleigh19,1084.814141
Bentleigh East32,3048.983598
Carnegie20,5503.695575
Caulfield North & East20,0565.453677
Caulfield South13,0733.273996
Caulfield6,1531.474178
Caulfield North20,0565.453677
Elsternwick & Gardenvale12,8272.864485
Glen Huntly5,6430.896318
McKinnon7,4481.594689
Murrumbeena10,8422.634125
Ormond9,6322.074650
St.Kilda East4,5790.964789

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:

  1. 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 –

  1. 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?
  2. What preliminary conclusion has the state government made in regards to Glen Eira meeting its dwelling targets? Will council publish this information?
  3. Will council publish the tool used to make this assessment and its rationale and methodology?
  4. Will council commit to full and comprehensive reporting of its contacts with government and the department as other council do?
  5. 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 Transport
1 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

 

March 23, 2026

Political Gaslighting!

Posted by gleneira under Councillor Performance, GE Consultation/Communication, GE Governance, GE Open Space, GE Planning, GE Service Performance, GE Transport
1 Comment 

Over this last weekend, the State Government convened its Community Reference Groups ‘consultations’ over the proposed Stage 2 Activity Centre Program. As anticipated, this was nothing more than another ‘tick the box’ exercise in political gaslighting designed to evince ‘support’ for already made planning decisions.

For starters, attendees were told that they could NOT comment on anything to do with the CORE areas of the activity centres. Thus, proposed and contentious height limits were off the table. All that was open for ‘discussion’ were the nominated catchment areas. And even for these catchment areas, the focus was not on their extensive ‘upgrading’ or the evidence to support this.

Whether this state government actually listens to what was said (although unasked for) remains to be seen. But we certainly are not holding our breath for any major changes that accord with community and even council views.

As for Glen Eira, we are still awaiting its submission and its recommendations. Boroondara has published their version in a comprehensive and critical analyses. One of their main points is that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to the activity centres, as adopted by the government, is sheer folly. This point was also raised in the Glen Eira CRG over the weekend. How can you adequately plan for such diverse areas as Caulfield versus Bentleigh in terms of open space, infrastructure, sunlight in east west streets, versus north south running strips, when a one size fits all approach is adopted?

Below we feature some direct quotes from the Boroondara submission. We have included topic headings but the submission(s) also feature plenty more that we have omitted. Available at:

https://www.boroondara.vic.gov.au/media/117461/download?inline

One Size Fits All

Council remains concerned and opposed to the continued use of generic precinct typologies to determine future development outcomes and for the structuring of the BFO (Built Form Overlay) schedule in the commercial core in Ashburton.

As noted in Council’s Phase 2 submission for Stage 1 Centres, Council considers the typology approach is flawed. It misses opportunities to deliver viable, localised urban outcomes – something the Victorian Government should strive for. It is a backward looking methodology which emphasises simplification at the expense of future oriented planning to deliver a positive vision of change.

Key concerns with this approach that remain unaddressed include:

• Future character being linked to existing character rather than consideration of what role a place can play in creating a successful and highly liveable activity centre

• Multiple different future character types (land-use/programming, site response, and building envelope) being tied to or derived from and single existing typology.

• Application of precinct typologies to a single site or very small area that is not a “precinct”.

Affordable housing

The affordable housing obligation must be within the height limits proposed. Council understands that the built form controls and HCTZ are being developed as the appropriate urban design outcome to maximise capacity in these areas.

It would be disingenuous and unacceptable to use affordable housing as a pretext for further increasing controls above what has been proposed as the appropriate outcome.

While affordable housing could be integrated through lower discretionary heights with an uplift for provision of affordable housing, the risks of this are significant. The recent example of developer Assemble seeking to renege on its agreement with State Government to deliver affordability in exchange for uplift illustrates this risk. A better approach is for a mandatory affordability contribution within maximum building heights

Heritage

Consistent with Council’s previous submissions and the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Committee during the ACP Pilot, Council opposes the inclusion of heritage places within the HCTZ (both Inner and Outer Catchment). It results in tension between competing planning controls that is confusing for the community and planners, and does not provide the certainty for developers that the State Government is seeking.

Deemed to comply

Council in principle supports the concept of a simple compliance pathway for high- quality design and development but has significant concerns about how it is proposed to be implemented through the BFO.

While deemed-to-comply standards can be appropriate where they establish an acceptable base level for development outcomes the market is willing to deliver, the draft BFO schedule does not achieve this.

Council submits that several proposed standards would lock in poor and unacceptable development outcomes that Council could not regulate due to their deemed-to-comply nature.

Identified unintended outcomes demonstrate the need for rigorous, place-based testing to inform well-developed and considered deemed-to-comply standards and planning controls.

Consultation

Council notes the online survey has been improved, compared to the Stage 1 consultation, with more questions, more free text opportunities and increased character limit. However, the survey still has significant shortcomings.

Community members have highlighted the closed and leading nature of the questions. The most pertinent example of this is the question “What range of heights do you think are suitable for the core of your area?

The response options for this question, presented as height ranges with the minimum being 6-8 storeys, does not allow the community to express an opinion for anything less than 8 storeys.

For Ashburton where DTP has proposed 8 storeys, all responses can be construed as supporting the proposed heights, even if the respondent would prefer something lower.

It also does not allow respondents to express that different heights are suitable in different parts of the centre.

DTP must not use data from this question or other similarly distorting questions to ‘prove’ there is community support for the proposed planning changes. This would be deceptive and against the principles of open engagement.

Council also notes that the CRG is not a substitute for having an independent expert advisory committee review the proposed plans. It must not be misused to legitimise the process and plans while constraining the members’ ability to provide feedback and have meaningful opportunity to influence outcomes

 

Next Page »