Housing & planning · Burwood Council
Burwood panel refuses co-living proposal on 323.4-square-metre site
The panel rejected an eight-storey, 27-room proposal at 64 Wentworth Road over lot size, waste servicing, access and amenity concerns, while approving a residential-flat-building modification in Burwood and a subdivision in Croydon Park.
Reporting from public council minutes. How this article was prepared
A proposed eight-storey, 27-room co-living development on a 323.4-square-metre site in Burwood was refused by the Burwood Local Planning Panel, according to its meeting minutes. The refusal cited the site’s 59.6 per cent shortfall against the applicable minimum lot-size standard and unresolved waste-servicing and commercial-vehicle access issues.
DA.2026.24 proposed demolishing the existing dwelling at 64 Wentworth Road and building co-living housing above one basement level. The minutes say the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 prescribes an 800-square-metre minimum lot size for co-living housing. The panel was not satisfied that the applicant’s Clause 4.6 request justified the proposed variation.
Waste collection was a separate central issue. The panel said the application had not demonstrated a long-term servicing arrangement capable of operating without adverse impacts on residents, neighbouring properties or the public domain. It also found that the basement access and waste-servicing proposal had not satisfactorily addressed commercial vehicle requirements under AS 2890.2.
The panel added refusal reasons concerning minimum communal open space, landscaping and open-space objectives. It also cited design excellence and the public interest in its reasons for the decision. The refusal was unanimous.
At 106-108 Wentworth Road, the panel revoked a 15 April 2026 refusal and approved a Section 4.55(2) modification to the approved residential flat building, subject to conditions in Council’s assessment report. It said the amended proposal addressed the earlier refusal reasons. Additional conditions concern inconsistencies between architectural and landscape drawings, and the enclosure of a hydrant booster valve assembly and other external services. Kevin Hoffman recused himself from the item because he had chaired the earlier refusal, with Brian Kirk acting as chair during the public meeting and deliberation.
The panel also approved DA.2026.57 for a two-lot Torrens Title subdivision of the existing detached dual occupancy at 58 Waratah Street, Croydon Park, with minor ancillary works. It accepted a Clause 4.6 justification for varying the minimum street-frontage standard in the R2 Low Density Residential zone and said the subdivision would facilitate orderly residential development without unreasonably compromising adjoining properties’ amenity. That approval is also subject to conditions, which are not reproduced in the supplied minutes.
What deserves a closer look
The record supports a contrast between the refused co-living proposal and the two approved matters, not a divided panel: each item's outcome is recorded as unanimous.
The full assessment-report conditions for the two approvals are not reproduced in the supplied minutes, although two additional conditions for the residential-flat-building modification are described.
The 106-108 Wentworth Road item included a recorded chair recusal, with Brian Kirk acting as chair during the public meeting and deliberation.
Questions for follow-up reporting
What are the full conditions attached to the 106-108 Wentworth Road modification and the 58 Waratah Street subdivision?
Will a revised application be lodged for 64 Wentworth Road, and if so, how will it address the panel's waste-servicing and access concerns?
What changes were made to the 106-108 Wentworth Road proposal before the earlier refusal was revoked?
Has the Croydon Park subdivision been completed or registered?
What happens next
Review the conditions in Council's assessment report for both approved matters.
Monitor whether a revised application is lodged for 64 Wentworth Road and, if so, assess it against the panel's stated refusal reasons.
Check the record
These passages were matched to the source text. Read them in context in the original minutes.
The item heading identifies DA.2026.24 as an eight-storey, 27-room co-living development at 64 Wentworth Road, Burwood. Before the Item DA19/26 heading, the minutes record Kevin Hoffman's recusal, Brian Kirk acting as chair and the statement that the panel was unanimous.
During the public meeting and deliberation on this item, the Panel chair Kevin Hoffman recused himself and Brian Kirk (expert panellist) acted as the chair for this item. Minutes of Burwood Local Planning Panel Meeting 17 September 2026 This is page 3 of the Minutes of the Burwood Local Planning Panel Meeting of Burwood Council held on 17 September 2026 The Panel was unanimous (Item DA19/26) DA.2026.24 - 8 Storey, 27 Room Co-Living Development at 64 Wentworth Road, Burwood File No: 26/43363 Location: 64 Wentworth Road, Burwood Zoning: R1 General Residential BLPP Referral Criteria Pursuant to the Ministerial Direction dated 6 May 2024 issued under
Item DA19/26 heading
Open original minutes ↗DA.2026.24 sought demolition of the existing dwelling and ancillary structures and construction of eight-storey co-living housing above one basement parking level at 64 Wentworth Road; the recommendation was refusal.
Proposal This development application (DA.2026.24) seeks development consent for the demolition of the existing single-storey detached dwelling house and ancillary structures, and the construction of an eight (8) storey co-living housing development above one (1) level of basement parking, at No. 64 Wentworth Road, Burwood. Recommendation That Development Application DA.2026.24, at 64 Wentworth Road, Burwood, for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of an eight-storey co-living housing development, be refused for the following reasons: 1) Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is inconsistent with Section 69(1)(b) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021.
DA.2026.24 proposal and recommendation
Open original minutes ↗The site area was recorded as 323.4 square metres against an 800-square-metre minimum for co-living housing under Section 69(1)(b) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021, a shortfall of 476.6 square metres or 59.6 per cent.
Minimum Lot Size: Section 69(1)(b) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 prescribes a minimum lot size of 800sqm for co- living housing. The subject site has an area of 323.4sqm, representing a contravention of 476.6sqm or 59.6%.
DA.2026.24 minimum lot size
Open original minutes ↗The panel stated that it was not satisfied the proposal demonstrated a satisfactory long-term waste-servicing arrangement capable of operating without adverse impacts, or that basement access and proposed waste servicing had been demonstrated to satisfactorily accommodate commercial waste servicing having regard to AS 2890.2.
The Panel is not satisfied that the proposal demonstrates a satisfactory long-term waste servicing arrangement capable of operating Minutes of Burwood Local Planning Panel Meeting 17 September 2026 This is page 4 of the Minutes of the Burwood Local Planning Panel Meeting of Burwood Council held on 17 September 2026 without adverse impacts on residents, neighbouring properties or the public domain. 3) Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Panel is not satisfied that the basement access arrangement and proposed waste servicing methodology have been demonstrated to satisfactorily accommodate commercial waste servicing having regard to AS 2890.2 – Off-Street Commercial Vehicle Facilities.
DA.2026.24 refusal reasons 2 and 3
Open original minutes ↗The panel stated that the applicant had not demonstrated that waste servicing and commercial vehicle access could be satisfactorily accommodated within the site.
5) Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the likely impacts of the development are considered unacceptable. Despite extensive assessment and multiple requests for additional information, the applicant has not demonstrated that the operational requirements of the development, particularly waste servicing and commercial vehicle access, can be satisfactorily accommodated within the site.
DA.2026.24 refusal reason 5
Open original minutes ↗In its reasons for the decision, the panel found the Clause 4.6 justification inadequate and identified unsatisfactory long-term waste servicing and a failure to demonstrate design excellence.
6) Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development is not in the public interest having regard to Reasons 1 to 5 above. Reasons for the decision The Panel is not satisfied the proposed development has demonstrated through a Clause 4.6 written request adequately that compliance with the minimum lot size development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, or that sufficient environmental planning grounds exist to justify the proposed. Amongst other things, the Panel is not satisfied that the proposal demonstrates a satisfactory long- term waste servicing arrangement capable of operating without adverse impacts on residents, neighbouring properties or the public domain. The Panel is not satisfied that the proposal exhibits design excellence, particularly having regard to Clause 6.5(4)(e), as the applicant has failed to demonstrate a satisfactory long-term waste collection outcome for the development.
DA.2026.24 reasons for the decision
Open original minutes ↗The panel was not satisfied that the proposal was in the public interest and determined that two additional recommendations for refusal, concerning minimum communal open space and landscaping and open-space objectives, were to be added to Council's recommendation. The minutes state that the panel was unanimous.
Given the areas of non-compliance identified the Panel is not satisfied the proposal is in the public interest. The Panel has determined that two additional recommendations for refusal are to be added to those listed in Council' s recommendation. • Pursuant to section 1A (i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the proposal is inconsistent with the non-discretionary development standard for minimum communal open space for co-living housing under State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 and will result in poor amenity for the future occupants of the building. Minutes of Burwood Local Planning Panel Meeting 17 September 2026 This is page 5 of the Minutes of the Burwood Local Planning Panel Meeting of Burwood Council held on 17 September 2026 • Pursuant to section 1A (iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the proposal is inconsistent with objectives O19, O20, O21 and O22 of section 5.4.8 landscaping and open space for boarding housing and co-living housing of Burwood Development Control Plan. Accordingly, the proposed development fails to achieve the principles of the Housing SEPP as it will not enhance the locality. The Panel was unanimous (Item DA20/26) DA.2026.57 seeking two (2) lot Torrens Title subdivision of an existing dual occupancy, with minor ancillary works.
DA.2026.24 additional refusal reasons and concluding vote statement
Open original minutes ↗For the modification at 106-108 Wentworth Road, the minutes recommend upholding the review, revoking the refusal dated 15 April 2026 and granting Section 4.55(2) modification consent subject to assessment-report conditions; the following reasons for the decision state that the amended proposal addressed the earlier refusal reasons.
Building - 106-108 Wentworth Road, Burwood File No: 26/39919 Recommendation(s) That the Section 8.2 Review of Determination relating to the refusal of the Section 4.55(2) modification application to Development Consent No. BD.2018.122 for amendments to the approved residential flat building at 106-108 Wentworth Road, Burwood be upheld and that, pursuant to Division 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the previous determination of refusal dated 15 April 2026 be revoked and consent be granted to the Section 4.55(2) modification application, subject to the conditions contained Council's assessment report. Reasons for the decision The Panel is satisfied that the proposal as amended has satisfactorily addressed the reasons for refusal adopted by the Burwood Local Planning Panel on 15 April 2026.
Item DA18/26 / item 8.2 recommendation and reasons for the decision
Open original minutes ↗Source record
Reporting from the supplied minutes of the Burwood Local Planning Panel meeting held on 17 September 2026.
Key facts from the minutes
- The panel refused DA.2026.24 for an eight-storey, 27-room co-living development at 64 Wentworth Road, Burwood.
- The 64 Wentworth Road site was recorded as 323.4 square metres against an 800-square-metre minimum for co-living housing, a shortfall of 476.6 square metres or 59.6 per cent.
- Waste servicing, basement access and commercial vehicle access were among the refusal reasons.
- A Section 4.55(2) modification at 106-108 Wentworth Road was approved after the earlier 15 April 2026 refusal was revoked, subject to conditions.
- A two-lot Torrens Title subdivision at 58 Waratah Street, Croydon Park, was approved subject to conditions, with a variation to the minimum street-frontage standard accepted.
- The minutes record unanimous outcomes for all three matters.
Why it matters
- The decisions show different outcomes for development applications and planning-standard variations. The panel refused the 64 Wentworth Road proposal after finding that its lot-size justification, waste servicing, access and amenity arrangements were not satisfactory, but approved a residential-flat-building modification in Burwood and a frontage variation for the Croydon Park subdivision, both subject to conditions.