Housing & planning · Central Coast Council
Forresters Beach home plans refused over rooftop terrace, bulk and setback
The Central Coast Local Planning Panel voted 4-0 against amended plans for 1 Yumbool Close, citing a visually dominant form, a non-compliant Bedroom 1 setback and likely terrace noise.
Reporting from public council minutes. How this article was prepared
Amended plans for a dwelling, pool, retaining walls and rooftop terrace at 1 Yumbool Close, Forresters Beach, have been refused after the Central Coast Local Planning Panel found the proposal was not of minimal environmental impact and would create an unacceptable built-form outcome when viewed from the street.
The unanimous 4-0 decision concerned a Section 4.55 application to modify consent DA/1974/2023/A. The minutes record the application as DA/1974/2023/B and say it was refused under section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Panel reasons included inconsistency with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone and failure to maintain the locality’s desired future character. The proposed roof terrace and access staircase were described as visually dominant, while the overall height, bulk, façade articulation and terrace were found to exceed the intended two-storey character when viewed from the street.
The proposed increase to Bedroom 1 did not comply with the minimum side setback under clause 2.1.3.1(c) of the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022. The panel also said the elevated, unenclosed rooftop terrace was likely to cause unreasonable noise impacts for adjoining homes and private open-space areas by facilitating outdoor activities and gatherings.
A proposed new retaining wall in the south-west corner was found not to be the same as, or substantially the same as, the development previously approved. Objectors are to be notified. The minutes do not say whether the applicant will submit a revised proposal or pursue any review or appeal option.
What deserves a closer look
The minutes record a refusal of the amended proposal and do not establish whether a revised application, review or appeal will follow.
The rooftop-terrace noise finding is a forecast of likely impacts from the proposed design, not a report of measured noise or a confirmed disturbance.
Questions for follow-up reporting
Will the applicant lodge a revised proposal or seek a review or appeal?
If a revised proposal is submitted, will it change the rooftop terrace, Bedroom 1 setback or south-west retaining wall identified in the refusal reasons?
What happens next
Objectors are to be notified of the panel's decision.
Check the record
These passages were matched to the source text. Read them in context in the original minutes.
The minutes identify Item 2.2 as DA/1974/2023/B at 1 Yumbool Close, Forresters Beach.
The External Referral(s) be notified of the Panel's decision. Reasons for Decision: The Panel agreed with the reasons for refusal as outlined in the Council Assessment report. Voting Unanimous (4:0) Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel Minutes 17 September 2026 Page 5 OFFICIAL 2.2 DA/1974/2023/B - 1 Yumbool Close, Forresters Beach - Dwelling, Inground Swimming Pool & Retaining Walls Including Demolition of Existing Dwelling & Swimming Pool with Retention of Northern Retaining Wall & Terrace (Amended Application) Item 2.2 - DA/1974/2023/B - 1 Yumbool Close, Forresters Beach - Dwelling, Inground Swimming Pool & Retaining Walls Including Demolition
Item 2.2 heading
Open original minutes ↗The proposal was not considered to be of minimal environmental impact and was inconsistent with R2 Low Density Residential zone objectives because it failed to maintain the locality's desired future character.
The proposed development does not satisfy the requirements of Section 4.55(IA) as it is not considered to be of 'minimal environmental impact'. b. The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under the Central Coast Local Environmental Plan 2022, as it fails to maintain the desired future character of the locality.
Item 2.2, reasons a-b
Open original minutes ↗The cited concerns include a visually dominant form, failure to retain a two-storey appearance and a Bedroom 1 side-setback non-compliance.
c. The proposed development does not satisfactorily minimise adverse impacts on the public domain, resulting in an unacceptable built form outcome when viewed from the street. The roof terrace and access staircase of the development fail to adequately respond to the streetscape context, leading to a visually dominant form that detracts from the established and desired character of the locality, contrary to the provisions of the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022. Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel Minutes 17 September 2026 Page 6 OFFICIAL d. The proposed development fails to retain the appearance of a two‑storey building when viewed from the street. The overall height, bulk and façade articulation and introduction of a roof terrace present as a development exceeding the intended two‑storey character, resulting in a built form outcome that is inconsistent with the relevant controls and design intent of the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022 e. The proposed increase to Bedroom 1 fails to comply with the minimum side setback prescribed by Clause 2.1.3.1(c) of the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022. This non‑compliance reduces building separation and gives rise to unreasonable amenity impacts, resulting in a development that does not achieve an orderly and proper planning outcome.
Item 2.2, reasons c-e
Open original minutes ↗The proposed rooftop terrace was considered likely to cause unreasonable noise impacts on adjoining residential properties, and the proposed south-west retaining wall did not meet the requirement of being the same or substantially the same development as previously approved.
f. The proposed rooftop terrace is likely to result in unreasonable noise impacts on adjoining residential properties due to its elevated and unenclosed nature. The terrace would facilitate outdoor activities and gatherings, increasing the potential for noise transmission and disturbance to neighbouring dwellings and private open space areas, resulting in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. g. The proposed new retaining wall in the South West corner does not meet the requirement of being the same or substantially the same development for which consent was previously granted.
Item 2.2, reasons f-g
Open original minutes ↗The decision was recorded as unanimous at 4-0 and objectors were to be notified.
2. The objector(s) be notified of the Panel's decision. Reasons for Decision: The Panel agreed with the reasons for refusal as outlined in the Council Assessment report. Voting Unanimous (4:0).
Item 2.2, decision 2 and Reasons for Decision
Open original minutes ↗Source record
Reporting from the official Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel minutes for the meeting held on 17 September 2026.
Key facts from the minutes
- The panel refused the Section 4.55 modification at 1 Yumbool Close, Forresters Beach, to consent DA/1974/2023/A.
- The panel found the proposal was not of minimal environmental impact and was inconsistent with R2 Low Density Residential zone objectives.
- The recorded reasons cite visual bulk, failure to retain a two-storey appearance, a non-compliant Bedroom 1 side setback and likely rooftop-terrace noise impacts.
- The proposed new south-west retaining wall was found not to be the same as, or substantially the same as, the previously approved development.
- The decision was recorded as unanimous, 4-0, with objectors to be notified.
Why it matters
- The refusal addresses the proposed height, street appearance, Bedroom 1 setback, terrace activity and south-west retaining wall at a site beside residential properties. It applies to the amended proposal considered by the panel; the minutes do not state whether a revised proposal will follow.