Housing & planning · Central Coast Council
Forresters Beach rooftop terrace plan refused over visual dominance and neighbour noise
The Central Coast Local Planning Panel unanimously rejected the proposed changes at 1 Yumbool Close, including an enlarged bedroom, rooftop terrace and south-west retaining wall.
Reporting from public council minutes. How this article was prepared
A proposed redesign at 1 Yumbool Close, Forresters Beach, has been refused after the Central Coast Local Planning Panel found the dwelling’s rooftop terrace and access staircase would create a visually dominant form when viewed from the street.
The panel voted unanimously, 4-0, on 17 September to refuse the Section 4.55 modification to the approved dwelling, swimming pool and retaining-wall development. The application also involved the demolition of the existing dwelling and swimming pool, with retention of a northern retaining wall and terrace.
In its recorded reasons, the panel said the proposal was not of “minimal environmental impact” and was inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone because it failed to maintain the desired future character of the locality.
The panel said the overall height, bulk, façade articulation and rooftop terrace made the building appear to exceed the intended two-storey character. It also said the terrace and access staircase did not respond adequately to the streetscape and detracted from the established and desired character of the area.
An enlarged Bedroom 1 failed to meet the minimum side setback under the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022. The panel said the reduced building separation gave rise to unreasonable amenity impacts.
It also found the elevated, unenclosed rooftop terrace was likely to cause unreasonable noise impacts for adjoining residential properties. The reasons refer to the potential for outdoor activities and gatherings to increase noise transmission and disturbance to neighbouring dwellings and private open-space areas.
The panel separately found that the proposed new retaining wall in the south-west corner was not the same, or substantially the same, development as the one previously approved. Objectors were to be notified of the decision.
The refusal applies to the modification recorded as DA/1974/2023/B, which sought changes to consent DA/1974/2023/A. The minutes do not state whether a revised proposal will be submitted or whether any review or appeal will follow.
What deserves a closer look
The recorded reasons address both the design's impacts on streetscape and residential amenity and whether the proposed retaining wall was the same or substantially the same development as previously approved.
The minutes describe likely or potential impacts from the submitted design. They do not establish that noise or other impacts occurred.
Questions for follow-up reporting
Whether the applicant will submit a revised proposal or pursue a review or appeal is not stated in the minutes.
The minutes do not specify what design changes, if any, would address the panel's concerns.
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 are for the Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel meeting held on 17 September 2026.
OFFICIAL Central Coast Council MINUTES of the Local Planning Panel Meeting Held remotely online via Teams Thursday 17 September 2026 Panel Members The Hon. Terry Sheahan Chairperson Greg Woodhams Panel Expert Heather Irish Panel Expert Julian Ardas Community Representative Central Coast Council Officers Attendance Emily Goodworth Section Manager, Development Assessment Services Jenny Tattam Senior Development Planner, Development Assessment Services Evert Grobbelaar Senior Development Planner, Development Assessment Services Emma Brown Senior Development Planner, Development Assessment Services Julie Terzoudis Senior Development Planner, Development
Minutes title and meeting details
Open original minutes ↗The proposal was not considered to be of minimal environmental impact and was inconsistent with the R2 Low Density Residential zone objectives because it failed to maintain the desired future character of the locality.
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 rooftop terrace and access staircase were described as creating a visually dominant form, and the proposal was described as failing to retain the appearance of a two-storey building when viewed from the street.
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.
Item 2.2, reasons c-d
Open original minutes ↗The proposed increase to Bedroom 1 failed to comply with the minimum side setback and gave rise to unreasonable amenity impacts.
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, reason e
Open original minutes ↗The elevated, unenclosed rooftop terrace was likely to result in unreasonable noise impacts on adjoining residential properties.
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.
Item 2.2, reason f
Open original minutes ↗The proposed south-west retaining wall was not the same or substantially the same development as the development previously approved.
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, reason g
Open original minutes ↗The decision was recorded as unanimous, with a 4-0 vote, 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, resolution 2, reasons for decision and voting
Open original minutes ↗Source record
Reporting from the public minutes of the Central Coast Local Planning Panel meeting held on 17 September 2026.
Key facts from the minutes
- The Panel refused the Section 4.55 modification application for 1 Yumbool Close, Forresters Beach, on 17 September 2026.
- The refusal reasons included a visually dominant form, failure to retain the appearance of a two-storey building and inconsistency with the R2 Low Density Residential zone objectives.
- The enlarged Bedroom 1 failed to meet the minimum side setback under the Central Coast Development Control Plan 2022.
- The Panel said the elevated, unenclosed rooftop terrace was likely to cause unreasonable noise impacts on adjoining residential properties.
- The proposed south-west retaining wall was not considered the same or substantially the same development as the previously approved development.
- The decision was recorded as unanimous, 4-0.
Why it matters
- The ruling rejects the submitted design for a residential site at 1 Yumbool Close, with the panel citing its streetscape appearance, side setback, likely rooftop-terrace noise and the proposed south-west retaining wall’s departure from the previously approved development.