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. Council: Central Coast Council Meeting: 17 Sept 2026, 12:00 pm Recorded status: rejected BRIEF The Central Coast Local Planning Panel unanimously refused a Section 4.55 modification for a dwelling, pool, retaining walls and rooftop terrace at 1 Yumbool Close, Forresters Beach. It cited the proposal’s visually dominant streetscape form, failure to retain a two-storey appearance, an enlarged bedroom’s non-compliant side setback, likely rooftop-terrace noise and a south-west retaining wall that was not substantially the same as the previously approved development. KEY FACTS - 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. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD - 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. RECORDED NEXT STEPS - Objectors are to be notified of the panel's decision. SOURCE PASSAGES 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) SOURCES https://docspublished.com.au/centralcoastcouncil/document/8f5ba49b-15e7-4f33-99db-0ccfd0876316 https://minutesradar.com/news/central-coast-infocouncil-local-planning-panel-thursday-17-september-2026-17-sept-2026-12-00-pm-minutes-forresters-beach-roof-terrace-and-r-afaa79cec0/ Prepared from public council minutes using automated drafting and checks. No meeting attendance or interviews are implied. Check the original record and seek comment before republishing claims or analysis. Illustrations are generic, not depictions of actual projects.