Housing & planning · Central Coast Council
Four Central Coast projects refused, including North Avoca restaurant and Warnervale childcare centre
The Local Planning Panel recorded unanimous refusals for proposals at sites in North Avoca, Forresters Beach, Warnervale and North Gosford.
Reporting from public council minutes. How this article was prepared
Four proposed developments across the Central Coast have been refused, with the Local Planning Panel recording unanimous 4-0 votes on applications for a North Avoca restaurant, a Forresters Beach home modification, a Warnervale childcare centre and North Gosford co-living housing.
At 15/21-23 North Avoca Parade, the panel refused a licensed restaurant and cafe application. Its reasons included missing Body Corporate consent, a finding that the proposal was not substantially the same development as originally approved, possible adverse effects on residential amenity and insufficient information about noise, parking and toilet facilities.
The panel also refused a Section 4.55 modification application for 1 Yumbool Close, Forresters Beach. The proposal involved a dwelling, swimming pool, retaining walls and a terrace. The recorded reasons included a finding that the proposal was not of minimal environmental impact, inconsistency with the R2 Low Density Residential zone objectives, the visual effect of the roof terrace and staircase, a built form presenting as more than two storeys, a side-setback breach, potential noise from the elevated terrace and a new retaining wall that was not considered the same or substantially the same development as the approved works.
At 23-35 Albert Warner Drive, Warnervale, a proposed childcare centre was refused after the panel found it conflicted with requirements to retain trees and vegetation and failed to address biodiversity avoidance and minimisation requirements. The reasons also referred to the site's RE1 public open-space zoning, the Childcare Planning Guideline, privacy, noise, traffic, stormwater, sewer, access and waste-servicing issues.
The North Gosford co-living proposal at 76 Hills Street was refused over a minimum lot-size issue, an inadequate justification for varying that standard, drainage and easement problems, and insufficient information about earthworks, waste, stormwater, landscaping, internal amenity, overshadowing, lighting, safety and site management. The minutes say external referral bodies are to be notified. The next panel meeting was scheduled for 22 October 2026.
Each application was considered following a virtual site inspection and review of application documentation and a council assessment report. Submissions were also listed among the materials considered for North Avoca and Forresters Beach. The minutes record the panel's decisions and reasons; they do not say whether any applicant will revise or resubmit a proposal.
What deserves a closer look
The refusals include both substantive planning concerns and gaps in information, including noise, drainage, traffic and servicing matters. The minutes do not establish whether any applicant will submit a revised proposal.
The Warnervale refusal records a direct conflict between the proposed childcare centre and requirements concerning tree and vegetation retention, park use, biodiversity and RE1 public open-space objectives.
Questions for follow-up reporting
Will any of the four applicants lodge a revised application or pursue a statutory review or appeal?
What changes, if any, would be proposed for the Warnervale site given the recorded vegetation-retention and park-use requirements?
Can the North Gosford proposal address drainage without an easement across 41A Dwyer Street?
What happens next
External referral bodies are to be notified as directed in the North Avoca, Warnervale and North Gosford decisions.
The minutes list 22 October 2026 as the scheduled date of the next Local Planning Panel meeting.
Check the record
These passages were matched to the source text. Read them in context in the original minutes.
The panel refused the licensed restaurant/cafe application at 15/21-23 North Avoca Parade. Reasons included missing Body Corporate consent and a finding that the proposed modification was not substantially the same development as originally approved.
Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel Minutes 17 September 2026 Page 3 OFFICIAL 2 REPORTS 2.1 DA/2004/2024/A - 15/21-23 North Avoca Parade, North Avoca - Proposed Licensed Restaurant Item 2.1 - DA/2004/2024/A - 15/21-23 North Avoca Parade, North Avoca - Proposed Licensed Restaurant Site Inspected Yes, by Virtual Site Inspection Relevant Considerations As per Council assessment report Materials Considered • Documentation with application • Council assessment report • Submissions Council Recommendation Refuse Central Coast Local Planning Panel Decision: 1. That Development Application No. DA/2004/2024/A for Food & Drink Premises (Licensed Restaurant/Cafe) at 15/21-23 North Avoca Parade, North Avoca be REFUSED pursuant to section 4.16(1) of the EP&A Act for the following reasons: a. The application is not accompanied by consent of the Body Corporate and has therefore not been properly made. b. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant matters for consideration under Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is considered to be unsatisfactory. c. The consent authority is not satisfied that the proposed modification is substantially the same development as originally approved pursuant to Section 4.55(2)(a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
Item 2.1, DA/2004/2024/A, decision and refusal reasons
Open original minutes ↗The proposal may cause unreasonable adverse impacts on residential neighbours, and insufficient information was provided about noise, the parking shortfall and toilet facilities.
e. The proposal may result in unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of residential neighbours. f. Insufficient information has been provided in regard to potential noise impacts. g. Insufficient information has been provided to address and manage the car parking shortfall and its associated impacts. h. Insufficient information has been provided regarding adequate toilet facilities.
Item 2.1, refusal reasons e–h
Open original minutes ↗The minutes direct notification of external referrals, record agreement with the assessment report's refusal reasons and record a unanimous 4-0 vote.
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 2.1, notification, reasons for decision and voting, before the Item 2.2 heading
Open original minutes ↗The stated reasons for refusal of the Section 4.55 modification application at 1 Yumbool Close, Forresters Beach include a finding that it was not of minimal environmental impact, inconsistency with R2 zone objectives and the visually dominant roof terrace and staircase.
That Section 4.55 Application for modification to Consent No. DA/1974/2023/A for a Dwelling, Inground Swimming Pool & Retaining Walls Including Demolition of Existing Dwelling & Swimming Pool with Retention of Northern Retaining Wall & Terrace (Amended Application), at 1 Yumbool Close, Forresters Beach, be REFUSED pursuant to section 4.16(1) of the EP&A Act for the following reasons: a. 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. 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.
Item 2.2, modification decision and refusal reasons a–c
Open original minutes ↗The proposed development would not retain a two-storey appearance from the street, the Bedroom 1 increase breached the minimum side setback and the rooftop terrace was likely to cause unreasonable noise impacts.
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. 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, refusal reasons d–f
Open original minutes ↗The proposed new south-west retaining wall was not considered the same or substantially the same development as previously approved. The minutes record a unanimous 4-0 vote.
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. 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, refusal reason g and voting
Open original minutes ↗The panel refused the childcare application at 23-35 Albert Warner Drive, Warnervale. Reasons included conflict with tree and vegetation retention requirements, failure to address biodiversity avoidance and minimisation requirements, and inconsistency with RE1 public open-space and environmental objectives.
Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel Minutes 17 September 2026 Page 7 OFFICIAL 2.3 DA/434/2026 - 23-35 Albert Warner Drive, Warnervale - Proposed Child care Centre Item 2.3 - 23-35 Albert Warner Drive, Warnervale - Proposed Childcare Centre Site Inspected Yes, by Virtual Site Inspection Relevant Considerations As per Council assessment report Materials Considered • Documentation with application • Council assessment report • Council Memo dated 16 September 2026 • Council Memo dated 17 September 2026 Council Recommendation Refuse Central Coast Local Planning Panel Decision: 1. That Development Application No. DA/434/2026 for a Childcare Centre, at 23-35 Albert Warner Drive, be REFUSED pursuant to section 4.16(1) of the EP&A Act for the following reasons: a. The proposal is inconsistent with Condition 5.14 of DA/1894/2023 in which all trees and vegetation on the site are required to be retained and the use of the site as a park and its revegetation, in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan, is essential to the avoidance and minimisation of impacts on biodiversity. b. The proposal fails to address the avoid and minimise requirements of Section 6.3(a) of the Biodiveristy Conservation Act 2016. c. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives for the RE1 zone in CCLEP 2022 which seek to provide land for public open space and recreational purposes and to protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.
Item 2.3, DA/434/2026, decision and refusal reasons a–c
Open original minutes ↗The proposed development failed to comply with the Childcare Planning Guideline 2021.
d. The application has failed to address the requirements of section 3.2(1) & (2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Sustainable Buildings) 2022. e. The proposed development fails to comply with the requirements of the Childcare Planning Guideline 2021.
Item 2.3, refusal reason e
Open original minutes ↗Source record
Reporting from Central Coast Council's official minutes of the Central Coast Local Planning Panel meeting held on 17 September 2026.
Key facts from the minutes
- The Central Coast Local Planning Panel refused four applications on 17 September 2026.
- The North Avoca restaurant application was refused partly because Body Corporate consent was not provided and information about noise, parking and toilet facilities was insufficient.
- The Forresters Beach modification was refused over environmental-impact, built-form, setback, noise and retaining-wall concerns.
- The Warnervale childcare proposal was refused over vegetation retention, biodiversity, zoning, amenity, traffic and servicing issues.
- The North Gosford co-living proposal was refused over lot size, drainage, easement and other design and site-management concerns.
- All four decisions were recorded as unanimous 4-0 votes.
Why it matters
- The refusals identify planning, environmental, amenity and servicing issues with the four applications. The minutes do not identify whether applicants will revise or resubmit their proposals.