Housing & planning · Central Coast Council
North Gosford co-living plan refused over 800m² lot-size rule and drainage easement
The Central Coast Local Planning Panel rejected DA/234/2026 for 76 Hills Street after finding the proposed 116m² variation to the co-living standard was not justified and adequate drainage had not been demonstrated without an easement, for which written consent had not been provided.
Reporting from public council minutes. How this article was prepared
A proposed co-living development and demolition of existing structures at 76 Hills Street, North Gosford, has been refused after the Central Coast Local Planning Panel rejected a variation to the 800-square-metre minimum lot-size standard. The vote was unanimous, 4-0.
The panel said the application did not comply with the standard applying to co-living in an R1 General Residential zone. Its written request sought a variation of 116 square metres, or 14.5 per cent, but did not demonstrate that compliance was unreasonable or unnecessary, or that there were sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation.
Drainage was a separate obstacle. The panel said the proposal had not demonstrated that the land could be adequately drained without an easement across 41A Dwyer Street. It also recorded that written consent had not been provided by the property’s owner or owners for a 1.5-metre-wide easement benefiting 76 Hills Street.
Other reasons cited in the minutes included inadequate information about earthworks and retaining structures, waste collection, on-site stormwater, landscaping, internal amenity, overshadowing, lighting, safety and site management. The panel also found the application unsatisfactory under the Gosford City Centre Development Control Plan 2018 and contrary to the public interest.
The refusal was made under section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. External referral bodies are to be notified. The minutes do not state whether the applicant intends to revise the proposal, submit a new application or pursue a review or appeal.
What deserves a closer look
The refusal involved two distinct problems recorded by the panel: the applicant did not justify the proposed departure from the minimum lot-size standard, and adequate drainage had not been demonstrated without an easement for which written consent had not been provided.
The minutes record the refusal and notification requirement but do not record any later application, appeal, review or applicant response.
Questions for follow-up reporting
Will the applicant revise or resubmit the proposal?
Has written consent for the proposed drainage easement since been obtained from the owner or owners of 41A Dwyer Street?
Will any review or appeal be lodged against the refusal?
What happens next
External referral bodies 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 panel refused DA/234/2026 for co-living at 76 Hills Street, North Gosford under section 4.16(1) of the EP&A Act.
Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel Minutes 17 September 2026 Page 10 OFFICIAL 2.4 DA/234/2026 - 76 Hills Street, Gosford North - Co-Living Housing Development & Demolition of Existing Structures Item 2.4 - DA/234/2026 - 76 Hills Street, Gosford North - Co-Living Housing Development & Demolition of Existing Structures Site Inspected Yes, by Virtual Site Inspection Relevant Considerations As per Council assessment report Materials Considered • Documentation with application • Council assessment report Council Recommendation Refuse Central Coast Local Planning Panel Decision: 1. That Development Application No. DA/234/2026 at 76 Hills Street, North Gosford for Co-Living, be REFUSED pursuant to section 4.16(1) of the EP&A Act for the following reasons: 2. a.
Item 2.4, panel decision
Open original minutes ↗The applicable minimum lot-size standard for co-living in an R1 General Residential zone was 800 square metres. The request to vary it by 116 square metres, or 14.5 per cent, did not demonstrate that compliance was unreasonable or unnecessary or that sufficient environmental planning grounds justified the variation.
The proposal does not comply with the provisions of section 69 (1) (b) (ii) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 which prescribes a Minimum Lot Size Development Standard of 800m2 for Co-living in a R1 General Residential Zone. b. The written request to vary the prescribed lot size by 116m2 / 14.5% under Section 5.28 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts-Regional) 2021 has not demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention of the development standard.
Item 2.4, refusal reasons (a)-(b)
Open original minutes ↗Adequate drainage had not been demonstrated without an easement across 41A Dwyer Street, and written consent for a 1.5-metre-wide drainage easement benefiting 76 Hills Street had not been provided.
c. The application has not had adequate regard for the relevant provisions of Chapter 5 - State Environmental Planning Policy (Precincts- Regional) 2021. d. The proposal fails to demonstrate how the land can be adequately drained without the benefit of an easement across another property so as not to impact on adjacent land at 41A Dwyer Street (Lot 26 Sec A DP 1591). e. Consent in writing has not been provided from the owner/s of 41A Dwyer Street granting their concurrence to the creation of an easement to drain water 1.5m wide within their property to benefit the subject development site (Lot 25 Sec A DP 1591, No 76 Hills Street).
Item 2.4, refusal reasons (d)-(e)
Open original minutes ↗The development was considered unsatisfactory under the Gosford City Centre Development Control Plan 2018, and insufficient information was submitted about earthworks, retaining structures, waste collection, stormwater, landscaping, internal amenity, overshadowing, lighting, safety and site management.
f. The proposed development is unsatisfactory regarding the Gosford City Centre Development Control Plan 2018. g. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate the following Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel Minutes 17 September 2026 Page 11 OFFICIAL potential impacts: i. the proposed earthworks and required retaining structures ii. proposed waste management collection practices iii. proposed stormwater management on site iv. landscaping on site, including deep soil and street trees v. internal amenity impacts relating to the common living and open space areas vi. overshadowing impacts within the development and to adjoining properties vii. lighting, safety (CPTED) and site management (POM).
Item 2.4, refusal reasons (f)-(g)
Open original minutes ↗The proposal was considered contrary to the public interest, external referrals were to be notified of the panel's decision, and the vote was recorded as unanimous at 4-0.
h. Pursuant to Section 4.15(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposal is contrary to the public interest. 2. 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). 3 MEETING CLOSURE The next Local Planning Panel is scheduled for 22 October 2026.
Item 2.4, refusal reason (h), notification direction and voting
Open original minutes ↗Source record
This report is based on the public minutes of the Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel meeting held on 17 September 2026.
Key facts from the minutes
- The application, DA/234/2026, concerned co-living housing and demolition of existing structures at 76 Hills Street, North Gosford.
- The panel refused the application under section 4.16(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
- The recorded minimum lot-size standard was 800 square metres; the requested variation was 116 square metres, or 14.5 per cent.
- The panel said adequate drainage had not been demonstrated without an easement across 41A Dwyer Street, and written consent for that easement had not been provided.
- The refusal was recorded as unanimous, 4-0.
Why it matters
- The refusal prevents the 76 Hills Street application considered by the panel from proceeding in that form. The minutes identify the lot-size variation, drainage arrangement and several information gaps as problems with this application.