Wamberal co-living proposal refused in unanimous 4-0 vote The Local Planning Panel rejected a proposed change at 171 Ocean View Drive from permanent group-home accommodation to co-living housing after finding the site failed several Housing SEPP requirements. Council: Central Coast Council Meeting: 22 October 2026 Recorded status: rejected BRIEF Central Coast Council’s Local Planning Panel unanimously refused a proposal to change the use of the permanent group home at 171 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal, to co-living housing. The panel cited accessibility, communal-area, parking, landscaping, room-size and solar-access deficiencies under the Housing SEPP, as well as unresolved issues with the existing building’s occupation certificate and suitability for lawful residential occupation. KEY FACTS - The Local Planning Panel refused the proposed change from permanent group-home accommodation to co-living housing at 171 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal. - The formal decision identifies the application as DA/1646/2025; an item-description line in the minutes refers to DA/646/2025. - The panel cited accessibility, communal living and open-space, parking, landscaping, room-size and solar-access deficiencies under the Housing SEPP. - The proposal included two tandem parking spaces, which the panel said effectively amounted to one usable space rather than the four required for land outside an accessible area. - The refusal was recorded as unanimous, 4:0. - The minutes do not state whether an appeal has been lodged. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD - The formal decision prints application number DA/1646/2025, while an item-description line prints DA/646/2025. The article reports both as printed and does not claim to resolve the discrepancy against an underlying application record. - The minutes distinguish this application from a separate confidential appeal concerning another development at Point Frederick, so no appeal status is inferred for the Wamberal proposal. - The article is based on the supplied minutes and does not independently verify the site conditions, planning calculations or vote. QUESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP REPORTING - Has an appeal or fresh application been lodged for the Wamberal proposal since the 22 October meeting? - What changes, if any, are proposed following the refusal to address the panel's stated parking, communal-area and building-compliance concerns? - What is the current occupation status of the existing building? RECORDED NEXT STEPS - Monitor for any appeal or subsequent application concerning the refused Wamberal proposal. - The next Local Planning Panel meeting is scheduled for 19 November 2026. SOURCE PASSAGES The formal decision refused Development Application No.1646/2025 for a change from group-home use to co-living housing at 171 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal. "Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel Minutes 22 October 2026 Page 3 OFFICIAL 2 REPORTS 2.1 DA/1646/2025 - 171 Ocean View Drive - Change of Use from Group Home (permanent) to Co Living Housing Item 2.1 DA/646/2025 for Change of Use from Group Home to Co Living Housing Site Inspected Yes, by Virtual Site Inspection Relevant Considerations As per Council assessment report Materials Considered • Documentation with application • Council assessment report • Submissions • Supplementary report - 22 October 2026 Council Recommendation Refuse Panel Decision: Development Application No.1646/2025 for change of use from Group Home to Co Living Housing at 171 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal is REFUSED subject to the reasons below and having regard to the matters for consideration detailed in Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979." (Item 2.1, Panel Decision) The refusal reasons identify the land as outside an accessible area, identify insufficient communal living area and communal open space under the Housing SEPP, and reject the applicant's clause 4.6 justification for departures from the communal-area standards. "Reasons for refusal Statutory requirements 1. The proposal does not satisfy section 69(1)(c)(ii) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 (SEPP Housing) because the land is not within an accessible area. Development Consent must not be granted. 2. The proposal does not provide the minimum required communal living area under the development standard in section 68(2)(b) of SEPP Housing. Communal living area does not include outdoor communal open space, which has a separate requirement. The Applicant's clause 4.6 written request does not demonstrate that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary or that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contraventions, and consent cannot be granted. 3. The proposal does not provide the minimum required communal open space under the development standard in section 68(2)(d) of SEPP Housing. The Applicant's clause 4.6 written request does not demonstrate that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary or that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contraventions, and consent therefore cannot be granted." (Reasons for refusal, items 1–3) The proposal provided two tandem parking spaces, described as effectively one space, rather than the four required under the Housing SEPP for land outside an accessible area. "Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel Minutes 22 October 2026 Page 4 OFFICIAL 4. The proposal provides 2 tandem car-parking spaces (which effectively is only one car space), instead of the 4 car spaces required by section 68(2)(e)(ii) of SEPP Housing for land outside an accessible area." (Reasons for refusal, item 4) The refusal reasons identify insufficient landscaping, rooms C, D and F exceeding the maximum private-room floor area, and a failure to demonstrate the minimum solar access to the communal living area. "No clause 4.6 written request has been provided seeking to vary the development standard and, accordingly, consent must not be granted. 5. The proposal does not provide the minimum landscaping requirements under the development standard in section 68(2)(f) of SEPP Housing. The Applicant's clause 4.6 written request does not demonstrate that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary or that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention, and consent therefore cannot be granted. 6. Rooms C, D and F exceed the maximum floor area for a private room under section 69(1)(a)(ii) of SEPP Housing. The Applicant's clause 4.6 written request does not demonstrate that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary or that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contraventions, and consent therefore cannot be granted. 7. The Application does not demonstrate that the minimum solar access to the communal living area consideration under section 69(2)(c) of SEPP Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 has been met." (Reasons for refusal, items 5–7) There was no designated parking space for persons with a disability. "b. There is no designated space for persons with a disability. c. The proposed management measure relying on an external manager to be contacted, and the car owner being asked to move a vehicle in order to access a vehicle parked in the car port car space, is impractical." (Reasons for refusal, item 11(b)) The refusal reasons describe the building as purpose-built for a different use and state that conversion to co-living housing would require changes to the built form and internal layout and fewer rooms to overcome parking deficiencies, none of which was proposed. "8. Suitability of the development for the site: a. The use as proposed is unsuitable for the site being incompatible with the existing building. The building was purpose-built for a different land use. Simple conversion to the new use, co-living housing, requires compliance with the requirements for that use under the Housing SEPP (see above) and cannot be achieved; as explained in these reasons for refusal. b. To successfully convert the site and building for co-living housing requires physical amendment to the built form, internal layout and reduction in room numbers (to overcome parking deficiencies), and this is not proposed." (Reasons for refusal, item 8) The panel described the existing building's siting and internal layout, designed for a permanent group home, as failing to meet the requirements for co-living housing. "The Panel understands the background to the proposal and that the building is already constructed. However, the siting and existing internal layout of the building designed as a permanent group home does not meet the requirements for use as co-living housing." (Reason for decision) The communal open space was undersized, fragmented and inconveniently located for residents' access, and the communal living area was undersized and not centrally located to all rooms. "9. Communal open space a. Besides being undersized, the communal open space is fragmented and is not centrally located in the context of convenient access by residents. b. By definition, co-living housing requires communal facilities. The space that directly adjoins individual rooms, a legacy of the previous design of the group home, will effectively be privatised and does not lend itself to communal use. c. The proximity to the adjoining rooms would reduce privacy for residents and create amenity impacts. The spaces are only accessible via an uncovered external pathway which requires occupants to walk past other rooms. d. The Landscape Plan shows land shaded as communal open space that is outside the front boundary of the site. 10. Communal living space Besides being undersized, the communal living area is not centrally located to all rooms in the context of convenient access by residents, which is also a legacy of the Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel Minutes 22 October 2026 Page 5 OFFICIAL design for the group home use." (Reasons for refusal, items 9–10) SOURCES https://docspublished.com.au/centralcoastcouncil/document/398fe309-753a-44b4-9e07-8e599c4773b5 https://minutesradar.com/news/central-coast-infocouncil-local-planning-panel-thursday-22-october-2026-22-oct-2026-12-00-pm-minutes-wamberal-co-living-proposal-refused-in-1bdb432a0b/ 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.