Wamberal co-living proposal refused over communal living area shortfall The Local Planning Panel voted 4:0 against converting 171 Ocean View Drive from a permanent group home to co-living housing, citing an undersized communal living area among 16 refusal reasons. 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 171 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal, from a permanent group home to co-living housing. The panel cited an undersized and poorly located communal living area, inadequate communal open space, the site’s accessible-area status, parking, landscaping, room-size, solar-access and building-compliance issues. The minutes do not state whether an appeal against this refusal has been lodged. KEY FACTS - The panel refused Development Application 1646/2025 for a change of use at 171 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal. - The panel found the proposal did not provide the minimum communal living area required under section 68(2)(b) of SEPP Housing. - The communal living area was described as undersized, not centrally located and accessible only by an external, uncovered path. - The panel also found the proposal lacked the required communal open space and had other compliance and design deficiencies. - The decision was unanimous, 4:0. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD - The minutes present the communal living area and outdoor communal open space as separate requirements, with deficiencies recorded for both. - The panel's reasons connect the communal-space and parking concerns to the existing group-home layout, rather than treating the proposal as a simple change of use. QUESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP REPORTING - Has the applicant lodged an appeal against the refusal? - Will the applicant submit a revised proposal involving changes to the building layout or room numbers? - What changes, if any, would be proposed to address the communal living and communal open-space deficiencies? SOURCE PASSAGES The Local Planning Panel meeting was held on 22 October 2026. "OFFICIAL Central Coast Council MINUTES of the Local Planning Panel Meeting Held remotely online via Teams Thursday 22 October 2026 Panel Members Heather Warton Chairperson Stacey Brodbeck Panel Expert David Crofts Panel Expert Robert Carter Community Representative Central Coast Council Staff Attendance Wayne Herd Section Manager, Building Assessment and Certification Nathan Burr Principal Development Planner Susana Machuca Senior Development Planner Briony Stiles Civic Support Team Leader Kylie Blakely Civic Support Officer Christie Bailey Civic Support Officer The Chairperson, Heather Warton, declared the meeting open at 12:01pm and advised" (Document title and meeting details) The Panel refused Development Application 1646/2025 for a change of use from a permanent group home to co-living housing at 171 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal. The same item also contains a DA/646/2025 reference. "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, heading and Panel Decision) The proposal did not provide the minimum communal living area required by section 68(2)(b) of SEPP Housing, and the applicant's clause 4.6 request did not establish grounds for the variation. Outdoor communal open space is a separate requirement. "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." (Reasons for refusal, item 2) The communal living area was undersized, not centrally located for all rooms and accessible via an external, uncovered perimeter path. "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. Access to the sole area requires occupants to walk along the perimeter external and uncovered path. 11. Car parking a. Besides being numerically non-compliant with the Housing SEPP requirement, the two tandem spaces cannot be used independently." (Reasons for refusal, item 10) The communal open space was undersized and fragmented, areas beside rooms would effectively be privatised, proximity to rooms would reduce privacy and create amenity impacts, and land outside the front boundary was shown as communal open space. "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." (Reasons for refusal, item 9) The proposal did not satisfy section 69(1)(c)(ii) of SEPP Housing because the land was not within an accessible area. "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." (Reasons for refusal, item 1) The proposal provided two tandem parking spaces, effectively one car space, instead of the four required under section 68(2)(e)(ii) of SEPP Housing 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 proposal did not provide the minimum landscaping required under section 68(2)(f) of SEPP Housing. "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." (Reasons for refusal, item 5) 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-ov-79689187b1/ 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.