Housing & planning · Central Coast Council
Wamberal co-living proposal refused over access and planning compliance
A 4:0 Local Planning Panel vote rejected the proposed change from a permanent group home to co-living housing at 171 Ocean View Drive, citing the site’s lack of an accessible-area status and several SEPP Housing breaches.
Reporting from public council minutes. How this article was prepared
A proposal to change the permanent group home at 171 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal, into co-living housing has been refused unanimously by Central Coast Council’s Local Planning Panel. The panel voted 4:0 on Development Application 1646/2025, with accessibility under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing) 2021 among the recorded grounds for refusal.
The reasons state that the land was not within an accessible area under section 69(1)(c)(ii) of the policy. The application also failed to provide the required communal living area and communal open space, landscaping, compliant private-room sizes and demonstrated solar access, according to the minutes.
Parking was another barrier. The proposal included two tandem spaces, which the panel said effectively amounted to one usable space, rather than the four spaces required for land outside an accessible area. The reasons also refer to the absence of a designated disability parking space and describe the proposed arrangement for moving vehicles when access was needed as impractical.
The panel said the building had been purpose-built for group-home use and that conversion to co-living housing would require changes to the built form and internal layout, as well as fewer rooms to address parking deficiencies. It also raised concerns about the size and location of communal areas, pedestrian and vehicle access, potential noise and amenity impacts, and the application’s treatment of the change from approved NDIS group-home accommodation to general co-living housing.
The minutes further state that the existing building does not have an occupation certificate and that the application did not establish the work needed to make it suitable for lawful residential occupation. They record the refusal and its reasons, but do not state whether the applicant has lodged an appeal or submitted a new application for the site.
What deserves a closer look
The recorded refusal rests on multiple statutory, design, operational and building-compliance grounds rather than accessibility alone.
The minutes distinguish the existing group-home design from the proposed co-living use and state that a successful conversion would require physical changes and fewer rooms.
The minutes do not record an appeal or subsequent application for DA 1646/2025.
Questions for follow-up reporting
Has the applicant lodged an appeal against the refusal of DA 1646/2025?
Has a further application been submitted for 171 Ocean View Drive, and if so, does it propose changes to the building layout or room numbers?
What work would be required for the existing building to obtain an occupation certificate?
Check the record
These passages were matched to the source text. Read them in context in the original minutes.
The Panel refused DA 1646/2025 for a change of use from a permanent group home 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
Open original minutes ↗The refusal reasons included the site not being within an accessible area under SEPP Housing and failures to provide the minimum required communal living area and communal open space.
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, statutory requirements 1 to 3
Open original minutes ↗The proposal included two tandem parking spaces, effectively one space, rather than four required spaces 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, statutory requirement 4
Open original minutes ↗The proposal did not meet minimum landscaping requirements, Rooms C, D and F exceeded the maximum private-room floor area, and minimum solar access to the communal living area had not been demonstrated.
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, statutory requirements 5 to 7
Open original minutes ↗There was no designated parking space for persons with a disability, and the proposed vehicle-moving arrangement involving an external manager was described as impractical.
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, car parking, paragraphs b and c
Open original minutes ↗Successful conversion to co-living housing would require physical changes to the built form and internal layout and fewer rooms to overcome parking deficiencies; these changes were not proposed.
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, site suitability, paragraph b
Open original minutes ↗The communal open space was described as undersized, fragmented and not centrally located, and the communal living area as 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, communal open space and communal living space
Open original minutes ↗The application inadequately assessed the social impacts of changing approved NDIS group-home accommodation to general co-living housing, had not considered noise attenuation, and had not adequately assessed pedestrian and vehicular access.
13. Social and amenity impacts The impacts including, but not limited to the following, have not been adequately addressed: a. The Application does not adequately assess the social impacts of changing the use of the approved NDIS group-home accommodation to general co-living housing. b. Even if the rooms will be occupied per persons with a disability, the support outcomes are not secured. c. The social and management consequences of the proposed change in occupancy model have not been satisfactorily addressed. I. The attenuation of noise given the potential increase in density and intensity of activity/movement on the site has not been considered. Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel Minutes 22 October 2026 Page 6 OFFICIAL II. The pedestrian and vehicular access to the site has not been adequately assessed given the nature of the dual carriageway road carrying high volumes of traffic and lack of available on-street car parking spaces.
Reasons for refusal, social and amenity impacts
Open original minutes ↗Source record
Reporting from Central Coast Council Local Planning Panel public minutes for the meeting held on 22 October 2026.
Key facts from the minutes
- The Local Planning Panel refused DA 1646/2025 for a change from permanent group-home use to co-living housing at 171 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal.
- The panel recorded a unanimous 4:0 decision.
- The reasons included the site’s lack of an accessible-area status under SEPP Housing and failures involving communal areas, parking, landscaping, room size and solar access.
- The minutes say the proposal included two tandem parking spaces, effectively one usable space, rather than four required spaces.
- The panel said the existing building had no occupation certificate and the application did not establish the works needed for lawful residential occupation.
Why it matters
- The refusal leaves the proposed change of use at 171 Ocean View Drive unapproved under DA 1646/2025. Any revised co-living proposal would need to address the accessibility, design, parking and building-compliance issues identified in the panel’s reasons.