Randwick panel backs Maroubra home, rejects Coogee co-living review

Randwick City Council’s Local Planning Panel has approved a three-storey dwelling house at 34 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra, and refused a Section 8.2 review application for 171 Arden Street, Coogee. The panel met electronically on 14 May 2026.

At 34 Mermaid Avenue, the panel accepted the applicant’s written request to vary the height of buildings standard in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. It found compliance with the standard was unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances and that there were sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation.

Consent was granted for demolition of the existing building and structures and construction of a three-storey dwelling house with basement parking, storage and plant rooms, a foyer, a swimming pool within the front setback, excavation, landscaping and associated works. The panel also amended condition 2 so the ground and first-floor balcony setback must be reduced so that no part projects forward of the orange marked line shown on the plans.

The panel said the Maroubra proposal was consistent with the objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. It said the scale and design were suitable for the site, compatible with the desired future character of the locality and consistent with the objectives of the R2 zone.

The decision was carried unanimously.

At 171 Arden Street, Coogee, the panel refused a review application for an eight-room co-living development. The proposal involved partial demolition of internal and external walls, construction of new internal and external walls to create new rooms and retention of existing structures onsite.

The panel cited unresolved amenity and safety concerns, and said the proposal would set an undesirable precedent for inappropriate co-living development inconsistent with planning policies.

It also found the proposal did not provide the minimum required communal living area, communal open space, landscaped area or on-site car parking for co-living housing. The minutes also cite concerns about manager workspace, communal kitchen facilities and solar access, with no supporting solar analysis provided.

The refusal said the site’s suitability for the proposed co-living housing had not been adequately demonstrated because it did not comply with the minimum lot size standard. The panel also said unauthorised building works did not comply with the National Construction Code and Building Code of Australia, including deficiencies relating to stair safety, handrails, visibility of glazing and natural light to habitable rooms.

For Maroubra, the approved development can proceed subject to consent conditions. The Coogee review has been refused at panel level.