13-apartment Coogee development refused over design, flooding and amenity concerns

A 13-apartment shop-top housing proposal at 209-215 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee, has been refused after the Randwick Local Planning Panel found the design failed several planning and apartment-design requirements.

DA/643/2026 proposed demolishing the existing buildings and constructing a part five- to six-storey development with roof terraces, four retail tenancies fronting Coogee Bay Road and basement parking. It was lodged as integrated development involving WaterNSW, infill affordable housing and a proposed variation to the building-height standard.

The panel found the proposal did not satisfy SEPP (Housing) 2021 and Apartment Design Guide requirements covering the desired future character of the precinct, deep-soil zones, visual privacy, natural ventilation, and apartment size and layout.

It also found the application inconsistent with provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Randwick Development Control Plan 2025. The cited issues included local character, landscaping and biodiversity, waste management, transport, traffic and parking, mechanical parking devices, water management, setbacks and local-centre development.

The panel said the application had not adequately demonstrated that the proposed earthworks were acceptable, noting flooding impacts in the proposed basement and car lift. It also found unacceptable impacts relating to internal building amenity and the surrounding locality, and insufficient consideration of infrastructure beneath the site. The site was not considered suitable for the extent of development sought.

The application is already the subject of a deemed refusal in the Land and Environment Court, and statements of facts and contentions have been issued. The panel encouraged the applicant to enter into without-prejudice discussions with Randwick Council before any Section 34 Conference.

Those discussions could address lightwells and apartment layouts, waste-bin movements, planting on the front façade, structural loading and maintenance. Any future proposal or court process will need to address the panel’s refusal reasons and the issues raised in Council’s statements of facts and contentions.

Panel member Stephen Davies left before the item was considered after declaring an actual conflict because his firm had prepared the site’s Heritage Assessment. He did not participate in the review, discussion or determination. The refusal was carried unanimously.