Coogee housing refusal leaves court case and redesign unresolved

The Randwick Local Planning Panel has refused a part five- to six-storey development with 13 apartments, four retail tenancies and basement parking at 209-215 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee. The application is already subject to a deemed refusal in the Land and Environment Court, leaving the court case and any redesign unresolved.

The unanimous refusal covers DA/643/2026, which proposed demolishing the existing buildings and constructing shop-top housing with roof terraces. It was an integrated development involving WaterNSW, infill affordable housing and a proposed variation to the building-height standard.

The panel found the application failed to satisfy provisions of SEPP (Housing) 2021, the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Randwick Development Control Plan 2025. Its concerns included the desired future character of Coogee, deep-soil zones, visual privacy, natural ventilation, apartment size and layout, setbacks, landscaping, waste management, water management, transport, traffic and parking.

It also found the proposal did not adequately demonstrate that its earthworks were acceptable, noting flooding impacts in the proposed basement and car lift. The panel said the likely impacts on the building’s internal amenity and the surrounding locality were unacceptable, and that infrastructure beneath the site had not been sufficiently considered.

The submitted design cannot proceed as approved. Further planning and court activity remains possible as the applicant continues pursuing development of the site.

The panel noted that the Land and Environment Court matter involved a deemed refusal and issued statements of facts and contentions, known as SOFACs. It encouraged the applicant to hold without-prejudice discussions with Randwick Council before any Section 34 Conference.

The discussions are to address the floor-space ratio and affordable-housing provisions, larger western lightwells and redesigned apartments, waste-bin arrangements, and whether planting on the front façade can be supported structurally and maintained.

Panel member Stephen Davies declared an actual conflict because his firm prepared the site’s Heritage Assessment. He left the matter and did not participate in its review, discussion or determination.