This matters because Hastings Street is not just an ordinary hall. It has an extensive history. A history about the use of the site. A history that was already contentious long before the current proposal arrived.
This was not a short-lived dispute. Hastings Street appears to have remained a contentious site from 2005 through to at least 2012, with repeated Council debate and an ERD Court process forming part of that history.
Yet when Council was asked to approve Hastings Street in November 2025, that fuller history was not squarely put before councillors.
Instead, Item 9.3 reduced the site to a brief line: the hall was formerly a kindergarten before becoming a community centre in 2011.
That is the problem.
This was not a blank site.
Hastings Street was not even a fresh site choice.
It was the former Seaford Kindergarten. Its future had already been fought over. There had already been dispute about what the site should be used for, whether it should be sold, demolished, retained or repurposed, and whether the claimed case for keeping it stacked up.
That matters because this was not just historical colour, it was the kind of history councillors should have had in front of them when asked to approve another significant change in use, and they did not.
The November 2025 report asked Council to approve the Community Food Hub at Hastings Street Hall, approve in-kind council support, note relocation of two existing user groups, and note that the sale of food and proposed building changes would trigger a Development Application.
The report also presented Hastings Street as a
Council was asked to approve what is effectively a small supermarket in a suburban setting, but without being given the site’s fuller and contested history.
This is why this choice mattered, And that is why Councillors needed the site’s fuller history clearly and plainly put before them, and this did not occur.
The report says the Social Supermarket Program tender was released in late September 2025 and closed on 2 November 2025.
Council did not consider the matter until 11 November 2025.
So by the time councillors were asked to vote, the tender had already been lodged.That means councillors were not deciding at the true front end.
By then, the proposal already had momentum:
That is a governance issue in itself. If Hastings Street was truly the site Council needed to choose, good governance would ordinarily expect that choice to come to Council before the external bid was lodged, not after.
That is one of the obvious unanswered questions.
The report shows scoping work began in early 2025. Community and sector engagement occurred between July and August 2025. By the time the tender was released in late September, that scoping was already being finalised.
So the real question is not just when Council approved Hastings Street, it is when administration had already settled on Hastings Street as the working preferred site.
Because by the time councillors saw the report, the site had already been inspected, the layout had already been worked through, the partners had already been assembled, and the tender had already been submitted.
That suggests the real site selection occurred earlier, during the administrative process, before Council was ever asked to decide.
That is why tonight’s meeting matters.
Since the November decision, nearby residents have only later been drawn into the process through the Development Application stage. An information session has now been held. The matter returns to Council only after the wider public around the site has begun to understand what is proposed.
So the deeper public contest about Hastings Street has emerged only after the key in-principle site decision was already made.
That sequence is backwards.
A site with an extensive and contested history was presented without that fuller history.
A recommendation was brought forward after the tender process had already advanced. And the broader public around the site only became properly engaged through the later DA stage.
That is not sound governance practice.
Council’s Recreation Facilities and Services Strategy reportedly identified underused community facilities and recommended usage auditing. In June 2005, Council’s Land Assessment Group reportedly advised the Seaford Kindergarten building was surplus to requirements, not needed by Community Services, and costly to upgrade.
After Council moved toward sale, community opposition emerged. Residents reportedly opposed disposal and instead argued for either demolition or lease as a childcare facility. The future use of the site was therefore contested from an early stage. During this period, demolition cost estimates were also disputed.
The justification for retaining the building shifted toward community use, linked to claims that the Seaford/Moana Neighbourhood Centre needed more space. That claimed need was challenged by residents, who argued nearby facilities were underused, costs were understated, and decision-makers were not being given a complete picture. The matter reportedly returned to Council many times, proceeded through development approval and ERD Court processes, and by November 2012 had become the subject of detailed public criticism about need, utilisation, cost and informed decision-making.
Item 9.3 later reduced that history to a brief statement that the hall was formerly a kindergarten before becoming a community centre in 2011.
Council approved detailed food security investigations in 2023. In early 2025, DHS funding was obtained to scope a potential social supermarket in Seaford or surrounding areas. Item 9.3 says that work identified Seaford and surrounds as the preferred area of need.
DHS released the Social Supermarket Program tender, with funding for five social supermarkets through to June 2030.
Item 9.3 proposed Hastings Street Hall as the Community Food Hub site in partnership with The Food Centre and Good Shepherd. It said the partners were identified through an informal sector call out, that proposed modifications had been identified, and that two existing user groups would need to be relocated.
Item 9.3 states the tender had already been submitted before Council considered the matter, because applications closed on 2 November 2025.
Council approved establishment of the Community Food Hub at Hastings Street Hall, approved about $35,700 in year-one in-kind support, noted ongoing support to June 2030, noted relocation of two existing user groups, and noted that sale of food and proposed modifications would trigger a Development Application.
Nearby residents were directly notified of the DA after Council had already approved the concept and site.
An information session was held regarding the proposed development at Hastings Street Hall.
The matter returns to Council by Notice of Motion seeking a further report after the engagement and DA process, including resident feedback, traffic, deliveries, anti-social behaviour risks, and alternative locations.
This is not an argument against helping people facing food insecurity.
It is an argument for proper administrative practice and proper oversight.
Councillors should have been given the fuller history of Hastings Street before being asked to approve it.
They should have been asked to decide before the tender process was already underway.
And the public around the site should not have been left to become meaningfully engaged only through the later DA process.
Hastings Street was not a blank site.
The report treated it like one.
2 Likes
FEB 26
MAR 11
3
MAR 11
2
1
MAR 23
2
MAR 19
MAR 24
MAR 27
FEB 27
Twenty Years of Persistence. Nine Years Online.More disciplined. More precise. More effective.
FEB 20
FEB 3
© 2026 Onkaparinga Council Watch · Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start your SubstackGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture
