Date

6 January 2020

Development application DA2019/0644 for 88-92 Botany Street, Carlton was lodged. It was for demolition works, alterations to an existing building, change of use from a nursing home to a place of public worship, associated community meeting rooms, car parking, landscaping and associated works.
 
Council engaged an independent planner to assess the DA before it went to the Local Planning Panel.

16 December 2021

The Local Planning Panel refused the DA.
             
The reasons were: 

  1. The development does not meet the R2 Zone objectives pursuant to the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environment Plan 2012 particularly in terms of the provision of a high level of amenity.  

2. The development does not meet the R2 Zone objectives pursuant to the provisions of the Georges River Local Environment Plan 2021 particularly in terms of the provision of a high level of amenity.  

3. The development is inconsistent with the intended desired future character of the locality as provided for under the relevant planning controls as the development is now prohibited.  

• a) Amenity impacts on neighbouring properties  
• b) Traffic and parking impacts  
• c) Acoustic impacts  
• d) Hours of operation  
   

5. It has not been adequately demonstrated that the intensity of the use can be appropriately managed, in order to mitigate adverse amenity impacts. 

17 December 2021      

The applicant filed an appeal to the Land and Environment Court.

19 July 2022                   

The applicant was granted leave by the Court to amend the DA.

17 August 2022             

A hearing before a Commissioner of the LEC found that the amended DA met all relevant development standards under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012, Hurstville Development Control Plan No 1 and other issues raised by Council during the appeal in its Statement of Facts and Contentions. 

6 September 2022       

Having found that there were no reasons to refuse the appeal, the Court granted development consent subject to conditions. The Court gave reasons in a judgment: Hurstville Community Centre Incorporated v Georges River Council [2022] NSWLEC 1468

Date

The details of the offence showed that Nasscon had: 

• a) undertaken development not in accordance with the approved plans and supporting documentation by carrying out excessive, contrary to architectural plans identified in the Consent; 

• b) commenced works, including demolition, without first submitting a Construction Traffic Management Plan;  

• c) failed to provide demolition and work plans as well as a written safety statement prepared by a suitably qualified person to the Principal Certifier prior to the commencement of works; 

• d)  failed to provide Council and the Principal Certifier with a dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer prior to the commencement of works; 

• e) failed to provide the Principal Certifier with a report or certification from a practicing structural engineer, explaining how the building elements are to be retained, supported, and not undermined prior to the commencement of works; and  

• f)  failed to immediately notify Council and the Principal Certifier of any new information that came to light during demolition or construction works, which had the potential to alter previous conclusions such as the structural integrity of buildings. 

26 November 2025      

Hearing was listed and Nasscon initially pleaded not guilty to the charge.  A plea of guilty was entered when the hearing was set to take place and, instead, a hearing on sentence took place.

12 December 2025

After reserving judgment, sentence was handed down with Nasscon convicted, fined $12,000 and ordered to pay Council’s costs of $15,000.