Council opens gate to Unley Oval fence plan
Unley Council will begin preparing design options for a permanent fence around Unley Oval for the first time in decades, despite some resident opposition to the plan.
The council last night passed a motion authorising its administration to proceed with the next stage of an investigation into establishing a perimeter fence around Unley Oval.
A fence around the oval was removed in the late 1980s when Sturt Football Club moved its home games to Adelaide Oval.
Sturt returned to Unley Oval at the start of the 1998 SANFL season after Port Adelaide was accepted into the AFL, and in a letter sent to residents at the time said it would put up temporary fencing for match days, noting then that permanent fencing was “not an option”.
Councillor Jane Russo brought the initial motion in April this year asking the council administration to develop a concept design and confirm the cost of installing a permanent fence around the sports field.
She said then that “the time is now” for a permanent fence to be installed, as Sturt Football Club spent about $30,000 a year on temporary fencing on match days at the Oval.
Much of the southern half of the oval is already enclosed by a fence, and it is expected the investigation would look at extending that from the existing grandstand building on Trimmer Terrace, along Frederick Street, and connect with the lawn tennis facilities on Langham Terrace.
In June, the council resolved to undertake a co-design process with the local community to gauge support for a permanent fence and identify community concerns and benefits.
This included a three-week consultation process during July, which generated 1409 responses via the city’s YourSay platform, 60 per cent of which were in favour of exploring the building of a permanent fence.
You might like
Of the 1409 responses, 846 (60 per cent) were City of Unley residents, and 41 per cent of those locals were supportive of the push to erect a permanent fence around Unley Oval, while 55 per cent indicated their opposition to the proposal.
Further, two petitions were received by the council at the August 2024 meeting – one in favour of progressing with the investigation into a fence and one against.
The petition in favour of the investigation received 1168 signatures, just 18.17 per cent of which were local Unley residents.
The petition against the investigation attracted 1200 signatures, of which 81.87 per cent were locals.
Unley Council has spent more than $4 million on Unley Oval upgrades in recent years, including two stages of the grandstand redevelopment and ground surface works. Photo: Tony Lewis/InDaily.
Despite the pushback against the investigation from local residents, the council resolved last night to push on with the investigation which has so far cost the city about $38,000 in staff time and resources.
Four councillors voted against the motion: Jennifer Bonham, Chris Crabbe, Georgie Hart and Rebekah Rogers.
Fence concept planning will now be undertaken including location, design, costings and access points.
Councillor Russo last night said that councillors were being asked to consider whether to proceed to the design phase of the project, rather than decide on whether or not to install a fence around the perimeter of the oval.
“There is still no fence, and even tonight there will still be no decision about a fence,” she said.
Stay informed, daily
“All that has been achieved to date is talk about a potential fence that is based on speculation.
“There are benefits to the broader community as Unley Oval is a regional facility, but there are community concerns that still need to be addressed about design, aesthetic, openings and costs.”
Russo said that those opposed to the investigation made up a small proportion of the total population of Unley: “Unley has a population of 38,641, and with 1409 survey submissions received, 60 per cent of these are City of Unley residents”.
“That’s only 2.2 per cent of the total Unley residents that had decided to participate in the survey,” she said.
“This demonstrates that Unley City residents are either not engaged, not interested, don’t see the importance, are not impacted, chose not to participate, or were not aware of the survey.”
Prior to debate on the motion, the council heard deputations from residents concerned about a fence.
Concerns ranged from the potential loss of access to Unley Oval – which is currently used by Sturt Football Club for no more than 20 days per year – and issues about safety for female users of the oval who might feel trapped without sufficient exit points.
This mirrored feedback received by the council during the July consultation process, where respondents were concerned about oval access, the impact on community enjoyment of the green space, whether it would be fair for ratepayers to stump up funds for the fence, and the fact that the oval was “considered a historic gift to the people of Unley”.
Photo: Tony Lewis/InDaily.
The council also heard from the CEO of Sturt Football Club, which has advocated for the perimeter fence investigation.
Club CEO Sue Dewing said that the club’s priority was “that the Oval continues to serve its purpose as a public recreation brand, accessible to all while also meeting the needs of our club and ensuring the safety and security of all users”.
“I want to reiterate that Sturt Football Club has no intention on restricting community access to Unley Oval,” she said.
“We aim to enhance the experience for everyone, ensuring that the oval remains a safe, welcoming space for both sporting and community events and the general public.”
Dewing also said the council’s approach to the perimeter fence investigation “lacked context”.
“Many people wanted to see a design before forming an opinion, while others were concerned with claims that the design would not include multiple openings, that it would… remain locked, use cement panels, razor wire and other concerning elements,” she said.
“As a result, some people based their decision to oppose the investigation on misleading information.”
