No more sitting on the fence: Decision made for Unley Oval
After more than a year of deliberation and public consultation, Unley councillors have decided on whether or not to build a fence around Unley Oval.
City of Unley councillors last night voted in favour of building a perimeter fence around Unley Oval, bringing to a close a protracted public consultation process that’s been described as “divisive”.
Unley Council commenced preparation of design options for a permanent fence around Unley Oval in September last year, despite some resident opposition to the idea of a fence entirely.
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”.
Much of the southern half of Unley Oval is already enclosed by a fence.
Sturt Football Club will contribute at least $360,000 plus the donation of a permanent entry arch for Cambridge Terrace towards the project as part of a motion agreed to by Council last night.
But it wasn’t without controversy; a petition with 1587 valid signatures was handed to the Council early in the evening, asking the City not to go ahead with the project.
Prior to that, the Council heard multiple deputations from members of the public that were both for and against the idea of a fence around Unley Oval.
One resident said the visual impact of a fence would be “devastating”, another highlighted safety concerns of a fence being erected.
Kate Harris, a Sturt Football Club board member and Unley resident, said the fence would “elevate” the professionalism of the oval and could support the growing women’s team, while Darren Chandler, on behalf of SANFL and Sturt, said the current temporary fence put up for match days was “a complete waste of money”.
You might like
Resident Neil Cross said the public debate over the fence had “created an enormous rift in the community”.
This resonated with some councillors who bemoaned the toll the debate had taken on the Unley community.
Councillor Chris Crabbe, the most vocal on the council against the construction of a perimeter fence, attempted to move a motion whereby no fence would be built.
The permanent fence would cost the council thousands of dollars, he said “in addition to the millions we’ve spent in recent years on the oval”.
“This debate has been bitterly divisive,” he said.
“It has pitted neighbour against neighbour, residents against club members, and frayed the very sense of community we as councillors are meant to nurture.
“That damage to the social fabric is real, and it should weigh heavily on us before we decide to push ahead.”
His motion was defeated soundly, with just councillors Jennifer Bonham and Rebekah Rogers voting alongside Crabbe.
What fence will be built?
Unley Council ultimately endorsed a motion whereby it “resolves to build a fence to suit the endorsed fence alignment for Langham Terrace, Frederick Street and Trimmer Terrace”.
It was informed by the results of a public consultation, which found that from 814 survey responses, the majority were in favour of some sort of fence being built, though opinions differed on which option to press forward with.
The survey also found a “clear portion of the feedback (283 comments) were strongly opposed to the fence”.
Councillors selected the following options for each stretch of the fence:
Langham Terrace – Option 2:
- Fence panels incorporated into the existing red brick pavilion
- Gateways at existing access points to support day-to-day recreation while enabling efficient closure for events
- Fence alignment is along the edge of the existing pathway, reflective of the current match day alignment
Subscribe for updates
Frederick Street – Option 1:
- A permanent structure with gate openings to allow controlled access, improving safety and event management logistics while supporting day-to-day recreation
- Brick pillars to reflect the heritage and character of Unley Oval
- Aims to enhance the amenity of the oval
Trimmer Terrace – Option 2:
- An extended enclosed area adjacent to the rear of the McKay Stand and along Trimmer Terrace, before transitioning across the Frederick Street/Trimmer Terrace corner
- Gate openings to provide controlled access to support event management
These fence design options were put forward in a motion by Councillor Jane Russo, who last year proposed the investigation into whether or not to erect a perimeter fence around Unley Oval.
She said the options were chosen as a “middle path” to address the funding of the build.
The most expensive option would be to select ‘Option 1’ for all three segments of the fence, which would have left Council with an approximately $350,000 funding gap even with the Sturt Football Club’s contribution of $360,000. ‘Option 1’ for all three segments was also the most popular choice in the consultation survey.
It is unclear how much the shortfall will be for the options chosen by the Council last night, and Council has not budgeted for the design and construction of the fence in its 2025-26 Annual Business Plan.
The motion passed with seven Councillors in favour and five against.
As part of the motion, the Council accepted and formalised Sturt Football Club’s offer to contribute funding and the Cambridge Terrace arch, and will pursue additional external grant funding opportunities.
It also committed to retaining operational control of the fence gates for all match day activities, and will ensure the gates remain open outside of event times.
| Sponsored |
Council will now proceed with the project and develop detailed design and documentation – “far more detailed than the concept designs presented”.
Crabbe told InDaily he was “deeply disappointed that Council has voted to proceed with building a permanent fence around Unley Oval”.
“Beyond the financial burden, this issue has been deeply divisive, damaging the social fabric of our community and even subjecting councillors and residents on both sides of the debate to intimidation and threats,” he said.
“Unley Oval is one of our most important public open spaces. Fencing it off changes its character from open and welcoming to closed and restricted.
“This decision will be a lasting disappointment for many in our community.”
