Council deliberated this week on the proposition of a perimeter fence around the Unley Oval precinct. Step 1 of what could be a long process.
Unley Oval Perimeter Fence
On the back of a recent survey of our community on the same question, one could well ask when is a fence not a fence?
As reported in my blog post of July 30 last, we received 1400 responses to our survey. The survey sought the level of support within the City of Unley community for a permanent perimeter fence at Unley Oval. This included identifying community concerns regarding a fence and likewise the benefits to the broader community of a fence.
For anyone interested in the detail of the results of the survey you can find them as part of item 4.1 of the council agenda for last Monday evening. I refer to the independent analysis of the survey carried out by Granicus
On the night Council voted to proceed with the next stage of the investigation. This does not mean a fence has been approved.
This includes, as noted in the minutes of the meeting, the preparation of concept design options for a perimeter fence around Unley Oval. Importantly including such things as fence location, fence design, and indicative costings, and aims to manage openings.
Hopefully, we will understand when is a fence not a fence. In other words, we find a design that encourages/invites people to enter the facility not discourage them from entering.
It merely seeks to have options provided to the council for their consideration. At that time, Council will determine to take one or more options back out to the community for their edification. If the designs provided do not address the concerns that have already been raised it may be that we determine it is not fit for purpose and complete the investigation.
If we believe it is worthy of the communities’ further input, it will go back out to them. Once this is complete Council would then consider if it is a project we believe should continue. Even then it may be that we believe, given it is a regional facility open to the wider Adelaide community, it should not proceed without significant external funding.
Watch this space!
PS Here is a copy of the speech I made in supporting the motion.
1st up. I apologise to our community.
So many have indicated that they don’t know what is being proposed…. they don’t know where the fence will be located, they don’t know how high it will be, not the type of materials proposed for the fence. Nor do they know where gates may be located. Nor how many openings there would be and how large they may be.
Not knowing means they feared it would not be compatible with the amenity of the area. That it will discourage people from entering the precinct.
Why?
Because we felt it prudent to first seek their thoughts as to what a design needs to address. We could have determined that for ourselves and put a design to them for them to respond to.
That is where we are now! If we vote to proceed it will be incumbent on us to do just that. To provide us with a concept we may or may not feel is worthy of being presented to our community for them to respond to. What we should have done from the word go.
If we do, I will be looking for a design that compliments the amenity of the area, and actually promotes and encourages people to enter and use the facility. A design that goes well beyond what Sturt might want.
If we can’t design something that we are happy to put to consultation, it will fall over without going to consultation.
There is no guarantee, even then, that a fence will be built. Because this is a regional facility I would expect we condition any proposal to only proceed by securing external funding.