Goodwood Football Club faces lights out after residents take it to court over ground lighting
A FOOTBALL club in Adelaide’s upmarket inner south is facing a court case against disgruntled locals over the use of its home ground lights — which would allow for more games being played on the oval at night when residents want to walk their dogs.
East, Inner Suburbs & Hills
Don't miss out on the headlines from East, Inner Suburbs & Hills. Followed categories will be added to My News.
GOODWOOD Saints Football Club is facing a court battle with Millswood residents who are unhappy with its use of lights at its home ground.
The football club was last month given Unley Council permission to use the lights at Goodwood Oval on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday nights for training and women’s football.
But disgruntled residents have lodged an appeal against that decision in the Environment, Resources and Development Court.
The club had asked for – and won – permission to use the lights on Wednesdays between 5.30pm and 7.30pm for training, until 9pm on seven Friday nights per year for junior matches, and for five Saturday night games, finishing at 6.30pm.
Goodwood Saints president Craig Scott said a successful appeal would severely impact the club’s female players.
Mr Scott understood objections had come from people who wanted to walk their dogs at the oval.
“The club does not use the oval all day Monday to Fridays, Sunday nights, all Saturday
nights, and 16 out of 26 Saturdays,” Mr Scott said.
“The hockey field is also free four nights per week and, when in use, only used for one hour.
“We have basically asked for an extra two hours on a Wednesday night and 90 minutes on a Saturday night.”
He said the growth of girls football was “pointless” if they were unable to play on their home surface.
The Eastern Courier Messenger tried to contact residents – who it is understood object to the use of the oval at night – but none were willing to talk.
Unley councillor Don Palmer – whose ward includes Goodwood Oval – did not want to comment on the specifics of the issue, but understood that an appeal would cost the residents $10,000.
Cr Palmer was unable to say who had lodged the appeal.