The dogs of D'Arcy Street are back

South Hobart Oval - The rectangle that is D’Arcy Street Ground.

The Hobart City Council election is upon us.

And the dogs of D'Arcy Street are back.

The issue is all over social media again.

Candidates are being asked for their views.

Past Council decisions are being revisited.

Some extraordinary things are being said again about South Hobart Football Club and the people connected to it.

So let's go back to what actually happened.

Not what Facebook says happened.

What actually happened.

This wasn't a decision made overnight

South Hobart Football Club played its first official match at the newly opened South Hobart Ground on 21 May 1910.

For many years the ground was also shared with people exercising their dogs.

And for many years Council tried to make that shared use work.

That is not my version of history.

It is Council's.

In July 2025 the City acknowledged the "long-standing shared use" of the ground by South Hobart Football Club and the local dog-walking community.

It also referred to years of efforts to find a compromise.

The club had raised concerns about the impact of dogs on the playing surface.

Council also recognised the importance of the oval to people who had used it as a central off-lead exercise area.

Two competing uses.

In July 2025 there was an attempt to settle it.

Councillor Louise Elliot moved an amendment that included making South Hobart Oval restricted to dogs at all times from 1 September 2026, along with alternative dog areas including at Wellesley Park.

It was defeated 7 votes to 5.

Voting for the amendment were Marti Zucco, Bill Harvey, John Kelly, Louise Elliot and Will Coats.

Voting against were Anna Reynolds, Zelinda Sherlock, Mike Dutta, Louise Bloomfield, Ryan Posselt, Ben Lohberger and Gemma Kitsos.

So the dogs stayed.

Council kept looking for a compromise.

Professional mediation was proposed.

So was a consultative committee involving the club and the broader community.

Council talked about more surveillance, extra maintenance, more playing spaces and new off-lead dog areas.

By February 2026 Council officers had reached a much firmer conclusion.

Their report described South Hobart Oval as the City's only dedicated regional-level soccer ground capable of hosting state and national competition matches.

It concluded that continued off-lead dog use was not compatible with that sporting role.

Council put the proposed restriction out to the community.

There were 272 submissions.

Of the 243 about South Hobart Oval, 137 supported the restriction and 105 opposed it.

Then came the decision

On 30 March 2026 Council made its final decision.

Dogs would be restricted from South Hobart Oval at all times from 1 July 2026.

It passed 7 votes to 5.

This time, voting for the restriction were Will Coats, Louise Elliot, Bill Harvey, John Kelly, Ryan Posselt, Zelinda Sherlock and Marti Zucco.

Voting against were Anna Reynolds, Mike Dutta, Louise Bloomfield, Ben Lohberger and Gemma Kitsos.

Two councillors had changed their position from the July vote.

Ryan Posselt and Zelinda Sherlock.

I'm not going to tell anyone how to vote in a Council election.

But I do think people are entitled to know how their elected representatives voted.

And now they do.

What about Lower Wellesley?

When Council voted for the restriction, it also committed $180,000 to a fenced off-lead dog park at Lower Wellesley Park.

The community didn't want it.

Around 80 per cent of 185 submissions opposed it.

Many dog walkers opposed it too.

Writing in the Mercury on 16 June, the president of the Hobart Dog Walking Association said the South Hobart community had rejected the fence because they were being "sold a pup".

In June Council voted unanimously to scrap it.

The restriction at D'Arcy Street went ahead on 1 July.

I understand why that stings for dog walkers.

But the fence wasn't taken away from them.

Many of them argued against it.

Is D'Arcy Street really such an extraordinary restriction?

Read some of the commentary and you'd think banning dogs from a sporting ground was an attack on dog owners.

It isn't.

Hobart has traditionally been relaxed about dogs on sportsgrounds.

Dogs can still be exercised off-lead on many Hobart sportsgrounds when sport isn't being played, the ground isn't booked, a school isn't using it and maintenance isn't underway.

But there are exceptions.

North Hobart Oval, New Town Oval, Queenborough Oval, the TCA Ground, Domain Athletics Centre and now South Hobart Oval are among the sporting facilities where dogs aren't permitted.

Council itself called the South Hobart Oval situation unique.

Off-lead dogs were already banned at all its other major sportsgrounds.

So perhaps the question isn't why D'Arcy Street is so unusual.

Perhaps the long-running shared use was the unusual part.

You don't have to go far beyond Hobart to find tighter rules.

In Kingborough, dogs are restricted at all times from the playing field of Council-owned and managed sportsgrounds. Dogs may be walked on lead around the outer areas.

Clarence prohibits dogs from sporting recreation grounds and their perimeters.

Brighton's current Dog Management Policy prohibits dogs from sportsgrounds, playing fields and their perimeters.

Glenorchy tells dog owners that sports grounds are prohibited areas and dogs must not be taken there.

For plenty of people just outside Hobart, keeping dogs off a sporting field is nothing new.

South Hobart Football Club and Morton's Soccer School are not the same thing

This keeps coming up so let's clear it up.

South Hobart Football Club is a community football club.

Morton's Soccer School is a private business.

They are not the same organisation.

I was President of South Hobart Football Club for 16 years.

Ken and I are the directors of Morton's Soccer School.

Morton's Soccer School is the club's training partner.

We deliver the training programs for the club's teams, from Mini Mortons through to the Under 21s.

The teams play for South Hobart Football Club.

But they are separate organisations.

Their Council ground bookings are deliberately kept separate.

Morton's Soccer School very rarely hires D'Arcy Street.

Our principal training base is Wellesley Park.

There are no lights at D'Arcy Street.

So it is mainly used for senior training in summer and for daytime matches in the darker months.

South Hobart Football Club uses both Wellesley Park and D'Arcy Street.

So when people claim a private business has taken over community space at D'Arcy Street?

It hasn't.

A booking doesn't mean a club is using a ground every minute

Plenty has also been said about the number of hours football clubs book Council grounds.

South Hobart Football Club doesn't get D'Arcy Street for free.

It pays Council, just like every other sporting club in Hobart.

Those costs end up with players and their families.

Clubs with qualifying seasonal bookings get a 25 per cent discount on ground hire.

The trade-off is no refund if Council closes the ground.

Seasonal bookings can also change as the season goes on.

So a ground showing as "booked" doesn't mean a club is on it for every one of those hours.

When Council put the restriction out for consultation, it estimated South Hobart Oval would remain available for informal community use around 87 per cent of the year.

Remember that next time someone says football has locked the community out.

Then somehow this became about whether the football club belongs there

Somewhere along the way, a disagreement about dogs on a football ground became an argument about whether South Hobart Football Club belongs in South Hobart.

One public comment suggested the club should permanently relocate out of South Hobart.

Others have said the club is "too big for its boots" or "too big for this suburb".

There have been claims about where club members live.

Where committee members live.

Where I live.

Where councillors live.

So I have to ask.

What has any of that got to do with whether dogs should be allowed on a football ground?

Who actually counts as "the community"?

Do sporting facilities only belong to the people who live next door?

Do you have to live in North Hobart to play at North Hobart Oval?

Should the athletes who train at Domain Athletics Centre all live on the Domain?

Do the footballers using Queenborough Oval have to live in Sandy Bay?

Of course not.

These are community sporting facilities.

People travel to them.

Council's own report calls D'Arcy Street the City's only dedicated regional-level soccer ground capable of hosting state and national competition matches.

Football people don't stop being members of the community when they cross a suburb boundary.

That doesn't mean nearby residents don't matter.

Of course they do.

Residents are entitled to raise concerns about parking, traffic, lights, noise and neighbourhood amenity.

That's a very different argument from saying footballers, coaches, parents, volunteers and supporters are less a part of "the community" because some of them live somewhere else.

D'Arcy Street hasn't been privatised

This word gets thrown around too.

But restricting dogs doesn't make D'Arcy Street private.

Remember that 87 per cent.

People can walk there.

Children can kick a ball there.

People can sit there.

The community can use it.

The restriction is about dogs.

And now there is an election

Which brings us back to where we started.

Council elections are exactly the time to examine what councillors have done.

Look at their votes.

Ask them why they voted the way they did.

Ask candidates whether they would support changing the decision.

That is entirely legitimate.

But there is a difference between scrutinising someone's Council vote and making things personal.

During this debate I have seen public discussion about where Councillor Bill Harvey lives.

I have seen his dog described.

I have seen discussion about where he regularly walks.

Bill's vote on D'Arcy Street is absolutely relevant.

His dog isn't.

Nor is where he lives or walks it.

If you disagree with how Bill Harvey voted, argue with the vote.

I've also seen South Hobart Football Club described publicly as "bullies".

I've seen claims that it is a "profit based operation".

I've seen claims that community open space has been stolen or gifted to the club.

And I've seen calls for the club and Morton's Soccer School to be permanently relocated.

One public comment went considerably further. It made a serious insinuation about how the original Council decisions were reached. I'm not going to repeat it here.

If anyone has evidence of wrongdoing, take it to the appropriate authorities.

Otherwise, what exactly are we doing here?

More than a football ground

South Hobart Football Club has been part of South Hobart since 1910.

Generations of players have played there.

Children have grown up there.

Parents have stood on the sidelines there.

Volunteers have marked pitches, run canteens, coached teams, washed shirts, served on committees and spent countless hours keeping a community football club alive.

People have met their partners there.

Families have been formed there.

Friendships have lasted lifetimes.

Sounds like community to me.

None of that diminishes the attachment local dog walkers have had to the ground.

They used it for many years too.

They built friendships there too.

They were entitled to argue to keep that access.

Council eventually had to choose between two uses it concluded were no longer compatible.

That decision can absolutely be debated.

But the history shouldn't be rewritten in the process.

One final thing

Debate dog access to D'Arcy Street by all means.

Debate whether Council got the balance right.

Campaign to change the decision if that's what you believe.

Scrutinise councillors' votes.

That's what local democracy is for.

But don't rewrite the history of South Hobart Football Club to do it.

And don't pretend that a community football club that played its first official match at D'Arcy Street in 1910 somehow doesn't belong there.

It does.

Sources

City of Hobart, Council Minutes, 28 July 2025, Item 10: Dog Management Policy Review.

City of Hobart, Council Minutes, 30 March 2026, Dog Management Policy Review.

City of Hobart, Council supporting information, 23 February 2026, Item 10: Dog Management Policy Review.

City of Hobart, News from tonight's Hobart City Council meeting, 28 July 2025.

City of Hobart, South Hobart Oval dog access proposal goes to community consultation, 24 February 2026.

City of Hobart, News from tonight's HCC meeting, 30 March 2026.

City of Hobart, News from tonight's Hobart City Council meeting, 29 June 2026.

City of Hobart, Dog Management Policy and Dog Exercise Areas.

City of Hobart, Sportsground Information and Sportsground Bookings.

The Mercury, 16 June 2026: "Council really barking up the wrong tree believing everyone supports their idea of a fenced dog park".

South Hobart Football Club, Club History.

Kingborough Council, Dog Management Policy.

Clarence City Council, Dog Exercise Areas.

Brighton Council, Dog Management Policy.

Glenorchy City Council, Dog Management Policy Review FAQs.