City restaurant and hospitality operators will be warned of fines or the loss of outdoor dining space if they don't leave enough room for pedestrians and people with disabilities to get safely past, with Adelaide City Council receiving complaints over the issue.

The council voted last night to tell all ground-level businesses in the city that they risked being fined or losing their outdoor dining space if they don’t place tables, chairs, A-frame signs and other items clear of areas meant to be free for people to safely move past their businesses.

Councillor Phillip Martin raised the issue with the council after last week’s report into Leigh Street and surrounding laneways raised concerns with navigating city streets.

Martin said he received photos from ratepayers showing city businesses aren’t following the rules and leaving a clear path along their building lines.

“Despite the best efforts of our administration over the years, some businesses in the City of Adelaide and North Adelaide operating at ground level don’t understand their obligation,” he said.

“It is necessary, I think, to repeat the reminder to get it out there, to ask businesses to take care and ensure that they do comply so that people aren’t put at risk.”

Council by-laws and policies on using public space and outdoor dining say items and furniture on the footpath must be aligned to the kerb and allow space for pedestrians to travel along building shorelines. This adheres to their access and inclusion policy and is based on advice from access consultants.

There are some exceptions to the kerb-lined rule, such as Peel Street, which allows outdoor dining along the building lines because the street is so narrow.

Venues in Peel Street are allowed to have dining furniture on their building lines, requiring people to navigate through the centre of the laneway during peak hours. This picture: InDaily

Councillor Carmel Noon asked if there is the option to start fining businesses not complying.

“If we have serial offenders, is there an option to fine these people because at the end of the day, they’re breaking the law, they’re uncompliant and this cannot continue and these examples are becoming systemic,” she said.

Council CEO Michael Sedgman said fining businesses is the last resort when it comes to compliance and regulation.

“We as an administration always apply the three E’s of enforcement – it’s education, it’s encouragement and then it’s expiation,” he said.

“We only go to expiation when we’ve exhausted the possibilities around the previous two.”

Councillor Arman Abrahimzadeh voted against the move to go hard on businesses, particularly given this council has brought back outdoor dining fees.

“If they find something they’re doing is non-compliant I don’t think we need a heavy-handed approach,” he said.

“If there was a more softer approach and educational approach I would support that.”

The fees paid by city cafes and restaurants were reinstated last year as part of the council’s 2023/24 budget and in February, the council heard from businesses that it was hitting their bottom line.

Councillor Mary Couros, who owns family businesses Ruby Red Flamingo and Tony Tomatoes, said a tougher approach is “unfair”.

“Most of these are small businesses and they are doing their utmost best to make their businesses vibrant and inclusive,” she said.

“Yet here we are going to serve them notices, come down heavy-handed when we’re already charging them outdoor dining fees and I’m getting complaints left right and centre about how much people are paying.

“I think we’re being very unfair as a council and I think we’re going to kill the joy in the city.”

Couros also asked how Adelaide compares to other capital cities laneways, like Melbourne and Sydney when it comes to outdoor dining rules.

“What makes us different to over govern in this area? How do they combat the access of disability and why it’s different to us,” she said.

City Shaping Director Ilia Houridis said in South Australia they comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

He said while they do speak to colleagues in other states, he can’t speak to their reasons or whether there are other issues those cities face that mean their public domain doesn’t comply with federal legislation.

Martin said he was surprised by the views voiced in the debate.

“I find it surprising that people can overlook and want to overlook people with disabilities for the sake of businesses trading,” he said.

“Trading is a right, there’s no question about that but equally there is a right for disabled people, for people in this city who are trying to navigate our streets, to be able to do so safely.

“If administration sending a note to businesses saying, ‘hey guys, there are rules did you know’ is confronting then so be it, that’s confronting, but it needs to be done.”

The motion passed, with councillors Simon Hou, David Elliott and Abrahimzadeh against it. Couros left the room and did not participate in the vote.