Shops in Chiltern are fearful they will have to close because of a council rule which will not allow some of them to place items for sale on the street.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Indigo councillors voted 6-1 on Tuesday night to adopt a local law, which stated Beechworth and Yackandandah could have items out the front of shops and by the kerb – because footpaths were wide enough to accommodate a 1.8-metre gap for people to pass – but Chiltern or Rutherglen shops could not do the same.
“The width of the footpaths in Chiltern and Rutherglen, combined with the need to allow room for the opening of car doors from the parallel parking bays, mean that officers believe that there is no justification to change the current arrangements,” the council report stated.
Cr Diane Shepheard said she believed the differing rules would work.
“They are completely different towns … we can’t really have one size fits all,” she said.
Cr Sophie Price said the rules were necessary to allow access for all in the towns.
“The reason we’re putting these recommendations forward is so that disability access and all sorts of access can freely walk on our streets,” she said.
But Cr Bernard Gaffney, the only councillor to vote against adopting the local law, said he believed there should be one rule for all.
He said the width of Chiltern’s footpaths varied, so when a council enforcement officer recently made a shopkeeper move items 1.8 metres back from the property line, they were actually in the middle of a footpath.
“It’s just silly … It makes it unsafe for those with disabilities,” he said.
“There are three shops in Chiltern, probably their most successful retail shops, who say they will have to close because of council interference in one way or another.
“Council should be supporting businesses and working with retailers, not putting up obstacles.”
Chiltern Tourism and Development Association president Kevin Mayhew wrote a submission on behalf of the business in the group and asked the town be treated the same as Beechworth, but council officers said this was “not logical or indeed possible”.