Rushworth businesses denied compensation for services they could not use

With the ward system getting the boot in the next term of council, it was the final opportunity for ward representatives, more specifically, Waranga Ward Cr Adrian Weston to put forward a motion to the council to compensate Rushworth businesses that were unable to exercise their street furniture permits while upgrades obstructed pathways during the streetscape upgrades.

The streetscape project to beautify Rushworth’s High St through footpath, road and kerb updates took place across six stages, with construction from October 16, 2023, to May 15, 2024.

General Store Rushworth owner Jasmin LeDeux faced an unexpected challenge when streetscape upgrades began on High St just weeks after her business opened.

“I couldn’t believe it ... I’m a pretty positive person and I just thought it is what it is, but they had the barriers up, so I had to do a lot of advertising on the fence,” she said.

“It was just the lengths that just kept going on and on, and once they had the paths done, (they had to do) the roads ... it was hard.”

Ms LeDeux said that the council officers were “pretty good” in communicating what was going to happen, and there was discussion among business owners that they would get compensation for permits.

“We all kind of got together and said ... (to council) can you give us some money off our rates?” she said.

“They said ‘We can help you out with certain permits’, so instead of paying for all of your stuff, they let us have that for free.”

Campaspe Shire Council acting chief executive Michael Sharp said there was “extensive community consultation” prior and during the upgrades to how the project would disrupt business in Rushworth.

“The project manager contacted impacted businesses before and during the project, keeping them informed of works, disruption and progress.”

At the September council meeting, the motion was presented in four parts, with the first two parts referring to the compensation of specific Rushworth businesses that were unable to use their street furniture permits, while the final two points regarded the policy itself, which Cr Weston explained had little clarity and guidance for traders.

The four parts would eventually be split, a suggestion put forward by Cr Colleen Gates, the seconder, where points one and two and points three and four would be voted on separately to counter what, at that point, had become strong support for the ‘against’ side.

After the motion was put forward by Cr Weston, Cr Leanne Pentreath questioned how many businesses were impacted and for how much.

Cr Weston answered that three businesses were affected for about $1000 in total.

Council later confirmed the average construction stage lasted five to six weeks.

Annual permit costs are $173 for a table and four chairs, $108 for an A-frame and $173 for display goods.

During the council meeting, Cr Pentreath said that if councillors were to move the motion, it would be setting a “precedent going forward”.

“I look at the amount of spend on Rushworth, on the streetscapes, considering the condition pre-streetscape with the beautification, taking out the cracks,” she said.

“Previously, we haven’t had this in our policy to recompense anyone that’s had works on their street to beautify it, other than COVID, to not pay their fees — so I’m actually against it.”

It was one of the more active council debates of the night, with councillors Paul Jarman and Tony Marwood also speaking against points one and two, agreeing it would set a “precedent” going forward.

“If you were to use this as a precedent then I think whether it’s Kyabram, Echuca or other places — this becomes a very tangled situation,” Cr Jarman said.

“I don’t want to dismiss the request from a fee point of view, but I think there’s a bigger policy that needs more detail that can allow this to be dealt with going forward so that... our officers can be guided in what to do in relation to how it affects people.”

Cr John Zobec, supporting the motion, lambasted his colleagues for their ‘precedent’ argument, highlighting the minimal compensation amount compared to past council expenditures.

“I’ve heard the argument against because it’s going to set a precedent; well, sorry councillors, you’ve forgotten one thing — we make the decision, we cannot set the precedent — so that doesn’t stand,” he said.

“If it’s $1000, in this council we have agreed on projects out of the blue ... let’s be honest and let’s look after our community.”

Cr Daniel Mackrell, speaking seemingly neither for nor against the motion, stated that if points one and two were to go through, that other businesses in the shire that had not been able to exercise their permits should also ask for compensation, but ultimately agreed that the policy did not provide guidance on fees and should be reviewed.

Cr Gates, the motion’s seconder, emphasised that this issue affected the entire shire, and a policy review could improve council support for all trader groups in the future.

“The comments around precedent — I suppose the only way to grow is to break the mould, or to not stick to the status quo,” she said.

Finishing, Cr Weston echoed the motion’s supporter’s points, but emphasised that even if businesses were not compensated, the policy should be reviewed so that there was clarity for businesses going forward.

Points one and two, relating to the compensation of the Rushworth businesses, ultimately failed, with Cr Pentreath, Cr Marwood, Cr Jarman, Cr Mackrell and Cr Rob Amos voting against.

Points three and four, relating to a policy review regarding street furniture, was carried with all nine councillors voting for the motion.