FARM DIRECT Community markets final compliance notes “Salisbury”


Attention; George Pantelos


Salisbury council Planning “Farm Direct Community Markets” 361/935/2015/38


The Development Act of 1993 is an Act to provide for planning and regulate development in the State; to regulate the use and management of land and buildings, and the design and construction of buildings; to make provision for the maintenance and conservation of land and buildings where appropriate; and for other purposes.


Representations relating to development plans, or change of use, ought to there for relate appropriately to the intention of the legislation.


When we go over the representations lodged and in particular those wishing to be heard on the matter, we find very little if any comments/representations that apply to the development/change of use application before the council.


Issues of retail competition and trade are not covered by the Act, so are there for not intended to be accessed in any application for development approvals, even more so in the case of minor change of use applications.


Important issues like traffic control and traffic and pedestrian movement, internally or outside any development or change of use applications are best determined by professionals like the dedicated department of transport and infrastructure, if would be inappropriate to expect a green grocer to dictate to the authorities such issues.


In 2 of the representations filed in relation to Farm Directs development applications, by both Nghia Van Lam and Ben Johnston, several issues are raised, none of which are either relevant to the application before the council, others are not a true representation of the circumstances.


It is clear than in both circumstances the representations are not relevant to the development applications, so are invalid under the legislation, in each respect the council would have better dealt with these using its own discretionary powers awarded to it be the Act, if said powers were able to be applied.


“I note council have accessed these representations as “Valid” in their own hand writing, as the party affected, I find it hard to believe such an assessment is in line with the Development Act.


Considering this fact, one would have to consider that the City of Salisbury feel they have the implied power to restrict trade and consumer choice in the retail trade, if that be the case, I would appreciate some direction as to from where those powers are awarded.”


If we take both of these representations and remove comments of a personal nature, unfounded comments like “Food requirements not being met” and “They have opened 2 markets in the area” reasons relating to competition and trade, or what produce is being sold and where it is being sourced, which are all irrelevant to the application before the council, it leaves no content worthy of debate by any development panel.


Representations must be based on the criteria set by the Act, none of the representations asking to be heard achieve that, so council indeed ought to have the legal ability to proceed with finalising our application.


Council must not lose sight of the basic facts, Farm Direct has operated in the area for nearly 3 years, without any issue of compliance, so a relocation application that asks only for a change of use approval, ought not raise any debate relating to trade or issues of a competitive nature, let alone Farm Directs internal management or adherence to local food legislation.


If legislation indeed took into account issues of trading restrictions, it is Farm Directs position such issues would be determined by the local consumers, and we believe they have voted in our favour.


The Act, only allows for debate relating to the developments effect on adjoining properties, the City of Salisbury development plan, traffic flow and internal vehicle and pedestrian movement, along with compliance with Heritage SA and DPTIs awarded interests.


We believe we have met all those guidelines and if council were not being hindered by invalid representations, that our application for change of use would pass council scrutiny.


I will reply to each representation lodged for further clarity;


  1. Folland; the matters raised in this statement of representation relate to pathways on council land, that MAY require upgrades due to increased traffic (has not asked to be heard)


Farm Direct has little to no control of the way in which the public enjoy council facilities, should more people start to use a council facility; this issue would be outside the scope of our application to the council.


Farm Direct is happy to monitor this issue an collate feedback from its customers and work with the council in respect to upkeep.


  1. Nghia Van Lam “Salisbury Fruit Bowl”; this representations attempts to raise a variety of concerns which can be listed as such (has asked to be heard);


  1. Unfair to local business (irrelevant to the application)
  2. Farm direct have 2 markets Parafield/Salisbury (incorrect and untrue) (irrelevant to the application)
  3. Parafield opened 1 year ago (incorrect and untrue) (irrelevant to the application)
  4. Farm Direct does not support local farmers (Incorrect and untrue) (irrelevant to the application)
  5. Farm Direct lie’s to the public (slander) (irrelevant to the application)
  6. 70-80% of product sold is from the Adelaide produce market (irrelevant to the application) (Incorrect and untrue)
  7. Farm Direct is a scam (slander) (irrelevant to the application)


Not one of these statements is backed by evidence, none of them are relevant to the development application and Farm Direct can prove with evidence that not one of these statements is true.


Farm Direct opened it original market in Parafield in October 2012, the market was relocated only 5 weeks ago to the Old Spot hotel, should another market have opened on our old site is both out-side development issues and or the control of Farm Direct.


Unfair to local business, relates to a perceived drop in sales, which could be applied to our ability to perform better in the food industry, again outside development planning legislation, which does not cater for trade restrictions of any kind.


Farm Direct is not a scam, does not lie to its customers and other issues raised, are best described as liable, and relate in no way to the application before the council.


  1. Ben Johnston “George & Bens Fresh food market”; raises a variety of concerns of a similar nature (has asked to be heard);


  1. It is not a farmers market (Farm Direct is not a farmers market) (irrelevant to the application)
  2. Farm Direct buys from Adelaide produce market (irrelevant to the application)
  3. Farm direct are retailers (irrelevant to the application)
  4. There is not enough parking.
  5. There is not proper structure (Incorrect and untrue) (irrelevant to the application)
  6. Council food and safety guidelines are not being met (Incorrect and untrue)
  7. Farm Direct has affected his business (irrelevant to the application)
  8. Farm Direct would hurt employment (Incorrect and untrue) (irrelevant to the application)
  9. Traffic is spilling onto Main North road (incorrect and untrue)


None of the issues raised relate to development planning, other than the issue of traffic spilling onto Main North road, so I will address that issue first, during the first 5 weeks of operation at the Old Spot, never once has traffic spilled over onto Main North road.


The department of transport DPTI, have both studied and attended the markets to check on this issue and have reported nothing that supports this statement, and have since supported the markets compliance.


Each week from the first day of trading we have modified traffic flows within the site parking area to ensure it creates no adverse spillage onto Main North road, once overflow parking is finalised and we can start operating on Wednesdays, vehicle flow on site will be made even easier, but even during our busiest times we have avoided any interruption to traffic on the Main north road.


All the other statements made are incorrect and without substance and appear to relate to issues of commerce, and have no impact on Farm Directs development planning applications, and Farm Direct can supply evidence that supports our position.


Farm Direct has operated for nearly 3 years, in which time both Parafield Airport limited and the Salisbury council have regularly carried out on site and compliance inspections, without any concerns being raised, all stall holders and the market management comply with all statutory requirements and business registrations, and always have.


  1. Leo and Chris; Fully support the market (has not asked to be heard)


  1. Teresa Evans; Raises the only concerns relating to our application before the council, all of which have been supported or adopted by our application. (has not asked to be heard)


DPTI and Farm Direct have agreed to certain traffic flow issues raised by Mrs/Miss Evans, so the application covers this representation.


  1. Anthony and Francesca Sorrenti; Fully support the market (has asked to be heard)


Their representation relates to parking on Brisbane drive, and its impact on local traffic.


Farm Direct has taken photos of the street for two weeks on an hourly basis, 9.00 am, 10.00 am and 11.00 am during market operations, and found no parking issues that are the result of the markets operation.


Farm Direct does not oppose signage to restrict parking during the operation times of the market, however has been unable to confirm any issue exists, as aforementioned, we note that the street in question is a long way from the market and people may be utilising it to access the adjacent park.




Farm Direct can see no reason covered by any of the lodged representations that can limit the ability of the council to provide final planning consents, within the scope of the development legislation and its applications to planning procedures.




Traffic Management; Farm Direct concurs with the assessment of DPTI and will comply with their directions.


Insurances; Farm Direct as site managers have public liability already in place, and ensures all stall holders operating on the site are also covered by appropriate insurances.


Control of Waste; Each stall holders is responsible for the removal of waste from the site, and Farm Direct staff ensure customer bins are provided and waste is removed, and are contracted to ensure the site is maintained.


Wastewater; All water used on site (minimal) used for cleaning or hand washing is collected and disposed of, off site, as per health and safety guidelines.


Food Business Notification; All stall holders are contracted to have all food accreditation, in line with the Food Safety Standards, and most if not all of our stall holders were recently inspected by your council.



Mark M Aldridge

Founder “Farm Direct community markets”







Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses to “FARM DIRECT Community markets final compliance notes “Salisbury””

  1. Jennie Says:

    AFather reading all the above, I cannot see what is holding up the paperwork. Farm direct has done everything by the book, perhaps the complainants need to be held responsible for lack of compliance..NOT farm direct

  2. Narelle Says:

    My choice to shop at farm direct markets relates to freshness, quality and atmosphere. If the others had the same I would still be shopping there but buying produce that goes bad by the next day in some cases is something I can’t afford to do. So I choose to buy fresh from the market. If the market is forced to close I’ll source fresh produce from other markets.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: