Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

INTERNET CYBER-BULLYING, Trolls or mental health concerns?

January 15, 2017
troll-001
WHAT IS AN INTERNET TROLL, WHAT ARE THEY?
 
Interesting question, one that we all may have an answer to, but there are many issues social media brings to the table.
 
In real life, if a person came up to you and called you names, they might risk a punch in the face, maybe most of us would walk away, or ignore them, very few of us would tease them with sticks to make them angrier, not so easy on line.
 
The best advice is a person comes onto your time line and is aggressive or disrespectful, is to block them, as if they will be gone, but we know that is not always the case, the more mentally unstable trolls, will already have multiple accounts, or head of to make a few.
 
I have endured trolls that are still around years later, as if I am the sole interest in their less than interesting lives. Only yesterday a person sent me a message about the devastation their family had endured and made mention of the trolls, only for me to have had similar problems years ago with the same people, so is being a troll the result of mental illness?
 
Later in this rant, I mention some research relating to the mental illness side of this post, but what we do see with on-line bullies, besides sadistic and psychopathic tendencies, is the obvious paranoia that everyone else is like them.
 
They think anyone who supports their pray, could be a fake profile, something I have noticed over the years and a good indicator of more sever psychosis.
 
The thing I find most interesting about these trolls, is their inability to comprehend the written word, or even embrace simple facts, they appear to just make it up as they go, they read what they want to read, so to speak.
 
While having dinner with friends Saturday night, leaving FB closed, I received a phone message, which included a screen shot, in which a “troll” had posted, I had just phoned and threatened them.
 
Did the person saying this get a call from another and assume it was me, because not only dont I know them, already had them blocked for whatever reason, and the site the comment was posted on even had me blocked, as I had not contacted anyone, which leads to another issue with trolls, the troll families.
 
Certain people appear to not only lack the moral turpitude to conduct themselves with respect on line, seems similar minded (or is that mindless) people flock together.
 
Going back to my first experience with “trolls” that never go away, was when I helped out an animal shelter several years ago, what appeared to be a handful of people did not like me helping out. One of the ring leaders now faces charges for theft, so had good reason to want me out the way, but that one person led a pack of maybe 4 or 5, who with their fake profiles numbered dozens on line.
No matter how many I blocked, more turned up, many years later, after issues this week, they are all back, as themselves and a few other fake profiles, and they are easy to spot, they still use all the same nasty memes they made all those years ago.
 
So it appears “Genuine trolls” become obsessed with their targets, so much so, when I was on holidays with friends after helping during the most recent fires, they targeted every FB page in the country I was visiting. I mean hundreds of FB pages, calling me a racist, a paedophile, and rapist, and a murder, anything they could do to cause me problems, not that it did.
 
For me as a reasonably well known bloke, each year more of these “Trolls” unite, and start up “Hate groups” aimed at me, yet these same names are mentioned by other victims, so I must only be a part of their obsession, with their main driver being to hurt others.
 
Currently all my special “Trolls” flocked together after channel 7 blessed me with some rather nasty media coverage, the coverage was rubbish, but that’s the media for you. On a 7 post, I have been accused of being a murderer, a thief, a pedo, and abuser, a drug manufacture, an animal murderer, and plenty of other very nasty terms, and many people reading those nasty untruths, have started saying, well all these people cant be wrong 😉
 
Where “Trolls” get even more scary is when they cant get to the subject of their obsession, and go after the friends and family of their victim, or even worse when they take their sick obsession into the real world.
 
Right now, many of my friends and family have temporarily closed their time lines, one had his car fire bombed, and others are still copping it.
 
In my most recent and nasty interactions, a post asking people not to let of fireworks near my sanctuary, resulted in a deliberate attack, on more than one night, gun shots at my home, explosives aimed at my sanctuary, and then a very nasty assault on my person and my vehicle, all by people I had blocked from one of my pages.
 
So like all of these morons, whoops “trolls” they made up even more stories to cover for their crimes, leaving me to wear a tirade of abuse and the destruction of what was left of my good name.
 
Of course that is never enough, now there are even more dedicated pages named after me, some aimed at my sanctuary and others aimed at my business. My friends places of employment, my markets, and my family now have to endure what could be months of abuse.
 
The worst thing is, that when I get my name cleared of any wrong doings, which could take 2 years, they will fire up all over again.
 
Maybe the issue here is not attributed to the word trolls, but more so bullies, haters and the socially inept, maybe it is a mental health issue, but whatever we call it, something has to be done about it.
 
I have no great answers to all this, the message being sent to me is not to help others or do good things for the community, but I ignore that message. The one main issue is the ability of anyone to make up new profiles and use them without fear of accountability; the other is the inability of the authorities to police this new social media phenomenon, leaving us to deal with all this on our own.
trolls-2
 
In Australia alone, on-line bullying is taking lives, and that number is increasing, so something needs to be done, maybe the use of ID to secure a social network account ought to be considered, and just maybe governments and or platforms like face Book, need to invest in better safe guards and monitoring.
 
There is lots of on-line research on this topic, and just as many sad stories of resulting suicides, Canadian and American researchers have found that many of these “Trolls” suffer from Narcissism, sadistic or psychopathic tendencies.
 
These people actually receive pleasure from the act of causing suffering to others, they actually are creating an appetite for cruelty.
 
In the worst cases which are increasing in regularity, when their target closes their accounts, these twisted and dangerous people take their issues into the real world, as I am starting to see happen myself.
 
The fact the aggressors can stay anonymous adds to the fierceness of their attacks, as they do not fear any accountability, this is also taken into the real world, resulting in a global rise in violent crimes.
 
Until something is done, and that could be a long wait, best we adapt and change how we use social networking, for me, well I am not your every day user, and I am not about to close my account, even after all this, because I know Social Media can achieve great things.
 
Over the past few years I have utilised FB to organise search and rescue, raise money for people in need, grow my markets, market my business and meet some great people. So much can be achieve, as for the trolls, well don’t feed them, even when you are not their target.
 
Face book is a multi-billion dollar business, and with that comes greater responsibility than replies “This page or comments does not contravene our community standards” when a victim tries to report bullying or theft of intellectual property.
 
If you see a person being targeted, even if they are not your friends, block the abuser, and support the person, if you are a parent, make sure your children are safe, and ensure they know these people are out there.
 
Last but not least, don’t poke the trolls with sticks, ignore, block and if you need to, close your account for a while. With the increasing number of people starting to populate virtual reality (social networks), many of them immature to social interaction, the phenomenon of cyber-bullying will continue to grow.
 
Not sure there is any moral to this rant, other than to remind us the world is changing, and not always in a good way. People with sadistic and psychopathic profiles, have always brought terror into this world, social networking is allowing them to unleash themselves almost without any boundaries, so best we keep the importance of this message in mind when we are forced to deal with them.
 
Mark

PROTECTING CHILDREN IS THE JOB OF EVERY AUSTRALIAN

July 31, 2016

Reporting suspected child abuse for many reasons might feel hard to do, but remaining silent  is so much worse.

child abuse

Silence is not golden when it comes to our children, especially the most vulnerable.

We as parents, grandparents and as adults need to be open to the signs of abuse and follow our natural instincts.

“In a most cases children don’t make direct disclosures, so we have to look for signs, and if we see any, for the child’s sake err on the side of caution and speak up.” Says Mark Aldridge

Child safety MUST remain the priority at all times.

“They might say, ‘This happened to a friend’ as a way to test the reaction of the person they want to tell. They want to assess whether they will be believed and whether the adult will stand up for them.

“Trust your gut. If you feel that something is not right, seek out support. It is difficult; people are often reluctant to contact the authorities due to a misguided fear of breaking up a family unit.

“If you have even a suspicion that something is wrong, it’s better to call than not call the authorities and voice your concerns, if not open up to friends and family for support to act.

“You don’t know who else might have already made a report” –a teacher, a doctor, a neighbour might have also spoken up. All those accounts help child protection specialists understand the full picture. You are adding your piece of the puzzle to that picture.”

“As a society we have moved away from the idea that the family unit is somehow a sacrosanct, closed space which we’re not allowed to enter. If we believe a child is at risk, we must act.”

Children are often scared to speak up, despite improved awareness about child abuse, so we must be their voice.

“For children, there is improved education in schools now about approaching a trusted adult, a teacher or a school counsellor,” so if they approach you, then you must act in a timely and compassionate manner.

“When there is abuse in the home it can be very hard for a child to go forward to anyone because they are worried about breaking up the family or being punished. Often the child feels as if they are to blame.”

Professionals such as teachers, health care workers and police have a legal obligation to report suspected abuse. I believe this should be applied to every adult in this country and all over the world.

Until we have a legal obligation, let our moral one lead the way, and let’s wipe out child abuse and continue on to demand heavier penalties to deter any future abhorrent behavior.

Mark Aldridge “Community Advocate” Public officer of S.C.A.A.T. (Stop Child Abuse Australia Team)

Farm Direct “Statement of effect” draft for debate

July 19, 2016

Development application “Statement of Effect” Farm Direct Community Markets.

Farm direct logo 7

 

STATEMENT OF EFFECT

Farm direct markets have invested its hard work successfully over the past 4 years, into creating the best markets in the state which are dedicated to providing for the City of Salisbury’s rate payers.

We are also lobbying the state government and appealing the recent ERC court findings, as we are committed to protect all community events in the north.

We have opened 2 of South Australia’s largest and most successful markets in the Salisbury council area, and have operated without any adverse effects to the City, the development objectives and the community.

Farm Direct has drained all its resources on the drawn out approval process and the following legal battle, so is unable to employ a suitable development expert to produce our statement of effect, we therefore apologise for any deficiency in the contents.

OVERVIEW

Farm Direct Markets have operated professionally and without incident in the Salisbury area for well over 4 years in 2 locations, Salisbury Height’s and Parafield.

Regardless of the new precedents relating to the definition of a stall, Farm Direct is still simply a temporary produce market, that has no permanency and the market is supported by the community in general. Merit applications are still development applications that are supported by and benefit the community, which means they are in line with community standards and the Markets definitely fulfils that wish.

I would like to remind the development planners, the council and the elected members that the market “Farm Direct” has now operated on site for over 12 months, without any adverse impact on the site, local traffic, parking, health and safety, significant tree’s, the heritage aspects of the site etc etc.

We have met and exceeded many directives of the city of Salisbury, increased employment opportunity, the promotion of healthy eating, access to affordable fresh produce. We remain environmental friendly, we encourage a sustainable future through growing produce to meet demand and we are helping unite the community.

The Market relocated from the initial site in Parafield (PALS car parking area) to the Old Spot hotel car park just over 12 months ago. On July the 21st 2015 we applied for development approvals and passed a raft of application processes as a “Merit” type use.

The Market underwent a category 3 public notification process, passed referrals to DPTI, DENWR, Development engineering, Civic design and traffic, Environmental health and safety, passing in each case.

The approval was disputed on competitive grounds, and the ERD court found that a Market was in fact a non-complying development, that a trestle table with goods for sale or display, was a shop for the purpose of the definitions of the development Act.

This set a new precedent on how development law is defined in relation to any temporary stall, but we ought not forget a stall is not a building, and has no lasting impression on the land, so when defining any application that utilises stalls, will never be the same as those applied to bricks and mortar, regardless of the definitions.

The fact that development law and planning has overlooked stalls, markets and fetes in their definitions, allowed the recent redefining to include a stall in the definition of the word shop. The fact community events were never considered developments, but rather events, events of a regular basis, development definitions failed to protect community events. Community events have been a part of the city of Salisbury history since its inception.

The location of Farm Directs present Salisbury Height’s Market at the Old Spot hotel is on private land, land that’s primary use is retail based, the zoning of “Open Space” is based more on the adjacent river and walk ways/trails, than the area built to have its primary use to be that of a car park for retail and hotel trading.

Farm direct helps maintain the “Open Space” concept and promotes the local community to embrace and utilise the current area in an appropriate manner.

Farm Direct has appealed the ERD court’s decision before the full bench of the Supreme Court, which is being heard on the 1st of August 2016, in hope of overturning the decision of the court, therefore restoring the original development approvals put in place by the City of Salisbury.

Farm Direct is financing the legal challenge to protect your development planning’s sections decision.

Farm Direct has submitted a non-complying development application “Statement of Support” which has been accepted by the council development section, and best be read in conjunction with this statement of effect.

 

  1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

A Farmers type market of up to 40 stalls when operating at its peak, operating in the Northern car park of the Old Spot hotel on Saturdays and a smaller market of approximately 1/3 that size operating on a Wednesday, between the hours of 8.00am and 1.00pm, operating independently of the operations of the existing hotel.

The site supports approx. 240 on site car parking spaces’, parking has been boosted during market days by improved access to a run off car park on the hill, and a temporary stall holder carpark on the northern boundary has also been created.

The Market stalls and walkways occupy approx. 1800m2 (45 to 49 car parking spaces and a bus bay) of the northern carpark area.

Although not promoted by the market, the Carisbrooke Park carpark on the western side of Main North road adjacent the site has been utilised by some patrons. Access from the Carisbrooke car park, is easily and safely achieved by a pedestrian walkway under main north road.

The Markets also promote the use of existing walking trails to access the market for the local community as a part of its promotion of healthy living.

Stalls predominantly offer fresh produce, with an assurance that all produce and product is locally sourced where possible, and that anything sold will have been produced or grown in Australia. Other stalls with in the Market will include local handicraft, plants, Australian nuts, locally produced olive oil, Fresh baked goods, cakes and takeaway.

Toilet facilities are available in Carisbrook Park, but patrons are advised by the market to utilise facilities with in the Hotel and Bottle shop, which are open for use during the markets operation times.

  1. SUBJECT LAND

The subject land is contained in lot 200 of DP 41172 being certificate of title, Volume 6050 Folio 968 also known as 1955 main north rd, Salisbury Heights.

The privately owned land is irregular in shape and bounded by open space and the Little Para River to the north and open space to the east and south, Main North road is the sites Western boundary.

In recent times improvements to the hotel were approved by council and the additions are of a retail nature.

An easement 30 meters wide in favour of Transmission Lessor Corporation and Electranet PL traverses the northern portion of the site. A second and substantially smaller easement in favour od the Distribution Lessor Corporation is located further south.

  1. LOCALITY;

The site is located in a location that includes retail sales and open space zoning.

Open space zoning is all about limiting construction to preserve the looks, dynamics and public access to development zones.

Farm Direct community markets even as a non-complying development meets those demands, it is aesthetically pleasing to the land scape when it is in operation, had no lasting impact on the land and promotes community participation in the zone, also utilising the connecting open space utilities and councils park and trial facilities.

The site contains the state heritage listed Old Spot hotel, and a freestanding bottle shop and drive through, both of which are considered retail by their nature.

Car parking (approximately) 240 spaces and bus bays, both formalised and un-formalised, together with landscaping have been provided and stablished on site, in association with the hotel.

Two vehicle access/regress points off Main North road service the site, the main cross over is located at the north end of the site adjacent the bottle shop, the second cross over is located adjacent the southern side of the property boundary.

Farm Direct has utilised the current parking and access/exit points without issue for over 12 months, they have also invested with the site owners in upgrades to parking facilities and the overflow parking on the hill top, and added parking for the stall holders on Market day.

The Market there fore is promoting the use and access to the use of the zone as intended by the legislation.

  1. BACKGROUND

Farm Direct markets have operated in the Salisbury area for around 3 years prior to moving to the Old Spot market location in or around May 2015, in both cases the market utilized existing car parking facilities adjacent hotel developments.

Farm Direct complied with all development planning assessments at its original site adjacent Roulettes tavern and bottle shop. The move to the new location was forced by lease agreements and issues with adherence to development planning regulations not being adhered to by the land owner at the previous site.

An initial one of market was held on the site as a trial, on Saturday the 23rd of June.

The first application was to operate a Special event “Farmers Market” on the subject site. A special event is defined with in schedule 9 (11(2) of the development regulations 2008, as meaning a “community, cultural, arts, entertainment, recreational, sorting or similar event” which is in line with a merit application.

Development approval was granted for the special event (produce market) between the 29th May and 13th of June, and the market operated without issue.

The second application was to obtain Development Approval for the ongoing “Produce Market” on the site.

The development approval went through a category 3 development applications as a merit form of application, the councils lawyers supported the application as a market, and to be considered as a merit application, not as shop, which is still undergoing legal scrutiny.

The council’s approval of the markets was challenged by a market competitor in the Environment and development court, the preliminary point of argument was that a stall/trestle was indeed a shop for the purpose of the application of development law.

The argument was upheld; as such the granted approval was rendered invalid as the council had approved the market as a merit application, rather than as a non-complying application.

Farm Direct community Markets then lodged an appeal before the full bench of the Supreme court to dispute the judge’s finding, this matter is to be heard on the 1st of August, with a finding to be handed down some time in the following 6 weeks from the hearing.

  1. Social, economic and the environmental effects of the development on its locality.

Farm Directs initial Statement of support covered the social, economic and environmental benefits of the Markets on the present location in detail, so ought to be read in conjunction with this “Statement of effect”

  • SOCIAL; Farm direct attracts people from the local community and from the surrounding suburbs into the local area, to increase participation in the open space zone. We promote use of the walking trials, community participation in the market itself, the local parks and encourage the whole families and neighbour hoods to enjoy the atmosphere the market creates.

 

  • ECONOMIC; Farm direct supports the local economy in a variety of ways, by bringing outside investment into the Salisbury area, by creating local jobs and ensuring access to affordable fresh produce. The Markets customer base is extensive attracting financial support from all over South Australia to the local area.

 

  • JOB CREATION; Farm direct Markets in Salisbury alone when we include our original market site which still operates, not only employs hundreds of South Australians, many from within the cities superb. We also help encourage and support small business enterprise, bring investment into the City and help local business improve their sales.

 

  • HEALTHY EATING; Farm Direct promotes healthy eating, community activity and helps educate local children about healthy eating and food production by supporting school trips to the market by several local primary level classes.

 

  • ENVIRONMENTAL; Farm directs environmental impacts have been a huge bonus to the area. We have no adverse impact on the locality, we have improved access to the trials and ensure we clean up every day we operate beyond any impact we have. Our producers now grow to suit our customer base alleviating waste, and any excess produce is utilised by donating to those who feed the homeless and to support local animal sanctuary’s.

 

  1. Characterisation and public notification

Farm Direct community markets initial development application process was considered a Category 3, which allowed for a public notification process.

The development panel heard from all objectors and found in favour of approving the market as a after a lengthy debate, the decision was majority support.

  1. Statutory – Referrals

Farm direct passed all of the statutory referrals during the previous application process, and has operated under them for over 12 months without any issue arising.

  1. DPTI

Traffic flow to and from Main North Road as proposed is supported and should be appropriately managed through the course of each market to ensure driver compliance.

DPTI strongly recommended that a traffic management plan be developed by the applicant to ensure that satisfactory traffic measures are put in place for market days.

  • Adequate onsite car parking be provided;
  • All temporary signage promoting the market should be contained on the subject land and installed and removed prior to and after each market

Farm Direct has complied with the directions and recommendations of DPTI, and continues to employ professional staff to manage internal traffic flow and parking, without any issue for over 12 months.

 

  1. DEWNR

The impact of the proposed use on the heritage significance of the state heritage place (Old Spot Hotel) is considered acceptable, as the market stalls are temporary structures, are located some distance from the hotel and will not affect the setting of the state heritage place

 

  1. DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING

The proposal was supported as it has no fixed structures.

The vicinity of the market is not subject to flooding

 

  1. TRAFFIC

In order to provide efficient and safe circulation on site whilst providing pedestrian safety within the site at all times, a traffic management plan presently in place provides for accredited traffic management staff to be in place during the market operation on every Saturday.

The Market even at its busiest has been successful in handling traffic management over the past 12 months without issue.

The market attendance is expected to remain at present demand, which has resulted in vacant parking bays even at peek attendance times.

 

  1. HEALTH

Control of waste; Reasonable steps are already in place as a result of the original approvals.

Waste from the market is managed in accordance with the South Australian Public Health Act 2011 to prevent offensive odours and not accessible to pests and vermin

All waste water generated from the activity is effectively disposed to SA Water sewerage system to prevent any risk to public health; and

The Market stall holders all have their individual Food business notifications and have passed two on site council inspections since the start of operations at the Old Spot location.

 

  1. DEVELOPMENT DATA Site Characteristics Guideline Proposed Site Area Farmers Market

Area Total land size approx 26,400m2, Market use is approx. 2400m2

Site Dimensions Main North Road Frontage: Depth: 185m approx. 169m approx.(varies) Site Gradient Majority of site relatively flat with a low grade to the north and Little Para River.

Southern portion of the site supports a large embankment and plateaued at the top Easement Easements exist over the site to Transmission Lessor Corporation and Electranet P/L; and Distribution Lessor Corporation

  1. Number of carparks

No guidance in presently allowed for in the Development Plan for a produce market

Over 190 car parking spaces are available on site, for both the market and hotel when both are operating.

Market operation times are not in conflict with hotel main operating times on the days of the market operation, Market has increase parking by way of stall holder parking in a temporary area, and excess parking allowed as a flow over on the northern boundary, with access limited to market operational days.

  1. Buildings Temporary stalls comprising canopies and tables

 

  1. Affected Trees No significant trees affected

 

 

  1. Regulated Trees No regulated trees affected

 

  1. Street Infrastructure Existing crossover utilised

 

 

  1. SEP No SEPs affected

 

  1. Electricity pole No Electricity poles affected

 

 

  1. Telecommunication pit No Telecommunication pits affected

 

  1. Gas No gas infrastructure affected

 

  1. Water No water infrastructure affected

 

 

  1. Street Trees No street trees affected

 

  1. Flooding The proposed market location is not prone to flooding

 

 

  1. ASSESSMENT

No serious Variance Pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Development Act 1993

It was initially recommended that the assessment Panel determine that the proposal is not seriously at variance with the Salisbury (City) Development Plan – Consolidated 20 March 2014, which passed the development panel’s approval process.

The following reasons are proffered to support this recommendation:

  • The site, although within the Open Space Zone, is already utilized for commercial purposes as a hotel incorporating retail activities.
  • The proposed stalls are only temporary, erected and removed on each market day.
  • The proposed use is within the carpark of the Old Spot Hotel and operates at a time when hotel patronage is low; and
  • The temporary nature of the market will not detrimentally impact on the state heritage place or the intent of the zone.

It has been demonstrated that the proposed development has minimal or no unreasonable external impacts, so consent could reasonably be expected to be upheld even as a “Non-complying application”

Performance of the Markets operation over the past 12 months, clearly show it has had no adverse effects on the land, the surrounding area or the community in general.

The Market has remained well supported by the local community, and has not breached any of the directives of the council or the associated development initiatives.

It should be considered that the proposed development is not ‘seriously at variance’ with the City of Salisbury Development Plan.

  1. Assessment against Development Plan Objectives and Principles Primary Development Objectives and Principles of Development Control (PDC) Development Plan Reference Assessment Zoning & Land Use General Section Centres and retail Development Objective

1 PDC 10 and 12 Zone Provisions Open Space Zone Objective(s) 1, 2 and 5 PDC 1,

4 Recreation Policies Area 15 Objectives 1 and 2 PDC 1

The proposal satisfies the requirement of Objective 2 of Precinct 15 as it will provide an additional use (market) expanding the range of activities envisaged within the precinct on a site that is commercially developed (Old Spot Hotel) and supported within PDC 5 of the Precinct.

The market is retail in nature primarily offering produce (including local content) together with arts, craft and food stalls and will service the needs in part, both from a produce and entertainment point of view, of the broader community.

The market comprises no fixed structures and will operated twice weekly from 8.00am to 1.00pm from the carpark of the hotel.

Given its temporary nature (stalls erected and removed on the day), it could be argued that the proposal will have no greater detrimental impact than what currently exists (Old Spot Hotel and carpark) on the open space character intended for zone.

The market since operation in June 2015 has complimented the site, increased participation in the local park and trail facilities and has been well supported by the local community.

 

  1. Appearance of Land and Buildings (Amenity)

The proposal involves temporary canopies erected and removed on the day of the market.

No permanent structures are proposed, or erected.

Whilst noted, the relevance of objective 1 and the PDCs within the General Section (Design and Appearance) in this case is somewhat diminished as the canopies are not structures and temporary.

The intent of the objective and PDCs are linked to permanent structures on land, rather than the use of temporary gazebos.

The proposed temporary canopies are small in scale and size and clustered well away from the heritage listed Hotel and Main North Road, to the point where it could be argued that they have minimal visual impact on the locality and satisfy the requirements of PDC 7 and 9 of the Open Space Zone and PDC 5b of the precinct.

Heritage SA has supplied no objections to the inclusion of temporary structures of this type and the market has now operated for over 12 months without objections of any kind relating to the general appearance of the market in its current location.

  1. Building set-backs

The proposal involves temporary canopies erected and removed on the day of the market. The proposed temporary canopies are located well back from Main North Road (over 50 metres) separated from the road by a landscaped buffer and behind the current building line.

Given this, it ought to be the view that the proposal will have minimal visual impact on the existing streetscape.

  1. Impact on Retail Centres

The proposal provides for a retail trading area of approximately 1200m2.

Whilst the argument has been put that the proposed market may now fall under the definition of shop, given the retail nature of the market and its limited times of operation, assessment against the relevant objective and principles ought to concur, what it is proposed the Market does not hinder the development of centres.

The Development Plan envisages retail development with a gross leasable floor area greater than 250m2 within integrated centres.

Clearly the majority of stalls within the market are not unique (ie fruit and vegetable stalls, bakery products and the like) and could easily be located within centre zones, admittedly at some expense (leasing of premises and overheads).

The market provides stall holders with a substantially cheaper avenue to sell their products from temporary facilities.

Representations received during the original approval process, indicate the potential for the market to impact upon the trade of existing fixed premises selling the same products.

During the first 12 months of trading on the site, no adverse effects on local centres have been noted.

Shopping development that is more appropriately located outside of business centres and shopping zones or areas, should also be of a size and type which will not hinder the development or function of any centre zone.

The nearest centre to the subject property is the Elizabeth Vale Shopping Centre (1.5km approx) other major centres include:

  • Elizabeth South Shopping Centre (3.6km approx);
  • Elizabeth Town Centre (4.0km approx.); and
  • Salisbury Town Centre (4.5km approx.).

These centres provide more than the day to day needs of people living within the locality.

Based on the type of stalls, the primary purpose of the market is to sell produce, both locally and from interstate. The retail trading area (approximately 1200m2) on the days the market is running at full capacity may be considerable, but the market does not always operate at full capacity.

Add to that the limitation on operational times and weather restrictions that will inevitably undermine the ability of the Market to affect the performance of the centres.

The market will operate from the site twice a week between the hours of 8.00am and 1.00pm and become a permanent attraction to the locality.

The Wednesday operation only encompasses an area of approximately 350m2, and is utilised by local schools, so its impact on retail centres is of a minor nature.

It is clear the 1200m2 of retail trading area proposed for the market has not had a detrimental impact on uses within nearby centres.

Two of the four nearest centres are District Centres, Elizabeth Town Centre and Salisbury Town Centre. The other two, are Elizabeth Vale Shopping Centre on Sir John Rice Avenue, Elizabeth Vale (Suburban Activity Node Zone) and Elizabeth South Shopping Centre on Phillip Highway, Elizabeth South (Neighbourhood Centre Zone) which on inspection appeared to be operating at 100% occupancy.

Whilst potentially impacting on specific similar type businesses, I do not believe it could be argued that the market would hinder the development, function and viability of those centres.

  1. Car Parking and Access

Existing car parking on site for the Old Spot Hotel and bottle shop totals approximately 240 spaces.

This is made up of over 210 paved and line marked carparks at grade with the hotel and bottle shop and an additional 30 spaces in a grassed area at the top of the embankment at the southern end of the site.

Approximately 49 spaces of the northern carpark will be taken over by the market stalls and walkways leaving 191 carparks for the benefit of the market and hotel.

The Market has also improved access to the grassed overrun parking on the grassed area on top of the rear embankment and created another 25 spaces on the northern edge of the market to accommodate stall holder parking during Saturdays market trading.

There is no car parking standards that I am aware of for markets. That said, as the market is retail in nature, a car parking rate similar to a shop (7/100m2 of gross leasable area) as outlined in Table Sal/2 (Off Street Vehicle Parking Requirements) could be applied.

Gross leasable area (GLA) is defined in Schedule 1 of the Development Regulations 2008 as meaning; “The total floor area of a building excluding public or common tenancy areas such as malls, verandas or public toilets” The market covers a maximum 2000m2 of the northern carpark and comprises both stalls (approximately 60%) and walkways (approximately 40%).

With the GLA definition in mind and noting that the proposed market is not within a building or comprise leasable floor area, based on the car parking rate of 7/100m2, it could be assumed that the proposal would generate a demand of 84 spaces leaving approximately 107 spaces for hotel and bottle-shop use.

Site visits by Council staff during the course of the Special Event revealed that the proposed market required substantially more carparks than the 84 spaces envisaged for the retail trading area, although since operating for nearly 12 months, current parking facilities have been adequate.

The proposed market intends to operate on the subject land when hotel patronage is generally low, that being in the early – mid morning period. The nature of the proposed use is such that the peak demand (given the primary use is the sale of produce – fruit and vegetables) has been early – mid morning and thus coincide with the low period of the hotel.

This was confirmed by Council Staff observations during the initial trial periods. During the peak period of the market (approximately 9.30am -11.30am) Council staff observed that the carpark demand on site exceed supply.

The Market operators opened up added parking spaces and employed licensed parking operators to ensure access to parking spaces was improved

At the same time, the proposed stall holder’s staff carpark at the top of the embankment had no more than six vehicles parked there. Since then the Market operators have made changes to internal parking, resulting in spare customer parking spaces even during peak operating times.

Even during the markets grand opening where it was running at full capacity, there appeared to be no significant queuing or detriment impact on traffic movement on Main North Road. This appeared to be in part due to patrons of the market using the Carisbrooke Park public carpark on the west side of Main North Road adjacent the subject site and assistance by the Markets professional road traffic controllers.

Council staff during the busiest markets reported they also observed that during the markets busiest days from approximately 11.30am, car parking spaces were always available on the subject land with the carparks never reaching capacity.

Substantially more spaces were available in the Carisbrooke Park carpark during the same period.

The peak car parking demand associated with the market had passed and would continue to decrease till closing. Combined, it appeared that the subject land and Carisbrooke Park carpark provided adequate off road car parking for both uses on the subject land at peak demand (approximately 9.30am -11.00am).

Due to convenience, it is likely some market patrons are likely to use the Carisbrooke Park carpark irrespective of whether car parking spaces were available on the subject land.

The traffic management plan put forward by the market identifies intended traffic circulation on site during market days and includes details of signage to be erected. This plan has been followed by the market management and traffic controllers for the past 12 months, and is preforming well.

With this Traffic Management Plan in place, the relocation of stall holder vehicles to the proposed staff carpark as proposed and use of Carisbrooke Park carpark , the proposal easily satisfies the provisions of Objective 2 and provide safe and efficient movement into, out of and within the site.

 

  1. Landscaping; Existing landscaping is to be retained. No additional landscaping is proposed.

 

  1. Environmental management;

The proposal complies with the relevant requirements. Stormwater management for the site is currently in place. The proposed market will not generate any additional runoff flow.

The applicant has put measures in place that comply with Councils Health Department requirements relating to the management of waste water.

 

  1. Transportation (Movement of People and Goods)

The proposal generally satisfies the Development Plan requirements relating to this section.

The applicant has submitted a Traffic Management Plan in support of the proposal. The plan supports the northern crossover into the site as entry only and the southern crossover as exit only.

Traffic circulation on site will be managed to achieve this. The Traffic Management Plan will if properly instigated by the applicant provide safe access for vehicles into, out of the site and circulation within the site.

DPTI have reviewed the Traffic Management Plan prepared by the applicant (not the most recent plan) and supporting information and in principle have raised no objection subject to vehicles accessing the site from the northern crossover and exiting the site via the southern crossover as the applicant proposes.

Farm direct has had no adverse impact on local traffic flow in the last 12 months, and even during the abnormal busy promotional periods.

The Market operators have installed extensive internal signage and employ 2 professional traffic controllers during their Saturday markets, which have proven able to effectively prevent any adverse issues, and ensure safe use of the existing plan over the past 12 months of operation.

  1. Outdoor Advertisements;

The proposal will satisfy the requirements relating to outdoor advertisements.

All signs associated with the proposed use will be temporary. The main sign promoting the market will be an A-framed sign mounted on a trailer adjacent the northern entry into the site. All other signs apart from stall identification will be small directional signs to direct vehicle traffic on site.

The proposed signs will not result in the disfigurement of the local urban environment or result in visual clutter. The main sign advertising the market is not illuminated and of a size that is not likely to distract drivers on Main North Road from their primary driving task. It is not variable (changing message) thus satisfying a DPTI requirement.

 

CONCLUSION

The applicant has applied for a farmers market comprising a maximum of 40 stalls and occupying approximately 2000m2 of the northern carpark of the heritage listed Old Spot Hotel at 1955 Main North Road, Salisbury Heights.

The market intends to trade on the Wednesday and Saturday of each week between the hours of 8.00am and 1.00pm. Whilst the market is retail in nature, for the reasons outlined in the background section of this report, it should be assessed as an undefined use.

The Market has operated successfully for over 12 months, with excellent support from the local community as a whole.

The Department of Environment, Waste and Natural Resources (State Heritage Unit) have advised that the proposed market will not have any adverse impacts on the heritage listed Hotel.

The proposal underwent Category 3 notification. Six (6) representations were received. The key concerns raised by representors related to onsite car parking and traffic management and the external impact of the use on traffic movement on Main North Road and local streets.

The Market has overcome all these concerns, and has operated without any recent concerns.

The proposed market will support a maximum retail trading area of approximately 1200m2 comprising a variety of stalls. The Development Plan encourages development with retail floor areas greater than 250m2 within centre zones unless it can be proven that they do not hinder the development, function and viability of centres.

It is the view of the applicant that given the nature of the use (retail) and type of activity proposed (market), whist potentially impacting commercially on selected uses within centres (predominantly fruit and vegetable stores), the proposal will not detrimentally impact on the overall function and viability of the nearest centres.

ITEM 5.1.1 Page 30 City of Salisbury Development Assessment Panel Agenda – 21 July 2015 Item 5.1.1 On market days, 191 carpark spaces will be available on site for patrons of both the market and Old Spot Hotel and bottle-shop, since then the facilities have been improved.

It is clear given the nature of the use and from the councils own observations of the market at its busiest operational times, that the demand for onsite spaces during the peak period, exceeds onsite parking availability. That said, adequate parking is available on both the subject land and adjacent Carisbrooke Park carpark to accommodate the peak demand of the market.

I note that since the councils own observations, the Markets general trade has softened and even though this is the case, internal parking has been expanded to ensure even during special events, the Market is able to ensure they can handle any traffic flow in and out of the property.

Whist the Carisbrooke Park carpark has not been encouraged as a carpark ancillary to the market, it should be noted that it is a public carpark and available to everyone. Outside, of the peak market period, onsite parking provision appears to be in balance with or exceeds demand.

The Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure (Traffic Safety) in principle support the proposal, the current success of the market in handling “Traffic Safety” should have alleviated any concerns DPTI may have had.

The Market has submitted and adhered to an internal traffic management plan during the past 12 months of operation, which has been a success.

The applicant can see no valid reason for this application not to proceed to approval, based on the application itself and the performance of the market over the past 14 months in operation and over 4 years in the Salisbury area.

 

Mark Aldridge

Farm Direct community markets.

New voting laws for the 2016 election “The Truth”

May 15, 2016

I have lobbied for years to protect, reform and secure your voting rights, here is an overview of the new laws based on my understanding of the new laws.

 

The following are instructions on how to vote in the Senate from the AEC’s web page, similar instructions are shown on the AEC’s television advertising. The trouble is that what they are saying is the law, doesn’t compare with the legislation, or is the enacted legislation wrong?

What you need to know

 

To vote for Senators in your state or territory at the 2016 federal election, you must fill in your ballot paper in the order of your choice. You can do this by voting either above the line or below the line, as had been the case for many years, changes now say;

 

Voting above the line

 

If you vote above the line, you must number at least six boxes from 1 to 6 is what you are being told, but from what I read, you can vote simply 1, or 1 to 6 or any number you want in any order. If you make a mistake your voting will be valid up until that mistake is made. In other words if by accident you vote 1,2, 3, 5, it is valid up to and including 3.

ballot paper upper house

 

ballot paper uppper hpuse 2

 

 

By voting above the line, your preferences will be distributed in the order that the candidates appear below the line for the party or group you have chosen. Your preferences will first be distributed to the candidates in the party or group of your first choice, then to candidates in the party or group of your second choice and so on, until all your preferences have been distributed.

 

So if you mark a box with a 1, you vote counts for all the candidates under that box, candidates for that party or independent group, then onto the next group and so on.

 

If you vote 1 in one box only, your vote will count for that groups candidates only, if they are not elected, your vote finishes there.

 

(This is because those that write the laws, are well aware people wont understand them, and need to be able to count their vote where possible)

 

Voting below the line

 

If you vote below the line, you must number at least twelve boxes from 1 to 12, you are being told, you can vote the same as above the line, you can vote in order for as many or as few as you prefer.  By voting below the line your preferences will be distributed to the individual candidates as numbered on your ballot paper, in the order of your choice.

 

House of Representatives

 

The electoral changes were all about a double dissolution, not democratic reform, so the lower house (House of reps) has not changed, but similar rules apply, you are told to make every box in order of your preference, yet if you vote 1 in 1 box only, your vote will be counted for all the candidates as chosen by the candidate of that box (full preferential voting) there are also sections of the law that allow the Electoral Commission to guess your intention.

 

You can check the AEC’s web page instructions here: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/files/senate-how-to-vote-2016-large%20print.pdf

 

You can compare the legislation here:

 

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL 2016 c

 

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5626_ems_955e56de-c7ba-4a4a-8ca1-01ab948694f5/upload_pdf/Revised%20EM_%20Commonwealth%20Electoral%20Amendment%20Bill%202016.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

 

So voting is getting very confusing, simply because those that write the laws have the most to gain from structural biases, they write the law to empower themselves not we the people, so until this system is replaced by a truly independent board in respect to voting reform, our ability to express our genuine will, will continue to be diminished.

Mark Aldridge

Independent candidate for Makin

“Protecting the power of your vote”

WHAT WOULD YOU DO? Protect our markets or all community events?

January 31, 2016

YOUR BIG DECISION.

7q4gxC1454244222

I built Farm Direct for the people, so it is for you to choose its future.

Our position at this stage is our Lights-view and Parafield Markets, even our old Gawler site like most markets in the country were approved by local councils/airport authorities, they were assessed as merit use, which means they are an acceptable form of development/event under development law.

So far we have been able to ascertain that most markets, fetes and community events, especially those that are held on any regular basis, are approved in the very same way.

When we moved from the old Parafield site to Salisbury to upgrade facilities, we were made to jump through a few hoops, due our size, this included health and safety, environment, DPRI (Road traffic) Heritage SA, the approval of the development assessment panel, etc etc, and of course we passed.

Competition in the industry backed by an unregistered pop up market on my old site and middle men in the wholesale industry, took the council to court for approving us, using a well funded legal team arguing a technicality, that stalls should be considered Shops, and a group of stalls a shopping centre, they won.

This outcome means our approval for Salisbury was overturned and has to head back to the application process as an event/development which is “Non complying”, this will now be how all developments/events will now be assessed. Our other market at Lights-view and the approvals we have in other locations can also be challenged, as can most markets, fetes and events in Australia.

The process to approve a non-complying applications, is extremely tough, expensive and has no guarantees, full details;  https://www.facebook.com/freshfoodaustralia/posts/1141695339183426:0

This leaves us a community several options of where to go from here.

  1. We take this recent court decision back to the courts as an appeal.
  2. We lobby parliament to change the development act definitions to exclude stalls from being able to be called shops
  3. We go back to the development process for Salisbury as a shopping centre.
  4. We continue to trade and do nothing and refuse to close.
  5. We shut all our markets and give up on the other sites already complied for expansion.

Each of these options have cost factors, Farm Direct is not for profit, some weeks we lose money but on average we make a few hundred dollars after paying costs, advertising, marketing on line, signage ect ect comes out of what’s left, as founder I save anything else, but I assume my two days a week and the many hours on line and handling media, compliance and the defence of our markets, is worth a couple of hundred to me. (I would make 5 to 10 times that if I stayed home.)

This being the case we have very little money, our on-line fundraiser has raised around $3400 and cash donations are being audited for transparency, I assume around $1000.

The biggest cost is closure, because less people will have access to fresh affordable produce and our stall holders, farmer and producers may be forced onto the dole cue, like so many will of this finding is not overturned in one way or another.

Here are the final options;

  1. To appeal the court decision and safe guard all existing and future markets, fetes and events across the country will cost around $4,000 just in filing fees, hopefully less, We believe we have established an excellent legal team pro-bono, but if we were to lose, I would have to personally wear the legal costs. (We have to file the appeal by the 11th of February unless we can get an extension of time)

 

  1. The council could appeal the decision and then our lawyers would be able to join the action and we would have no costs and would not be accountable for legal costs if both teams lost (we feel we would win) Many in the council support this move, but do not believe they have the numbers to get an approval to start the action.

 

  1. My self, the council and several MP’s that are on side, will lobby the government to change the legislation to exclude stalls as being a shop in the definition, you can help with this.

 

  1. If we exclude the idea of saving every stall holder, of which there are thousands all over the country, we can simply go back and start a new application for Salisbury, the process is long and arduous, very expensive and there are no guarantees along the way (however unlike new applications, we have already passed most of the necessary red tape).

 

  1. If we take the path of least resistance, in protecting our markets only, one of the major costs will be hiring a Development Planner to help with the application process; this cost has yet to be factored in, and may make the legal avenue less expensive and the best option for every event in the country. (We would also have to offer a refund on those on line donations that made their donations based on the appeal process only)

 

  1. We could close down and give up on our new locations, this avenue is one I would never support personally, if everything we are trying was to fail, I would opt to trade illegally and face the consequences, most of our stall holders would also support this action.

 

The big problem is money, if we go to the courts, I can’t see it fair that my wife and I would have to cover the costs of a loss, if we go back to the development process, I am not sure we can afford a development planner, as non-complying applications are rarely granted without the best people on board, we have everything already in place.

What we need is a backer, some one that can converse with our legal team, and if they support us, will cover the costs in the event of a loss only, or to raise more awareness and donations, but time is running out.

I am still trying to raise more money, that way we have a safe guard, and when we win, any excess money raised would be donated to those recent fire victims who lost everything and were not insured on an equitable basis.

The on-line funding link ; https://www.gofundme.com/iupy3c

I need your thoughts on where to go, it is your market, without our customers, we are a group of struggling farmers and producers with nowhere to sell our product.

I have tried all the media, Dick Smith, Leon Bynor you name it, even friends I have dealt with for year, with very little success, so it is now up to us

With all of you behind us, working shoulder to shoulder, I believe we will make the right decision and make the best out of this sad situation, our future as a nation at this moment in time is in serious need of a win in the peoples favor, and what better a win than ensuring access to affordable fresh produce for future generations.

 

Mark Aldridge

Links ;

http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/Judgments/Lists/Judgments/Attachments/2429/2016%20SAERDC%201.pdf

https://markaldridge.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/outline-of-argument-markets-v-johnston/

New compliance red tape for stall holders and market/event managers overview

January 25, 2016

I will update this blog as information helps define the issues

This Market issue with the new precedents set by the ERD court are causing division, where there should be unity.

The findings have changed only one thing, a technicality in fact, they have determined a stall to be a shop, in the definitions of the development act.

There are people saying this does not affect them, or this is not an issue, or where the links are, a lot of miss information is undermining our ability to unite and tackle this issue in a timely manner.

Here is a link to the outcome. http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/Judgments/Pages/ERD-Judgments.aspx

The next link is to my initial argument to the ERD court

https://markaldridge.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/outline-of-argument-markets-v-johnston/

Stalls, Markets and fetes were considered merit use, so all approvals of present and past events like these were approved by councils and development panels as “Merit applications” they were all supported by development law.

The findings in the ERD court have now defined stalls as “Shops” and a group of stalls as a “shopping centre” if they are set up to display or retail goods of any kind.

This finding can affect development approvals Australia wide.

Shops and shopping centres are NOT Merit use in most locations present markets and community events are held. They are now considered “Non Complying” so neither envisaged nor encouraged.

Here is a link to how non complying applications are handled;

https://markaldridge.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/what-is-the-process-for-approvals-of-a-none-complying-development-stalls/

I have spoken with lawyers, development experts, MP’s and interested parties, so we are still trying to work out the implications for every small to large community event.

At this stage we all have a few options, many events and markets like mine, are currently approved, but none would have gone through that process as a shopping centre, so most of us are at risk wither now or into the future, future applications under these findings will be in a heap of trouble.

The first option is to take the finding to court and appeal it, to make a stall a stall again and of merit to the community, but only myself or the council can make that application to the full bench of the Supreme Court, and we only have 21 days from the 21st of January.

https://www.gofundme.com/iupy3c  is the link to help fund a court challenge

The second option is to lobby government to amend the definitions, I have been at that for some time, well before these findings, Mark Parnell from the greens put up an amendment and will again at the next sitting of parliament, last time Labor and Liberal did not support the amendment.

The third option for us all is to comply and when councils receive a complaint, each of us will have re-apply for approvals as “non complying” unless of course you are situated in an area zoned retail, but change of use might still get you.

There are sections in the development act to deal with trifling matters, which may protect single fund raising stalls, but that is a guess at this stage, the courts and development panels will have to deal with that.

There also may be massive issues with event insurance and stall holder insurance costs, again, too early to tell.

My suggestion is to continue to lobby parliament, and to lodge an appeal to ensure common-sense has the best chance.

I meet with the council on Friday, and I believe Salisbury council and several others are to lobby parliament through the minister to amend the definitions in the act.

These are the facts so far.

Mark Aldridge

What is the process for approvals of a “None complying development” “Stalls”

January 24, 2016

What is Non-Complying development?

Stalls now must comply as shops, a group of shops as a shopping centre, so are now non complying developments, where they were merit use, so what is involved to hold a market, fete or fundraising stall?

Non-Complying developments are listed in the Development Plan and are land uses which are NOT envisaged or encouraged within a particular area

The lodgement of a Non-Complying application incurs a number of expensive fees, and sometimes years of debate and massed of red tape, and there are no guarantees at any stage nor is there any right of appeal.

The assessment process for a Non-Complying development application involves a number of steps.

The first step when a Non-Complying application is made is for the Council staff to undertake a preliminary assessment. From this, they will decide to either refuse the application or proceed with a full assessment.

If the application is refused at this time the applicant has no right of appeal against the decision

If Council agrees to proceed with full assessment of the application a report called a Statement of Effect is required to be submitted. This must be prepared by a qualified planner.

Qualified Planners can be very expensive and cannot always offer their service in a timely manner.

The second step, if the Council decides to proceed with the application, is for the Council planner to undertake a full assessment of the development. After Council planners have assessed the application they will write a report recommending either approval or refusal of the application to the Council Development Assessment Panel.

Once again there is no appeal process.

The third step is for the application, staff recommendation and report to go to a Council Development Assessment Panel meeting, where a decision will be made to support or refuse the application. Should Council refuse the development, the applicant has no right to appeal the decision

If Council supports the application then the Development Assessment Commission, the state planning authority, must also make a decision on the development

The forth step is for the Development Assessment Commission to assess the application. If the Development Assessment Commission does not support the application it will be refused. If the application is refused, the applicant has no right of appeal.

If the Development Assessment Commission approves the application, a Decision Notification Form will be sent to the applicant informing them of the approval and any conditions placed upon the development.

Imagine all this for a fete, fundraiser of garage sale.

Mark Aldridge

Concerns Notice Debra Tranter

December 10, 2015

9th April 2014

CONCERNS NOTICE

Debra Tranter

debratranter@gmail.com

Dear Debra

This letter is a Concerns notice for the purposes of section 14 of the Defamation Act 2005 (the Act).

Over the past few years, you have defamed my good name, which is the tort of defamation contrary to the Act as well as a criminal defamation contrary to section 257 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act of 1935.

Hundreds of posts by you on social networking and Twitter dating from Late 2013 up until April 2014 (the publications) have defamed my person.

You are the author of the publications. You have identified me in your publications.

The publications make defamatory and malicious allegations about me, which are untrue.

The publications convey the imputation or meaning that;

  1. I am involved at a personal level with a paedophile.
  2. That I support animal abuse.
  3. That I support animal abusers.
  4. That I shoot animals.
  5. That I support paedophiles and child abusers.
  6. That electors that vote for me are Puppy farmers, animal abusers and Pedos.
  7. That I support and defend child pornography
  8. I arrange lawyers to defend puppy farms.

These imputations are defamatory and false. I have had a long standing career as an honest business man and have worked tirelessly to support the community. I have spent many years gaining the trust of the community whom at the time I wished to represent. Your defamation of my good name has had massive consequences to my good name and the years I have invested as a political candidate.

My wife and I run a wildlife sanctuary and are involved in animal rescue and rehabilitation, I am also a long standing advocate for children in need, so your false statements are a deliberate attempt to undermine my life’s work.

Your publications have constituted a malicious falsehood designed to inflict financial harm and to damage my reputation. The community regards with revulsion those who commit or support such atrocities. Needless to say, the damage caused by your publications are serious and ongoing.

In an effort to avoid litigation of a serious nature, I invite you to make an offer to make amends as follows;

  1. Publish an immediate retraction of the allegations and an apology in the terms enclosed on your twitter account, your face book page and all Face book pages and websites associated with Oscars law. (copy below)
  2. Remove all defamatory posts written by you relating to me where ever they are published.
  3. Make a financial payment of $20,000 for compensation.

 

If the invitation to make an offer to make amends is not complied with, within 14 days of receiving this letter, I will issue proceedings in the Adelaide Magistrates Court without further notice seeking;

  1. An interim order requiring the removal of all defamatory publications
  2. An apology
  3. Damages by way of compensation for the injury to my reputation, injury to my feelings and to vindicate me for having been publicly defamed, not limited to the present request for compensation.
  4. All legal costs incurred.

I reserve all my rights in relation to this matter.

Recent legal precedents allow service by internet means, you have been served by Face Book and opened the Message and you are also served by way of Twitter links to this document.

 

Mark M Aldridge

P O Box 1073 Virginia SA 5120

aldridgemark@bigpond.com

 

APOLOGY AND RETRACTION TO BE PUBLISHED;

During the period between October 2013 and April 2014 I published comments on Face Book, Twitter and various other publications regarding Mark Aldridge political candidate and animal welfare advocate. These comments were completely without foundation and I wholly retract them.

I greatly regret any distress or embarrassment that my comments have cause Mr. Aldridge and his family, and I apologise to him and withdraw those comments unreservedly. I acknowledge the good reputation that Mr. Aldridge holds in the community.

Outline of argument Markets V Johnston

December 2, 2015

SECOND RESPONDANTS OUTLINE OF DEFENCE ON PRELIMINARY POINT

 

Introduction

  1. The Second respondent sought from the “City of Salisbury” (council) Development panel; consent to operate a market event “Farm direct community markets” every Saturday between the hours of 8.00 am and 1.00 pm and an educational market event every Wednesday between the same hours.

 

  1. The council accessed the market as a category 3 allowing publication notices for input from the local community and business traders.

 

  1. The Panel/council granted development plan consent to the development described as a Farmers market independent of the existing hotel.

 

  1. The subject land (northern carpark area) is within the “Open space zone” which supports community events of a variety of natures.

 

  1. The market area is not a premise under the act or by way of legal interpretation of which I will debate later in this document.

 

  1. The Appellant alleges that the Market is a “shop or group of shops” and therefor is non- complying

 

  1. The second respondent argues the Market is a regular community event, held on open land, and that the temporary stalls (trestles) cannot be defined as a shop or group of shops for a variety of reasons.

 

  1. To try and argue that a transient market/stall is a shop, carries with it many connotations that would affect a variety of community events, from Markets and fetes to festivals and casual events.

 

  1. Parliament’s intention would never have been to undermine longstanding community events, or to have a stall defined as a shop.

 

  1. Market insurances, stall holders insurances and the stall holder contracts add further weight to the argument “A stall is not a shop”

 

THE ISSUES;

 

  1. The term shop is described in schedule 1 of the Development regulations 2008 (SA) as meaning “premises used primarily for the sale by retail or display of goods, food stuffs, merchandise or materials.”

 

  1. The Second respondent agrees that the market/event is used for the sale of goods, food stuffs, and merchandise.

 

  1. The issues raised by the appellant’s arguments thus far create debate around several issues “Primarily use” “Premises” and a final definition of “what is a shop”.

 

THE ISSUE OF PRIMARILY

 

  1. The Market has consent approval to operate at certain times and days, the terms of the development approval cannot constitute the primary use of the land, which as open space that is used for a variety of purposes, the primary use is that of operating as a car park.

 

  1. Even if we were to apply the ground cover as a fixture, the appellant’s argument fails here. The transient nature of the markets approvals, do not allow for any permanence nor primary use.

 

  1. The market may or may not operate at any one time or date allowed by the councils consent, due to a variety of reasons that can affect any open air events of a similar nature.

 

  1. The very nature of a “Market” is one of an event, one that is neither regular nor impeding on the land itself, and there for cannot be the primary use of the land.

 

  1. The primary use of the land in its entirety is that of a hotel and carpark, so from this perspective the markets operation cannot be the primary use, as required by the Development Acts intention and words.

 

  1. The Hotel and Carpark have in the past been used for community events, in each case, prior to and after the event the Hotel and Carpark return to its primary use.

 

  1. Neither the site nor the stalls themselves are able to be exclusively occupied as a direct result of their transient nature and the approvals under which we operate.

 

 

THE ISSUE OF PREMISES;

 

  1. Premises…..is defined by the legal dictionary as; 1) in real estate, land and the improvements on it, a building, store, shop, apartment, or other designated structure. The exact premises may be important in determining if an outbuilding (shed, cabana, detached garage) is insured or whether a person accused of burglary has actually entered a structure.

 

  1. Conservative and Unionist Central Office v Burrell [1982] 1 WLR 522 CA at 525 per Lawton LJ.

As Bennion states (Statutory Interpretation 3rd ed 1997 p 434):

 

“Whatever meaning may be expressly attached to a term, it is important to realise that its dictionary meaning is likely to exercise some influence over the way the definition will be understood by the court.”

 

  1. Turner v York Motors Pty Ltd (1951) 85 CLR 55 at 75, after referring to the decisions of the State courts, Dixon J said: “According to Lord Chelmsford, speaking for the Privy Council, the word ‘premises’ in popular language is applied to buildings … This statement is confirmed by the Oxford New English Dictionary … the word ‘premises’ is no doubt a vague one but in legislation of this sort there are great advantages in a test of its application which is objective and consists in a readily ascertainable physical fact. Having regard to the history of the provision and the dictionary meaning of the word ‘premises’, I think that we should adhere to the rule laid down that bare land without buildings, if let for the purpose of occupation as bare land, does not constitute premises.” If land is let upon terms that the tenant shall or may erect buildings which are not removable by him but will pass with the freehold, then I should say that the land and building when erected would form premises.

       Emphasis added.

  1. The Appellant has argued that land itself can be premises, so I will quote further from informed and robust legal debate on the interpretation.

 

  1. The language from reg. 8 of the National Security {Landlord and Tenant) Regulations. In three jurisdictions the word “ premises ” as there used was interpreted as not including “ vacant land without more ” but as requiring something in the nature of buildings before land could be considered “ premises ” {Simms v. Lee (1) ; McNamara v. Quinn (2); Re Mayne (3)

 

 

  1. The Appellant has argued that in Turner N York Motor that Williams J, used the words “It is wide enough to include bare land” in his overview of the case, although there was some debate in the reasons given by Dixon J and Williams J for arriving at the conclusion that “premises” in that legislation did not include vacant land.

 

I feel the matter was settled the following year by the decision in Bonnington & Co Pty Ltd v Lynch (1952) 86 CLR 259 at 264

 

In the joint judgment of five justices including Dixon CJ and Williams J where the Court said:     “The definition of ‘prescribed premises’ … has been taken to show that on the land there must be some building or structure or perhaps artificial work, which colloquially might be described as ‘premises’, and that accordingly vacant or bare land cannot constitute ‘prescribed premises’. Such a view was adopted in the Supreme Court of more than one State and to it this Court subscribed in York Motors Pty Ltd v Turner

 

  1. The Appellant may have argued here, that artificial work indeed exists, in the form of Car parking facilities, which would take the argument back to “Primary use” as of course a car park, but he chose not to.

NOTE: Mcnamara v Quinn [1947] VicLawRp 16; [1947] VLR 123 (19 September) At page 124,

On behalf of the complainant, i~ was contended that these Regulations did not govern the matter as they only required such notice from the lessor of “any prescribed premises”, and since there was no building on the land in question it was not “prescribed premises’

 

  1. The second respondent there for submits that the judgement in Bonnington & Co Pty Ltd V Lynch ought to be adopted in construing the definition of “premises” in the development Act.

 

  1. The Appellant also goes as far as trying to argue that “Service trade premises” is defined to mean premises, I make note here of the similarity to the “Land” debated in Turner V York motors, where the land was fenced, as would be a trade premises, therefore being able to exclude others.

I also note here again, that the entirety of the land in both cases had a singular use, (primary use) and that the lease agreements of whatever nature they might be, awarded sole use to a party. The market approval being debated does not enjoy sole use.

 

  1. The ability of land to exclude others may indeed enable a debate in relation to the use of the word premises, but in the case of the Markets in question, the open space being used does not have the ability to exclude others, and neither do the stalls themselves.

 

  1. The term “Timber yard” IS specifically excluded from the definition of shop in the development act, yet Timber Yards” at times have structures on the land, and fencing to enable them to exclude others. The market again has neither adding weight to the council’s approval.

 

  1. The Supreme Courts in two States held that the definition of “Premises” did not include bare land (McNamara v. Quinn [1947] VicLawRp 16; (1947) VLR 123 ; Re Mayne (1947) QWN 40 ). Roper C.J. in Eq. in a third

 

 

ARE STALLS SHOPS?

 

  1. The second respondent argues that if the land itself is not a premises and if the primary use is that of a car park, then the stalls cannot be shops in the definition of the legislation.

 

  1. The dictionary description ought to play a part in the interpretation of the definition, being;

Stall 1(stôl)

 

  1. A compartment for one domestic animal in a barn or shed.
  2. A booth, cubicle, or stand used by a vendor, as at a market.
  3. A small compartment: a shower stall.
  4. An enclosed seat in the chancel of a church.
  5. A pew in a church.
  6. Chiefly British A seat in the front part of a theater.
  7. A space marked off, as in a garage, for parking a motor vehicle.
  8. A protective sheath for a finger or toe.
  9. The sudden, unintended loss of power or effectiveness in an engine.
  10. A condition in which an aircraft or airfoil experiences an interruption of airflow resulting in loss of lift and a tendency to drop.
  11. stalled, stall·ing, stalls

 

  1. Stallholder

(ˈstɔːlˌhəʊldə)

n

(Commerce) a person who sells goods at a market stall

 

  1. The full court in Skaventzos V Vander-lee indeed made the point that a roadside stall was excluded as being a shop, going onto pose the question “What distinguishes a stall from other kinds of shops”

 

The court concluded it is the transient and unsubstantial character of the structure at which the retail selling of goods is conducted, that is the determining factor.

 

 

  1. The Second respondent agues here again, that the stalls utilising the market in question come and go, they are indeed transient, and unsubstantial in nature (I refer to the affidavit of Gary Temple the market manager) on page one of that document.

 

CONCLUSION

 

  1. The Primary use of the land is that of a car park, making the appellants application fail from the onset, as the market is not the primary use of the land.

 

  1. A Premise by way of its definition/intent cannot be vacant land, therefor the market/stalls do not meet the criteria of being a shop as described in the development act.

 

  1. Premises MUST constitute a defined area of land that is both exclusively occupied with a degree of permanence; The Market is neither an exclusive use nor is awarded any permanence by the council’s approval.

 

  1. The Market is a community event of a semi regular basis which is supported by development planning and its transient nature precludes it from being defined as a shop, it could be argued that as an event, development planning approvals may not have even been required.

 

 

  1. The existing development consent of merit use, and the development panel’s approval for the markets ought to stand.

 

  1. Note; Planning policy terms in relation to the South Australian development act, state’;

Community land means land used for the provision of social, recreational or educational facilities for the local community.

The second respondent could argue with conviction that the markets are a community event, therefor exempt from the need for development approvals.

 

The term Open space in the act, has a similar feel and application; Public and private recreational areas and facilities of an open character which are not classed as a development.

(schedule 3 Development regulations 2008 clause 2(1)(e)

 

 

 

Mark Aldridge (second respondent)

 

 

 

Salisbury fruit bowl reply

August 22, 2015

Salisbury fruit bowls on line post, my reply is in angled writing.

Australia is a civilised country and its people are protected by its laws.

Farm direct has passed all the laws to exist, each stall holder must supply ABN’s, Insurances and pass council and state government food handling legislation, so we should be protect by this countries laws

From the beginning of this situation, up until this point, I have only wanted the problem between you and I to be solved civilly and squarely based on the laws. However, due to your mother’s role as the Mayor of Salisbury I do not regard the city council’s arbitration decision as an impartial one.

So you are saying that my mother the Major has broken the law and interfered with due process, that is a serious accusation, something you have shown a tendency to do over the past few months, slandering the good name of my markets, my stall holders and no my mother.

The law would without doubt find you guilty of slander, this is called liable, and is not legal in this country, so going back to your first comment, should we be protected by our laws from your abuse of them?

I feel on this issue I need a judgement from a court, as this would be impartial. If the judge decides that you are right and you can stay, I will abide by the court’s decision.

A panel of experts made a decision, based on the facts, and made a unanimous decision to back the markets new location, and in our old location we also passed scrutiny of the law.

After applying for a court review of this matter, in my opinion, you have used many cowardly, despicable and underhanded tactics and manoeuvres to incite your online followers to take action against our business. There have also been personal attacks on the credibility of our family and employees. We have multiple documented occasions of your online insults and harassments towards us and our business.

Now once again you are taking liberty with the truth, you posted a document on line for thousands to see, that accused our markets and its stall holders of being criminals, with out proof of any kind, you then ask for my reply, which I posted, you then removed my reply (I have copies of all the replies) and mine was fair and answered your questions.

You also wish to shut out markets, so your words and actions attack many small farms and businesses and thousands of loyal customers, so they came to your site to express themselves, that has nothing to do with myself or our markets management, you reaps what you sew.

In my belief, it is very shameful for people to act in these rude, untactful ways, especially on the basis of fabricated information.

I have never once fabricated information, and the people that posted in reply to your words on your page on your request, were all removed, leaving for some time (I have copies) nasty words from yourself and some nasty internet trolls, abusive and vile comments regarding myself and my staff and stall holders, of which you allowed to remain on your page, very very unprofessional indeed.

I would prefer it if I could only deal with upstanding, law-abiding people, however this is seeming to be impossible in this situation. If you cease and desist this online and personal bullying and assault of our business and personal characters, I have decided I will no longer pursue legal action. However, if you continue in these ways I will be left with no choice other than to see you in court.

Again you seems to take liberty with the truth, as soon as I was made aware you had any issue with our market, may I say after 3 years of operating without a compliant from you, I came straight to your shop to sort this out in a professional and adult manner, I spoke with your staff who seemed very nice, and also bumped into a few good friends while I was there, and I offered to work with you in any way I could. I then phoned again to speak with you as you had not returned calls, and you said “I have lots of money and I will spend what I have to close you down, not once did you offer to meet and see if we could overcome any issues you had. (I have audio of the conversation) as I like to be able to evidence my words, I am not a liar.

Your issue and you agreed with me, was with the new market at my old Parafield site, so why have you not taken it up with them, why attack us, you post words without honour, yet those that know us both speak highly of you as a business man, a genuine man would have met with me, and at least tried to work together, your actions have consequences, yet you try to blame me for them.

I never intended to hurt you or your business in any way, my advice to you is the same I give anyone on any topic, go with your heart, sit and listen to your inner voice, you know the truth, we all do, I suspect you have been listening to words from other people, who only have their own best interests in mind, not yours, me, I am still more than happy to meet with you, but your actions over the past few weeks, will not make the way forward as easy as it could have been.

Tôi yêu bạn và muốn bạn tốt nhất

Mark