Original source · versioned page text
Darren Tindale Objection
Attached to the e-mail MCU19 0066 - Submission - Darren Tindale.msg.
MCU19/0066 - 2197 David Low Way Peregian Beach Qld. 4573 Lot 625 P93121 To The Assessment Manager I refer to the above application and hereby lodge my objection accordingly and strongly oppose this application on the following grounds: The Town Plan does not allow for a commercial component on this site for very good reason. It faces onto a very busy single laned road with parking arrangements that require vehicles to reverse out into not only a bicycle lane but also on-coming traffic. There are only 10 car spaces available and 2197 David Low Way is made up of 3 Lots. Namely Lot 625 of which this application applies, Lot 896 being Sheepskin and Opal World including large Residence and Lot 897 (currently vacant). One would have to agree that Lot 896 is already under pressure with only 3 odd car spaces aloted for a retail business and owners residence and staff. In fact, from the Plan provided it has become apparent that Lot 896 buildings are spread across all three lots with NO off street parking provision. This being the case, one would assume there would be a minimum requirement of at least 8-10 car spaces for this lot alone. Therefore this MCU will set a precedent to this site with little or no room for safe parking provisions. Should this MCU be given approval, the single lot will be operating a Nursery; a Real Estate Business; a Homeware/Gift Shop and a Cafe. Would I be incorrect in suggesting there are only some 3 odd car spaces available for Lot 625? Applicants states they have 3 staff car parking space available. This is untrue. The aforementioned parking spaces have always, and in reality (even if it is made a condition of any approval) will always be used for storage and work area. Their cars and quite often a trailer, are always either parked in the side street or out the front utilising front car spaces. Please refer to attachment 1 images relating to this area. In fact please refer to applicants images on their website that clearly shows applicants vehicle parked on the street front along with the sign advertising Real Estate office. Applicant states there is ample car spaces out the front - being 10. This is untrue. The applicants Lot 625 only has access to 3 odd spaces. There is also a Postal Box and vehicles frequently pull into this area, to post their mail. There is also a public telephone booth, all of which place demand on parking space in this proximity. Cyclists are going to be placed at high risk with an increased demand on the nature of parking arrangements in this area. In relation to the Applicant and on a more personal note: there are some things that need to be said having had a personal experience. In the Application and in particlar, the letter to Council explaining the proposed use of the site by the Applicant; they make a number of untrue claims. Applicant claims they are not looking to expand their personnel however there is obviously an aim to expand their business and has made cold calls to local residence in my area. I
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 2 pages
Page 2
believe the Applicant has also just taken on a Personal Assistant and will also add a further vehicle to this site. Applicant states they walk to work most of the time. This is untrue and designed to mislead Council. They would rarely (if ever) walk to work when living less than a kilometre from site. They have since moved much further away and certainly will not be walking to work from this location. Applicant states by adding the Real Estate Business to the Nursery, there is be no additional foot traffic. This is untrue. Applicant has placed substantial advertising signage on the Nursery fence and places an A frame sign out on Council street frontage, advertising ‘Office Open’. Applicant states they have made no changes to the premises since acquiring it. This is untrue. Applicant states they have only given the nursery a ‘lick of paint’ since taking over the premises. In fact Applicant states “I want to reiterate that we have done absolute nil changes to the existing building just gave it a lick of paint so it looks nice and tidy” This is untrue - in fact it is clearly another lie as they have made numerous alterations such as internal wall fitouts and cabinetry. There also appears to have been the demolition of existing front block work wall and wrought iron fencing with installation of gate entry to premises; laying of brickwork pavers out onto what we assume is council land and removal of further wrought iron front fencing and installation of glass panels. In fact the applicant trips up on their own untruths by admitting in their letter, and quote “Was per our lease we then proceeded to divide the existing building up in my Real-estate Office and a gift shop with a coffee bar”. Please refer to Sabine Freitag google street view and images (I was directed to this site by a fellow community member and this clearly illustrates the before/after changes). If there is any doubt as to when these changes took place, please refer to google street view that shows the Nursery for Rent sign out the front before Applicant acquired the lease on site. I feel Council should be made aware, the Applicant had the opportunity to secure a Lease on a shop in the Peregian Village that had already been a Real Estate office, but pulled out due largely because of the rental price. It was sometime after this, the Applicant took on the lease at the above site. There has continued to be available lease opportunities in the Village and the commercial hub north of the village on David Low Way. It should be remembered that all of the above behavour has been undertaken by the applicant, who is a very experienced real estate agent with full knowlege of the rules and regulations that apply to such undertakings. It should also be noted, The Applicant has been operating Air bnb in a duplex establishment and despite a request by your Council officers to remove the property from Air bnb website, it was at a later stage, re-listed and the Applicant took further bookings over a period of time. Despite being advised this subletting could jeopardise our insurance, applicant continued to sub-let. The applicant and her partner’s behaviour towards us and my wife in particular, resulted in us moving out of our home. My wife unfortunately received a very disturbing text message from the applicant, whilst she was unwell and recovering from chemo and radiation treatment for cancer. Although in some areas of my letter, I have moved away from matters relating to the MCU Application, I believe I have detailed pertinent and relevant reasons why this Application
Page 3
should not be approved. However, the personal references, I believe are very relevant, due to the constant untruths which I have personally encountered on many occasions. Darren Tindale 1/12 Plover Street Peregian Beach Qld. 4573