Darren Tindale Objection

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