20 Wardell Road, Earlwood NSW

We oppose this application as unsuitable for this location which mainly consists of low-density family residences and is right next to extensive park areas where many children frequent during the day and well into the evenings. Developers are having trouble getting approvals for their high-density apartments now, so instead are repeatedly pushing for construction of boarding houses which are equally, if not more socially inappropriate in these environments, just so they can make a quick monetary return without regard to the impact on the local community. Presently we are happy for our older children to independently play and attend their soccer training and matches in Beaman Park but would be questioning this if I knew next door had become a boarding house (and a big one at that!). Low cost/social, responsible housing is to be encouraged but this does not fit in that category.

Considering the mess of development around nearby Dulwich Hill station, the concrete canyon that Canterbury Rd is becoming and the current corruption scandal engulfing Canterbury City Council (https://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/investigations/current-investigations/investigationdetail/225) , I would say a development of this style and size flies in the face of your residents needs and wishes. Please deny this application.

I object to boarding houses being built in the suburb of Earlwood and neighboring suburbs. The building type is inappropriate for this suburb of low density family housing. Boarding houses should be kept together with other social housing in areas such as Redfern which is already home to much of this sort of housing. Tenants of boarding houses generally create noise, garbage and other problems because they can be itinerant and show little care for the landscape around them.

Council, please reject this application.
This development should be rejected on the basis that its not in character with the low density residential and recreational character of its surroundings. Just in height; 12.85m from ground level, its more like a 4 story building.
Yes affordable housing is important but this is nothing but a developer bypassing local planning laws using the affordable housing act. to build 34 "micro apartments" in our park.
Sitting against a background of water, green and family houses, I reckon this isn't what we have in mind when we think building within the "charter of the local area".

I urge the Council to reject this application. While I support affordable housing, this is an inappropriate location for it next to a park that has dozens of sporting events every weekend with hundreds of children. The main road is already impacted by high traffic during these times and also during the peak hour rush. The impact to the park from additional rubbish from so many residents would not be appropriate. Further the size that is proposed is not in line with low density housing on the earlwood side of cooks river. I strongly oppose the building of this site and believe the developers are simply trying to find a way for council to support their development. Please have regard to the wishes of the community and reject this application.

The council should reject this application. The council needs to find whatever grounds possible to reject it.

It is very obvious that developers are exploiting the "State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) Affordable Rental Housing", which overrides council’s planning controls.

Every second DA is for a boarding house now.

The state government needs to close the loophole because these developers are not in the slightest interested in creating affordable housing - they are just maximizing profit by overriding the council’s planning controls.

They are like sheep all following each other down this path at the moment.
The council (albeit previous one) is already splashed all over newspapers for corruption. And are rightly so, making it harder for these awful apartments to be built.
So these developers look for a loophole to exploit. And here they have found one.
Please bring some credibility back to this council and find grounds and reason to reject this.
Shame on these developers.