Luxury tower 'affordability' claim rejected in landmark court ruling

A significant court ruling has cast doubt on the approval of high-rise developments on the Gold Coast, establishing that luxury apartments do not inherently improve housing affordability merely by increasing the overall housing supply.

“

To add to the supply of apartments designed to cater to the luxury and more affluent market cannot, in my view, be reconciled with the ordinary meaning of the word 'affordability'.

The Queensland Court of Appeal, in a July judgment, overturned a council's justification for allowing a luxury high-rise to exceed the regulated height limit. The council had argued that the project would enhance "housing choice and affordability." However, Justice Shane Doyle stated in his summary that apartments catering to the luxury market cannot be reasonably considered as contributing to housing affordability. He asserted that defining such developments as improvements to affordability would be a "distortion of the ordinary meaning of affordability."

This decision has introduced uncertainty into the council's high-rise approval process, with councillors scheduled for a briefing on its implications. Previously, under the council's planning rules, developers could build up to 50 percent above height limits if they met various criteria, including contributing to "housing choice and affordability." In one instance, the City of Gold Coast approved a luxury project that exceeded height and density limits, finding it met these criteria.

“

To do so would be a distortion of the ordinary meaning of affordability.

Nearby residents had challenged this approval, but lost in the Planning and Environment Court. However, the Court of Appeal's finding that this was an "error in law" is expected to have broader significance for other development applications. The court noted that while the council's planning scheme did not explicitly define "housing choice and affordability," it did define "affordable housing" as being suitable for households with low to moderate incomes, spending no more than 30 percent of gross income on housing costs.

“

expected to have significance for other development applications