Gold Coast City Council has applied to the High Court for permission to appeal against a ruling that found luxury apartments do not improve housing affordability.
The Queensland Court of Appeal ruled in July that council could not justify its approval of a luxury beach-side tower well above the area's height limit, on the basis that it would improve "housing choice and affordability".
In documents lodged with the High Court this week, the council argued the Court of Appeal's ruling "will cause significant disruption to existing approvals" not only on the Gold Coast, but across Queensland.
"It would not be economically sensible or efficient to provide affordable housing in a beachfront development because the price of any dwelling in that location would not meet the definition of affordable housing," council's submission to the High Court stated.
A spokesperson for Gold Coast City Council declined to comment.
"It would be inappropriate to comment on matters before the court," the spokesperson said.
Luxury gets 'affordability' exemption
Under council's planning scheme, developers can build up to 50 per cent above an area's height limit if a project meets certain criteria ranging from improved amenity to benefits for "housing choice and affordability".
In 2023, developer Cielo Property Group applied to build a luxury high-rise in Bilinga, 10-metres above the suburb's height-limit.
Court documents show the 34-metre high development was also 121 per cent above the area's prescribed density limit.
Council approved the development partly on the basis that it would benefit "housing choice and affordability".
Nearby residents appealed against the approval in the Planning and Environment Court but lost.
The Planning and Environment Court noted that, while the "very expensive apartments" would not provide affordable housing for low-to-middle income earners, it would "contribute to housing affordability through the provision of additional housing stock", helping to "alleviate pressures on supply".
But in its judgment last month, the Court of Appeal found luxury apartments designed for the "more affluent market" could not be considered a benefit to housing affordability.
"To do so would be a distortion of the ordinary meaning of affordability," Justice Shane Doyle stated.
Affordable vs affordability
Under state planning policies, "affordable housing" is defined as housing where low-to-middle-income households spend no more than 30 per cent of their income on housing costs.
But council's planning scheme, which operates under those policies, does not directly define "housing choice and affordability".
In its High Court submission, council argued the Court of Appeal interpreted "housing choice and affordability" too narrowly by equating it with "affordable housing".
Council instead argued "housing choice affordability" could also be achieved through "a mix of dwelling type, size and location in residential developments" across the entire city.
Council's submission also asserted that building affordable housing on prime beachfront land worth "tens of millions of dollars" would not be economically practical or reasonable.
It is not clear when the High Court will decide on whether to accept council's application to appeal.
Gold Coast councillors will be briefed on the legal action at next Tuesday's full council meeting.
