A legal stoush has broken out between a disability accommodation developer and a suburban Queensland council over a two-storey project and whether it deserves to be fast-tracked amid a housing crisis across the state.
Disability Homes Investments (DHI) said it is developing the property to house people with disabilities on a quiet street in Cleveland, south-east of Brisbane.
Once complete, the Danielle Street building would have a therapy pool and four separate two-bedroom units, each with their own bathrooms, a kitchen and a balcony, as well as a studio for a carer, according to development plans.
But the Redland city council claims the property is not a community residence and is seeking to block any works from happening, arguing the project is not exempt from seeking development approvals.
Community residences are defined by state legislation as single detached dwellings or units on a single lot that house a maximum of six people who require assistance and no more than one support worker. The state government included this exemption to its planning legislation in 2017 to cut red tape and support the timely delivery of community residences.
A spokesperson for the council said: “The Danielle Street development does not meet the definition and requirements for a community residence … without first obtaining a planning approval.”
This is because council staff believe the development “provides for more than six people” and “comprises more than one residence, providing five separate self-contained dwellings”, according to the spokesperson.
But Darryl Richards, a former lawyer for DHI and co-founder of disability accommodation provider NDISP, said the property fits the definition of a community residence.
He said it will house only four people who need assistance and have another room in each unit for storage space or overnight guests.
“There’s nowhere near enough of these developments. People [with disabilities] are living in nursing homes, hospitals or properties that aren’t suitable,” he said.
“[Building these properties] frees up the social housing list and it’s the right thing to do.”
The council issued an enforcement notice last November for the trustee of the development, Boutique Capital, and Spec Constructions to stop work on the property – which they appealed.
A judge in the planning and environment court ruled the enforcement notice be set aside in March, prompting the council to lodge separate legal proceedings.
Richards said that before now he hadn’t heard of a council and investor disagreeing over whether a development is a community residence and needs approval.
“We have 40 [similar properties] under construction all over the state … and 100 overall properties. Other councils actually welcome them and … waive building fees and all sorts of things to encourage development like this,” he said.
Dr Tony Matthews, an urban planning academic at Griffith University, said there is a shortage of disability accommodation that provides for independent living.
“Housing that’s properly designed and catered for people with disabilities is in seriously short supply,” he said. “Often they end up in very inappropriate housing … or facilities where they don’t belong.”
But Matthews said councils don’t normally object to developments unless they feel they have a cause to do so.
“If they’re objecting this heavily to it, they certainly must feel that they have very strong grounds for doing that,” he said.
A spokesperson for the state’s planning department said “the local council is the relevant enforcement authority responsible for determining if the development’s use meets the definition of a community residence”.
The spokesperson said local councils have various enforcement actions available to them if they believe a community residence is being used for other purposes.
“[This includes] issuing a show cause notice or enforcement notice requiring the owner of the property to remedy the effect of a development offence.”
A court date is due to be set in May.
