Opinion: Housing with community connection

‘Lifestyle estate’ communities offer a viable and affordable housing alternative.

Western Australia’s housing debate is often framed as a question of supply.

For an ageing population, though, the more pressing question is whether the housing being delivered is the right housing.

Residential parks have long played an important role in the state’s housing mix. Historically, these communities evolved out of caravan parks and provided an essential safety net for people experiencing housing stress, particularly older people and those of limited financial means.

Residents often had few alternatives and the power imbalance between park operators and residents was real.

The Residential Parks (Long Stay Tenants) Act 2006 applies to these parks and was rightly shaped around consumer protection for that cohort, focusing on tenure security, fairness and basic living standards.

During the past decade, however, a different model has emerged alongside those traditional parks. Purpose built land lease or ‘lifestyle estate’ communities are now delivering an alternative form of housing that combines long-term tenure, strong community connection and higher amenity at a lower entry price than many traditional housing options. Residents typically own their home, lease the underlying land, and participate in a managed community with shared facilities.

A review by the Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety of the Residential Parks (Long Stay Tenants) Act 2006 is currently under way to assess its operation and effectiveness. It presents a timely opportunity for the state government to ask if it is developing homes that allow people to right-size (and free-up much-needed housing stock), stay connected and retain independence without leaving their communities.

Experience in Queensland, NSW and Victoria demonstrates that this model can operate at scale and respond effectively to demographic change, particularly the needs of an ageing population seeking to right size without sacrificing quality of life.

For example, Vision by Halcyon (Queensland), Lifestyle by Chealsea (Victoria), and Latitude by Ingenia Lifestyle (NSW) all offer aspirational lifestyles with very high levels of amenity for residents. They leave mainstream suburban developments at the same price point for dead.

The challenge for WA is that the regulatory framework has not yet caught up with this diversification of residential park models.

The RP Act continues to apply a largely uniform approach to residential parks, despite the fact that traditional caravan-park-based residential parks and modern land lease communities are driven by very different resident profiles, risk settings and investment dynamics.

Rules designed for caravan-park-based residential parks sit uncomfortably when applied to modern land lease communities.

This does not mean consumer protection should be weakened. On the contrary, the statutory review presents an opportunity to ensure protections remain strong and targeted where residents are genuinely vulnerable.

Also worth consideration is whether the same regulatory tools are well suited to contemporary land lease developments, where residents typically enter arrangements voluntarily, often with independent advice, and with a greater capacity to understand and protect their own interests.

From an industry and housing supply perspective, developers and financiers need certainty around long-term tenure arrangements, permissible changes to parks over time, cost recovery for shared infrastructure and the interaction between residential park legislation and planning approvals.

Where those settings are unclear or misaligned capital is diverted to jurisdictions with more predictable frameworks, such as Queensland.

Importantly, these issues go directly to whether land lease communities can be delivered at scale in WA and whether they can play a meaningful role in easing housing pressure.

Other jurisdictions have approached this balance by being explicit about the objectives of their residential parks legislation, recognising both the need for strong consumer protection and the importance of a viable, well regulated industry capable of attracting long-term investment.

WA now has the same opportunity.

The current review should not be seen as a criticism of the existing framework, which has served an important purpose for many years.

Rather, it should be understood as a chance to recalibrate the RP Act so it continues to protect those it was designed to protect, while no longer inhibiting forms of housing the state is otherwise seeking to encourage.

In the context of ongoing housing pressures, demographic change and an ageing population, getting that balance right matters.

A regulatory framework that recognises the diversity of residential park models, and responds accordingly, will help unlock new housing options for older Western Australians, while maintaining fairness, stability and confidence across the sector.

That is an opportunity worth taking.

Many thanks to Lavan associate, Andreas Geronimos for his contribution to this article.

This article first appeared in the April 2026 edition of Business News magazine as part of Amber Crosthwaite’s regular opinion column. 

Disclaimer

The information contained in this publication does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. You should seek legal advice in relation to any particular matter you may have before relying or acting on this information. The Lavan team are here to assist.