Residential Parks x Tiny Houses = More Australians in Affordable Homes
How residential parks could give tiny houses a legal home - and help solve Australia's housing crisis
A new paper (Residential parks: a solution for siting tiny houses? by David Bunce) in Australian Planner makes the case that residential parks could solve two problems simultaneously: providing legal sites for tiny houses while expanding affordable housing options.
Why it matters: Australia has no specific planning laws allowing tiny houses as permanent residences without council approval. This leaves many tiny house dwellers in legal limbo, with homes existing "in the grey areas between legality and illegality."
Big picture: Housing has become severely unaffordable in Australia since COVID-19 due to:
Labor shortages
High material costs
Low vacancy rates
Lack of suitable housing stock
State of play
Australian houses have grown about 30% larger since the 1990s, with tiny houses emerging as a reaction to these "obese" family homes. Most tiny house enthusiasts seek permanent locations rather than frequent moves, reflecting what David calls "a broader Australian tendency toward non-conformity and rule-bending." The movement has gained traction among those seeking affordable, community-oriented living solutions.
By the numbers:
New tiny house on wheels: $65,000-$200,000
Standard size: 17.5m² (below 35m² building code minimum)
Maximum road-legal dimensions: 2.5m wide, 4.3m high, 7.5m long
Australia has ~1,000 residential parks vs. 45,000 in the U.S.
Only ~300 households live permanently in tiny houses in Australia
71,000 people live in residential/caravan parks in total
Between the lines
Residential parks could provide a legal pathway because:
Homes are "installed" rather than built, bypassing some building codes
Parks already have infrastructure and amenities
Current laws allow permanent residence
Eligible residents can receive rent assistance
Parks could foster community and social connections
Key challenges: The residential park industry has increasingly shifted toward upscale retirement communities, while many existing parks face closure due to rising infrastructure costs and land values. Complex planning approval processes create additional barriers, compounded by social stigma and stereotypes around mobile home communities. The lack of mortgage financing options and limited interest from park owners in affordable housing further complicate the situation.
Demographics most likely to benefit: The tiny house movement in residential parks could mainly serve single-person households and women over 55, representing the fastest-growing group at risk of homelessness. Lower-income households and retirees looking to downsize, especially those seeking community-oriented living environments, could also find opportunities.
What's next: The paper calls for:
More flexible planning policies to encourage park development
Incentives for developers to create tiny house communities
Partnerships between government and community housing groups
Long-term land-use zoning protections
Minimum 65 sites per development for economic viability
Universal design principles in home construction
Green credentials and attractive design features
Bottomline:
With proper planning support, residential parks could help legitimize tiny houses while providing affordable housing options in community settings. This could benefit vulnerable groups like older women and lower-income households seeking home ownership alternatives.