A recent decision by the NSW Land & Environment Court has halted a developer’s plan to turn a 32-room boarding house in Paddington, Sydney, into four luxury flats. The property, owned by LFD Developments, had already seen most of its residents, mostly elderly men, evicted in October 2024. They had lived there for years in tight-knit arrangements. The City of Sydney refused permission for the redevelopment, citing the importance of retaining much-needed affordable housing, and the court backed that stance, according to ABC News.
Although the judge agreed it was too late for the residents who’d already been displaced, the ruling is viewed as a legal milestone. It rejected the developer’s appeal, stating that approving the conversion would result in an “unacceptable loss” of affordable rental accommodation. As detailed by The Guardian, this decision could set a precedent for preserving social housing in other parts of Australia.
A bittersweet outcome for displaced residents
The court’s verdict may be a win for affordable housing advocates, but it came too late for the 28 men who were evicted. Jeff Elliott, a 61-year-old postal worker who had lived there for more than 20 years, described the place as “like a family—barbecues, Christmas, everything together.” He now lives temporarily with relatives, but admits he’s lost both his home and his community. His story is featured in ABC News’ earlier coverage.
Neighbours, led by campaigners like Mike Mannix, expressed relief at the ruling but lamented that it came after the men had been scattered across the city. A Greens councillor, Sylvie Ellsmore, called the ruling “bittersweet,” and urged the NSW government to purchase boarding houses to turn them into public housing, saving a form of affordable homes many believe is disappearing too fast.
Sydney’s Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, welcomed the decision, saying it should inspire revisions to planning rules so that “significant loss of individual homes” is recognised as grounds to reject future development applications. The council had even offered to co-buy the property with the state government, but the developer did not take them up on the offer.
Why this ruling matters, and what UK planners could learn
Australia’s shortage of affordable housing is mirrored here at home. In London and other UK cities, once-affordable housing stock, such as council flats, shared housing and retirement dwellings, is being lost to redevelopment. This Paddington case demonstrates one way to push back: citing community benefit and affordable housing loss when considering new planning applications.
London authorities have introduced Article 4 directions and community spaces policies to protect existing homes from demolition, but no equivalent of the NSW court’s explicit social-impact test exists. A precedent like this in NSW shows the difference planning law can make. If UK councils had stronger legal backing to block demolitions of affordable homes, it could help maintain diverse and resilient neighbourhoods.
Courts or inspectors could be empowered to say “no” when a development delivers profit at the cost of homes for low-income people, which is something Australia hasn’t allowed until now. Perhaps it’s time for the UK to look at similar checks: protecting shared accommodation, older tenants, and social diversity as a vital asset, not just a side issue.
What comes next
LFD Developments can still appeal, but the court’s current decision carries weight. Even if the boarding house doesn’t re-open as affordable housing, the judgment may deter other developers from buying up similar properties purely to convert them to high-end flats.
More broadly, this ruling kicks off a national conversation in Australia about preserving housing for all income levels, not just the highest bidders. Groups like Newtown Neighbourhood Centre argue that boarding houses often serve as the entry point out of homelessness, yet they’re disappearing because they don’t provide the same financial returns as luxury units.
In the UK, where 24% of housing is in the private rented sector and many older buildings are at risk of conversion or demolition, this kind of ruling could be influential. It reminds planners and politicians that social housing comes in many forms beyond brick-built council estates, and that preserving modest homes matters. Perhaps we’ll see more legislative appetite here for social-impact tests or mandatory inclusion clauses in future developments.
Because in both Sydney and London, keeping long-term renters in their homes is more than an economic debate. It’s a matter of fairness, stability, and the kind of neighbourhoods we want to live in.