Introduction
When you drive through a new housing estate, have you ever noticed how all the houses look the same? The same roof materials, the same façade designs, even the same colour schemes. This uniformity isn’t by accident—it’s by design, thanks to something called developer covenants. These covenants are a set of rules that dictate how homes in a new estate can be built, from the materials used to the size of the house. While they aim to maintain a certain standard, they often stifle innovation and limit consumer choice.
But who approves these covenants? That’s where regulatory authorities like Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) come in. These bodies are responsible for approving new housing estates, ensuring they meet planning and development standards. However, they also have the power to influence the covenants that developers impose.
In this blog post, we’ll explore how developer covenants are restricting innovation in Australian housing estates, the role of regulatory authorities in this process, and what can be done to encourage more diversity and creativity in residential construction.
What Are Developer Covenants?
When you buy a home in a new housing estate, you might think you have complete freedom to design and build your dream home. But in reality, there’s often a set of rules you have to follow. These rules are called developer covenants, and they dictate everything from the materials you can use to the size and style of your home.
Developer covenants are legal agreements that come with the land.
They’re put in place by the developer who created the estate, and they’re designed to ensure that all homes in the area meet a certain standard. For example, a covenant might specify that all roofs must be made of Colorbond steel, or that all homes must have a brick façade.
These rules might sound reasonable at first—after all, who wouldn’t want their neighbourhood to look neat and tidy? But the problem is that covenants often go too far. They can restrict not just the look of your home, but also the materials you’re allowed to use, the size of your house, and even the colour of your front door.
For instance, in some estates, covenants might require that all homes be at least 220 square metres in size. This can make it difficult for people who want to build smaller, more affordable homes. Similarly, covenants might mandate that all roofs be made of a specific material, like sheet metal, even if there are cheaper or more sustainable alternatives available.
These covenants are legally binding, which means that if you breach them, you could face penalties or even legal action. This can make it risky for homeowners to try something different, even if they have a great idea for a more innovative or sustainable design.
Why do developers use covenants?
Developers argue that covenants help maintain a consistent aesthetic across the estate, which can increase property values. They also say that covenants ensure a certain level of quality, which can protect homeowners from poorly built homes.
While these are valid points, the downside is that covenants often stifle creativity and limit consumer choice. They can also make it harder for new and innovative building methods to gain traction, as builders are forced to stick to the same old materials and designs.
How Covenants Stifle Innovation
Imagine walking through a new housing estate and seeing row after row of identical homes. Same roof, same façade, same colour scheme. It’s like a scene from a movie where everything looks perfect, but also… a bit boring. This lack of variety isn’t just an aesthetic issue—it’s a sign that innovation in residential construction is being stifled.
Developer covenants play a big role in this. By mandating specific materials, designs, and even house sizes, they leave little room for creativity or experimentation. Let’s break down how this happens:
1. Restricting New Materials and Technologies
Covenants often require builders to use specific materials, like Colorbond steel for roofs or brick for façades. While these materials are tried and tested, they’re not always the best option. For example, newer materials like lightweight composites or sustainable timber might be more cost-effective, environmentally friendly, or better suited to modern designs. But if the covenant says you have to use brick, you’re out of luck.
This restriction isn’t just frustrating for homeowners—it’s also a missed opportunity for the construction industry. By locking builders into using the same materials, covenants make it harder for new technologies to gain a foothold in the market.
2. Limiting Architectural Diversity
Covenants don’t just dictate materials—they also control the look and feel of homes. For example, a covenant might require that all homes have a “traditional” design, with pitched roofs and symmetrical façades. This leaves no room for modern, innovative designs like flat roofs, modular construction, or energy-efficient passive houses.
The result? Housing estates that all look the same, with little to no diversity in design. This not only makes neighbourhoods less interesting but also limits the ability of architects and builders to push boundaries and try new things.
3. Discouraging Smaller, More Affordable Homes
In many estates, covenants require that homes be a minimum size—often 200 square metres or more. While this might appeal to some buyers, it excludes people who are looking for smaller, more affordable homes.
This is a big problem in Australia, where housing affordability is a major issue. By mandating larger homes, covenants make it harder for first-home buyers, downsizers, and people on lower incomes to enter the market.
4. The Ripple Effect on Innovation
When builders are forced to stick to the same materials and designs, it creates a ripple effect across the entire construction industry. Suppliers have less incentive to develop new products, architects have fewer opportunities to experiment, and homeowners are left with fewer choices.
Over time, this lack of innovation can make the entire industry stagnant. Instead of embracing new ideas and technologies, we’re stuck with the same old ways of doing things.
The Role of Regulatory Authorities
When it comes to housing estates, developers aren’t the only ones calling the shots. Regulatory authorities play a crucial role in approving new developments and ensuring they meet planning and development standards. In Queensland, for example, this responsibility falls to Economic Development Queensland (EDQ), an agency that oversees land planning and development.
But what exactly do these regulatory bodies do, and how do they influence the covenants that developers impose?
What Do Regulatory Authorities Do?
Regulatory authorities like EDQ are responsible for approving new housing estates, urban precincts, and industrial ecosystems. Their job is to ensure that new developments align with state planning policies, meet environmental standards, and provide adequate infrastructure like roads, schools, and parks.
As part of this process, they also review and approve the covenants that developers propose. These covenants are meant to ensure that the estate maintains a certain standard of quality and aesthetic. However, as we’ve seen, they often go too far, stifling innovation and limiting consumer choice.
The Opportunity: A Chance to Drive Change
The good news is that regulatory authorities have the power to influence the covenants that developers impose. By taking a more active role in the approval process, they could push for more flexible rules that allow for greater innovation and diversity in housing design.
For example, instead of approving covenants that mandate specific materials, they could encourage developers to provide a range of options. This would give homeowners more choice and allow builders to experiment with new materials and designs.
Similarly, regulatory authorities could set guidelines that promote sustainability and affordability. For instance, they could require that a certain percentage of homes in an estate meet energy-efficiency standards or that smaller, more affordable homes be included in the development.
What About Other States?
While EDQ is the main regulatory authority in Queensland, other states have similar agencies. For example:
- In New South Wales, the Department of Planning and Environment oversees development approvals.
- In Victoria, planning decisions are made by local councils and the Victorian Planning Authority.
- In Western Australia, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage plays a similar role.
While the names and structures of these agencies might differ, their purpose is the same: to ensure that new developments meet planning and development standards.
The Bottom Line
Regulatory authorities have the power to shape the future of housing in Australia. By taking a more active role in the approval process, they could help create housing estates that are more diverse, innovative, and sustainable.
But for this to happen, they need to start asking tough questions about the covenants that developers propose. Instead of rubber-stamping restrictive rules, they should push for more flexible guidelines that allow for creativity and innovation.
The Influence of Big Companies
When you think about why housing estates all look the same, it’s easy to blame developers or regulatory authorities. But there’s another player in the game: big companies that supply building materials. Companies like Bluescope, one of Australia’s largest steel manufacturers, have a significant influence on the covenants that residential estate developers impose.
Here’s how it works—and why it’s a problem for innovation and affordability.
The Money Behind the Covenants
Allegedly, big companies like Bluescope may pay developers or parties related to developers to include their products in the covenants for new housing estates. For example, Bluescope might offer a developer a financial incentive to mandate that all homes in an estate use Colorbond steel for roofing.
This might sound like a win-win: the developer gets extra cash, and the company secures a steady market for its products. But the real losers are homeowners and builders, who are left with fewer choices and higher costs.
This was way back before metal roofing became mainstream—back when tin roofs were just being introduced as an alternative to traditional tile roofs for new home construction. At the time, tin roofs were still a few thousand dollars more expensive than tiles.
Personally, I’m a fan of tin roofs. They require less maintenance, don't chip when installed (yes scratch but corners don't fall off), don’t crack like tiles with "trades carefully walk on your new roof", don't have discolouration or "patchiness" like tiles can have nor the structural weight considerations of tile roofs - meaning renovations are easier in the future.
But the question remains: how did we go from tin roofs being a premium option to a mandatory requirement in so many estates?
Note: This case (ACCC vs Bluescope) does not support our opinion. Instead, it highlights, as evidenced by the decision in this case, the protectionist and "cartel-like" behaviour that suppliers may engage in to stifle fair market competition and safeguard their financial interests. In this case, the product was
The Impact on Innovation
When covenants mandate specific materials, it shuts the door on innovation. Builders can’t experiment with new or alternative materials, even if they’re cheaper, more sustainable, or better suited to modern designs.
For example, if a covenant requires all roofs to be made of Colorbond steel, builders can’t explore alternatives like lightweight composites, solar tiles, or even traditional terracotta. This not only limits creativity but also slows down the adoption of new technologies that could make homes more energy-efficient or affordable.
The Rising Cost of Materials
Another issue is the impact on material costs. When a single product is mandated across an entire estate, it reduces competition in the market. This can lead to price increases, as suppliers have little incentive to keep costs low.
For example, the price of roll-formed sheet metal roofing has risen significantly in recent years, partly because it’s become a standard requirement in many estates. This increase is passed on to homeowners, making it even harder for people to afford a new home.
What Can Be Done?
The influence of big companies on covenants is a complex issue, but there are steps that can be taken to address it. For example:
- Regulatory authorities could set clear guidelines to prevent developers from mandating specific brands or products in covenants. They could also require developers and suppliers to formally declare that no financial incentives or undue influence were involved in creating the covenant. To ensure accountability, officeholders should be held personally liable if they breach this declaration.
- Consumers could push back by demanding more choice and transparency in the materials used in their homes.
- Builders and architects could advocate for more flexible covenants that allow for experimentation with new materials and designs.
By reducing the influence of big companies, we can create a more competitive and innovative market that benefits everyone—not just the companies at the top.
The Need for Accountability
However, none of these solutions will work unless there are real consequences for unethical behaviour. Until officeholders—whether developers, suppliers, or regulators—face personal liability for lying, bribes, or underhanded dealings, we’re essentially wishing for a fantastical world where everyone plays fair.
Without accountability, declarations and guidelines are just words on paper. If we want to see real change, we need to ensure that those who break the rules face meaningful penalties. This could include fines, disqualification from future projects, or even criminal charges in severe cases.
Until then, we’re left hoping for a world where integrity magically prevails—and that’s not a strategy, it’s a fantasy.
Why Developers Won’t Change on Their Own
It’s easy to point the finger at developers and say, “Why don’t they just do better?” But the reality is that developers are businesses, and like any business, their primary goal is to make money. This means they’re unlikely to change their practices unless there’s a strong financial or regulatory incentive to do so.
Let’s break down why developers are resistant to change and why we can’t rely on them to drive innovation in housing estates.
1. The Bottom Line Comes First
Developers operate in a highly competitive industry with tight profit margins. They’re under constant pressure to deliver projects on time and within budget, which leaves little room for experimentation.
Using tried-and-tested materials and designs is a safe bet. It reduces the risk of delays, cost overruns, and unhappy buyers. On the other hand, trying something new—like an innovative building material or a unique design—can be risky. If it doesn’t work out, the developer could lose money and damage their reputation.
2. Covenants Are a Selling Point
Believe it or not, many homebuyers actually like covenants. They see them as a guarantee that their neighbourhood will look neat and tidy, and that their property values will be protected.
For developers, this makes covenants a valuable selling point. By promising a consistent aesthetic, they can attract buyers who want a “perfect” neighbourhood. This creates a vicious cycle: the more buyers demand uniformity, the more developers rely on restrictive covenants to deliver it.
3. The Influence of Big Companies
As we discussed in the previous section, big companies like Bluescope allegedly pay developers to include their products in covenants. These financial incentives make it even harder for developers to break away from the status quo.
Why would a developer risk losing a lucrative deal with a major supplier just to try something new?
For most, the answer is simple: they wouldn’t.
4. Lack of Consumer Pressure
While some homebuyers are starting to demand more diverse and sustainable housing options, many are still happy with the status quo. This lack of widespread consumer pressure means developers have little incentive to change.
After all, if buyers are willing to pay for cookie-cutter homes, why would developers go out of their way to offer something different?
I’m sure buyers care—it’s just that this is all they’re being offered. The same thing, by everyone. Innovation in residential construction is virtually non-existent, except at the high end of the market, where cost isn’t a concern and clients can afford to explore unique options.
This doesn’t sit well with me. Builders have a moral obligation to do better by consumers. People are investing in a product they’ll spend a significant portion of their lives in, yet builders are obsessed with cutting costs, speeding up timelines, and inflating perceived value. It’s time to prioritise quality and innovation over shortcuts.
5. Regulatory Inertia
Finally, developers know that regulatory authorities are unlikely to push back against restrictive covenants. As long as the rules are being followed, there’s little incentive for regulators to intervene.
This creates a system where developers can continue doing what they’ve always done, without fear of repercussions.
The Bottom Line
Developers aren’t villains—they’re just businesses doing what businesses do. But that doesn’t mean we should accept the status quo. If we want to see more innovation and diversity in housing estates, we can’t rely on developers to lead the charge.
Instead, we need to look to regulatory authorities, consumers, and builders to drive change. By pushing for more flexible covenants, demanding greater choice, and advocating for sustainable practices, we can create a system that rewards innovation rather than stifling it.
What Can Be Done?
So far, we’ve talked about the problems: restrictive covenants, the influence of big companies, and the lack of incentive for developers to change. But now it’s time to talk about solutions. What can we do to encourage more innovation and diversity in Australian housing estates?
The good news is that change is possible—but it won’t happen on its own. It will require action from regulatory authorities, consumers, and the construction industry. Here’s how we can make it happen:
1. Push for More Flexible Covenants
The first step is to put pressure on regulatory authorities to enforce more flexible covenants. Instead of approving restrictive rules that mandate specific materials and designs, they should encourage developers to offer a range of options.
For example, covenants could allow for a variety of roofing materials, façade designs, and house sizes, as long as they meet certain quality and sustainability standards. This would give homeowners more choice and allow builders to experiment with new ideas.
2. Advocate for Accountability
As we discussed earlier, one of the biggest barriers to change is the lack of accountability. To address this, regulatory authorities should require developers and suppliers to declare that no financial incentives or undue influence were involved in creating the covenant.
Officeholders should be held personally liable if they breach this declaration. This would create a strong deterrent against underhanded dealings and ensure that covenants are created in the best interest of homeowners, not big companies.
3. Demand Greater Transparency
Consumers have the power to drive change by demanding greater transparency from developers. When buying a home, ask questions about the covenants and how they were created. If something doesn’t seem right, speak up.
You can also join community groups or sign petitions that advocate for more diverse and innovative housing options. The more people demand change, the harder it will be for developers and regulatory authorities to ignore.
4. Support Sustainable and Affordable Housing
Sustainability and affordability are two of the biggest challenges facing the Australian housing market. By supporting policies and developments that prioritise these issues, we can create a system that rewards innovation.
For example, you could advocate for covenants that require a certain percentage of homes in an estate to meet energy-efficiency standards or include smaller, more affordable options. This would not only benefit the environment but also make housing more accessible for first-home buyers and low-income families.
5. Celebrate Innovation
Finally, we need to celebrate and promote innovative housing designs and building methods. When builders and architects try something new, share their work on social media, write to your local council, or nominate them for awards.
By shining a spotlight on innovation, we can show developers and regulatory authorities that there’s a demand for more diverse and creative housing options.
The Power of Collective Action
Change won’t happen overnight, but it starts with small steps. By working together—whether as consumers, builders, or advocates—we can create a housing market that values innovation, diversity, and sustainability.
The key is to keep pushing for change, even when it feels like the system is stacked against us. After all, who wants to live in a world where every house looks the same?
Conclusion
Developer covenants are a major barrier to innovation in Australian housing estates. By mandating specific materials and designs, they limit the ability of architects, designers and builders to experiment with new building methods and styles.
However, change is possible. By putting pressure on regulatory bodies like EDQ or your states equivalent, we can push for more flexible covenants that allow for greater diversity and innovation in new housing estates.
FAQS
- What is a developer covenant?
A developer covenant is a set of rules that dictate how properties in a housing estate can be built, including materials, designs, and sizes. - Why do developers use covenants?
Developers use covenants to maintain a certain aesthetic and quality standard across an estate, which can increase property values. - How do covenants affect innovation?
Covenants often restrict the use of new materials and designs, limiting architectural diversity and innovation. - Who approves these covenants?
Regulatory authorities like Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) approve covenants as part of the estate development process. - Can covenants be changed?
Yes, but it requires pressure on regulatory bodies to enforce more flexible rules. - Why do companies like Bluescope influence covenants?
Companies like Bluescope allegedly pay developers to mandate their products, ensuring a steady market for their materials. - How can I advocate for change?
You can contact your local MP, sign petitions, or join community groups advocating for more diverse housing options. - Are there any estates with innovative designs?
Some newer estates are beginning to embrace more diverse designs, but they are still the exception rather than the rule. - What are the benefits of innovative housing designs?
Innovative designs can offer better functionality, sustainability, and aesthetic appeal, making communities more vibrant and unique. - How do covenants affect the cost of building a home?
Covenants can increase costs by mandating specific, often more expensive materials and designs.
Further Reading

