Co-living schemes and the standards applied

Large-scale purpose-built shared living sits outside the residential use classes, so there is no co living planning use class to point at. It is sui generis, which means every application is judged against whatever standards the local plan and any supplementary guidance set, and in the absence of those, against the development plan's general policies on housing quality and amenity. That uncertainty is the main planning risk on a co-living scheme, and it is not solved by borrowing standards from student accommodation or from build to rent.

Why co-living falls outside the residential classes

Class C3 of the Use Classes Order 1987 covers a dwellinghouse occupied as a single household. Class C4 covers a small house in multiple occupation, occupied by between three and six unrelated people sharing facilities.

A co-living building fails both. The scheme is far larger than C4 allows, the private units are typically bedrooms with limited or no self-contained cooking provision, and the occupation model depends on shared kitchens, lounges and workspace with services provided under a single management. Nothing in the Order fits, so the use is sui generis.

Two consequences follow. There is no permitted development route in or out of the use, so any change needs a full application. And the Nationally Described Space Standard, which applies to C3 dwellings, does not apply, which is precisely why authorities write their own standards.

Private room sizes and shared amenity

Where an authority has adopted standards, they will usually address the private unit and the shared provision together, on the logic that a smaller private room is acceptable only where the communal offer is generous.

In London the London Plan has a policy dealing with large-scale purpose-built shared living, and the Greater London Authority has published guidance setting out the detailed expectations. Those documents are revised, so take the figures from the current versions rather than from a previous scheme's committee report.

The elements an authority will look at are consistent even where the numbers differ: the internal floor area of the private unit, whether it has its own bathroom, the amount and type of communal internal space per resident, outdoor amenity space, laundry and refuse provision, cycle storage, and the ratio of communal kitchen positions to residents.

Where no local standard exists, expect the officer to compare your scheme against recently approved schemes elsewhere and against the space standard for C3 as a reference point. Pre-empt that by setting out your own schedule of areas per resident and explaining the reasoning.

Management arrangements and tenancy length

Management is a planning matter here, unusually, because the shared living model is what distinguishes the scheme from a large house in multiple occupation.

Authorities look for single ownership or single management of the whole building, a minimum tenancy length so the building does not operate as short-term accommodation, on-site management presence with stated hours, and a management plan covering anti-social behaviour, refuse, deliveries and the use of communal space. The London Plan policy sets a minimum tenancy length, and other authorities have adopted similar requirements.

Expect the management plan to be secured by condition and the tenancy length and single-management requirement to be secured by planning obligation, because a condition cannot easily control a letting arrangement.

Licensing runs in parallel. A co-living building will often be licensable as a house in multiple occupation under the Housing Act 2004, and the licensing standards are set by the same council's housing team on different criteria. Check both before fixing the unit mix.

Affordable housing policy treatment

This is the commercial question. A co-living scheme produces no C3 dwellings, so it does not deliver affordable housing in the conventional sense, and authorities respond in one of three ways.

• A cash in lieu contribution towards conventional affordable housing elsewhere, calculated by a formula in policy or guidance. This is the London approach under the shared living policy.
• A requirement for a proportion of the private units to be let at a discounted rent, with eligibility and management secured by obligation.
• Treatment as a standard residential scheme, with the full affordable housing policy applied and the shortfall tested through viability.

Which applies changes the appraisal substantially, so establish it at pre-application. Where viability is engaged, a Viability Assessment prepared to the recognised professional standard will be scrutinised by the authority's own adviser, and the benchmark land value assumption will be the contested input.

Whether co-living counts towards housing land supply is a separate and unsettled question that varies by authority. Ask rather than assume.

Transport and parking assumptions

Co-living schemes are normally proposed as car-free or with minimal parking, on the argument that residents are young, urban and mobile. That argument works where the accessibility evidence supports it and fails where it does not.

The evidence needed is an accessibility assessment, a trip generation case using comparable operating schemes rather than a C3 trip rate, high-quality cycle parking designed to the current national guidance, and a servicing strategy that handles a large volume of parcel deliveries to a single address. Where on-street parking is under pressure, a parking stress survey in the surrounding streets will be asked for, and a controlled parking zone permit restriction secured by obligation.

Do not use a C3 trip rate. A building of several hundred single-occupancy rooms with shared facilities behaves differently from the same floorspace in flats, and an officer will say so.

Design standards in practice

The technical standards that apply do not depend on the use class, and they are where co-living schemes get redesigned late.

Daylight to private rooms is tested on the same basis as any habitable room, and single-aspect rooms on a deep plan are where the problems appear. Overheating under Part O has to be demonstrated for rooms with limited openable area. Acoustic separation between rooms and between rooms and communal space needs early attention, because retrofitting it is expensive. Refuse and recycling storage for a high occupancy on a constrained site is a real design constraint rather than a detail.

Where the building reaches 18 metres or seven storeys it is a relevant building for Planning Gateway One, and a Fire Statement prepared by someone with the necessary fire-engineering competence has to accompany the application. That is a legal requirement rather than a recommendation, and a draft is a starting point for that professional.

The evidence pack

Assemble these, and expect the authority's validation list to add to them.

1. A Planning Statement that addresses the sui generis status directly and sets out the standards against which the scheme should be judged.
2. A design and access statement with a full schedule of private and communal areas per resident.
3. A management plan covering tenancy length, on-site management, communal space use and anti-social behaviour.
4. An affordable housing position, whether a statement, a contribution calculation or a viability appraisal.
5. Transport statement or assessment with a trip generation case built on comparable schemes.
6. Daylight and sunlight, overheating, noise, energy and waste evidence.
7. A fire statement where the building is a relevant building.

And write the planning statement as though the officer has never determined a co-living application, because many have not. Explain the model, then the standards, then the scheme.

Further reading on the boundaries between residential classes is in the C2 to C3 line. Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports your scheme is likely to need. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. This is general guidance rather than legal advice, so check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.