Co-living schemes and what use class they fall into

Co-living use class planning starts from an awkward fact: large-scale purpose-built shared living does not fit any class in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, so it is treated as sui generis. That has consequences all the way through the application. There is no permitted change into or out of the use, the nationally described space standard does not bite in the way it would on flats, affordable housing is handled through a contribution rather than on-site units, and almost everything that makes the scheme acceptable has to be secured by condition or obligation.

Developers sometimes try to position a co-living scheme as C3 to borrow the policy support that attaches to housing. It rarely survives contact with a planning officer, and it creates problems later when the council wants to control tenancy length.

Where co-living sits in the Use Classes Order

Work through the classes and the gap becomes obvious. Class C3 covers dwellinghouses, including up to six residents living together as a single household. Class C4 covers small houses in multiple occupation of three to six residents. A house in multiple occupation of seven or more people is already sui generis. Class C1 covers hotels and guest houses where no significant element of care is provided and occupation is transient.

A co-living building has self-contained private rooms with en-suite facilities and sometimes a kitchenette, plus substantial shared kitchens, lounges, work space and amenity areas, run by a single operator on tenancies measured in months. It is not a hotel, the residents are not a single household, and the private units are not independent dwellings. Sui generis is the honest answer.

That classification is not a policy objection. It simply means the application is assessed on its merits against development plan policy rather than riding on housing policy, and that the consent will define the use narrowly. Expect a condition restricting occupation to the specific shared living use, with no fallback to flats or to a hostel.

The classification analysis is the same exercise as the one in our note on whether a children's home is C2 or C3. You describe the actual pattern of occupation, care and management, then find the class that fits it rather than the class you would prefer.

Room sizes and shared amenity

Because the units are not dwellings, the nationally described space standard for C3 homes does not apply. That leaves room size to local policy and to design judgement, which is where most negotiation happens.

In London, Policy H16 of the London Plan 2021 deals with large-scale purpose-built shared living and sets out what the Mayor expects, including a minimum private unit size and adequate communal facilities. Read the current policy text and any associated guidance before fixing the unit schedule, because the figures and the way floor area is measured both matter and both have been refined since adoption.

Outside London the position is patchier. Some authorities have adopted local plan policy or supplementary guidance on shared living, some apply their student accommodation policy by analogy, and some have nothing at all. Where there is nothing, the application has to build its own standard, and the usual approach is to benchmark the private unit against the smallest studio the council accepts and then demonstrate that the communal provision more than compensates.

Communal space is the part that gets value-engineered and should not be. A scheme with generous shared kitchens, a usable work area and outdoor amenity is defensible at smaller unit sizes. One where the shared offer is a corridor with a sofa in it is a scheme of substandard studios with a marketing name.

The policy tests councils apply

Across authorities that have engaged with the typology, a recognisable set of tests has emerged.

• A single management body responsible for the whole building, with an on-site presence.
• A minimum tenancy length, in London tied to Policy H16, which keeps the use residential rather than short-stay.
• Communal facilities and services in proportion to the number of rooms.
• Good internal daylight and outlook to the private rooms, which is harder than it sounds on a deep plan with single-aspect units.
• A location with high public transport accessibility, because these schemes are usually car-free.
• Evidence that the scheme does not displace a use the plan wants to retain, which bites on employment land.

The daylight point deserves attention. Small single-aspect rooms arranged around a central core produce poor results, and a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment run late in the design process often forces a layout change rather than confirming one.

Affordable housing and contributions

Co-living does not deliver self-contained homes, so on-site affordable housing in the conventional sense is not usually sought. Instead authorities take a financial contribution towards conventional affordable housing, calculated on a basis set out in local policy or guidance.

Two practical points follow. First, the contribution is a cost like any other and belongs in the appraisal from day one, not after a resolution to grant. Second, where the council has no published approach, the figure becomes a negotiation supported by viability evidence, and an Affordable Housing Statement that explains the tenure position and the proposed contribution is worth submitting even though no units are offered.

Community infrastructure levy liability depends on the local charging schedule and how it defines the relevant use. Check the adopted schedule rather than assuming the residential rate applies.

Transport, cycle parking and servicing

Most co-living schemes are promoted as car-free, which is credible in a city centre and much less so on an edge-of-town site. The transport case has to be built on actual accessibility rather than on the operator's intentions.

Cycle parking is usually the pressure point. Provision for shared living is often assessed against the standards for student or shared accommodation rather than for flats, and the numbers differ. Secure, covered, ground-level spaces with proper access are expected, and a basement store reached by a lift fails in practice even when it passes on the drawings.

Servicing deserves more thought than it normally gets. A building of several hundred rooms with communal catering generates waste volumes closer to a hotel than to a block of flats, and the refuse strategy should be sized accordingly. A Waste Management Strategy covering bin store capacity, collection frequency and the route from store to kerbside answers the question the waste team will ask.

Deliveries are the other one. Residents in shared living order a great deal to the door, and a scheme without a parcel room creates a lobby problem the council will hear about.

The conditions and obligations to expect

Plan for a tightly drawn consent. The usual package includes a condition restricting the use to shared living as described, a minimum tenancy length, a requirement to retain the communal facilities in perpetuity, a management plan covering staffing and anti-social behaviour, a prohibition on subdivision or conversion to self-contained flats without further permission, car-free obligations with a restriction on parking permits, and the affordable housing contribution.

A management plan submitted with the application is better than one deferred by condition. It lets you set the terms rather than having them imposed, and it answers the objection that these schemes are hotels in disguise.

The honest uncertainty in this area is durability. Co-living policy is young, local plans are still catching up, and an operator model that works in 2026 may not be the model running the building in fifteen years. Councils know that, which is why the no-subdivision condition matters to them and why resisting it tends to be counterproductive.

This is general guidance rather than legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it, and read the adopted development plan and any shared living guidance that applies to your site.

See PlanScope pricing: one free report, £50 per report, or Professional for unlimited reports if you are preparing supporting statements for several schemes.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.