Converting an office floor into co-living rooms

Converting an office floor into co-living rooms is a sui generis application in almost every case, because the rooms are not self-contained dwellings. That single point decides the route. Class MA prior approval delivers Class C3 dwellinghouses, and a room with a bed, a bathroom and a shared kitchen down the corridor is not a C3 dwellinghouse. Nor is a scheme of 40 rooms a Class C4 house in multiple occupation, since C4 tops out at six residents. So you are making a full planning application for a use that has no class, against policy that varies sharply between authorities.

The use class position for large shared living

The Use Classes Order 1987 as amended in 2020 puts a house occupied by three to six unrelated people sharing facilities in Class C4. Above six sharers, the use falls outside the classes and is sui generis. Purpose-built shared living, where a single operator provides private rooms with substantial communal kitchens, lounges, workspace and often gyms, is treated as sui generis by most authorities for the same reason.

Two consequences follow. There is no permitted development route between an office and sui generis shared living, so prior approval under Part 3 of the GPDO is unavailable. And because the use is unclassified, the policy applied is whatever the development plan says about it, which in London means the London Plan policy on large-scale purpose-built shared living, and elsewhere means a local plan policy that may not exist at all.

Where there is no policy, the application is decided on the development plan read as a whole plus material considerations, and the officer will reach for housing policy, amenity standards and the tests in the NPPF. That is an argument you can win, and it needs the case made from first principles rather than by analogy to student housing.

Room sizes, communal space and standards

The standards question is the one that sinks applications, because there is no single national figure for a shared living room.

The nationally described space standard applies to self-contained dwellings, so it does not bite directly on a co-living room. It will still be quoted at you, and the sensible response is to set out the room schedule with the gross internal area of each room type, the private facilities in each, and the communal provision per resident as a separate figure.

Where the London Plan applies, its shared living policy sets criteria covering minimum scheme scale, private room size, communal space, tenancy length and management arrangements. Read the adopted policy text and any borough guidance for the current figures rather than working from a summary, since boroughs add their own requirements through supplementary planning documents.

Outside London, look for three things in the local plan: any HMO or shared accommodation policy, the amenity standards in the householder or design guide, and any policy on housing mix that a sui generis scheme might be said to conflict with. Address each directly in the Planning Statement.

Communal space is where good schemes distinguish themselves. Give the area per resident, say what each space is for, and show it on the plans as usable rather than as residual circulation.

Why Class MA prior approval does not fit

Class MA in Part 3 of the GPDO permits change of use from Class E to Class C3, subject to prior approval. The March 2024 amendments removed the 1,500 m² floorspace limit and the vacancy requirement, which made the route much more useful for genuine flat conversions.

It does not reach co-living, for three reasons.

The destination use must be C3, meaning self-contained dwellinghouses with their own kitchen and bathroom. Shared kitchens defeat that. The conditions attached to Class MA include a requirement about adequate natural light in all habitable rooms, which deep office floorplates frequently fail. And Class MA is excluded where the building is listed or a scheduled monument, and restricted in other designated situations.

If the scheme could be built as self-contained studios instead, Class MA becomes worth testing, and the calculation changes: fewer rooms, each with its own kitchen and bathroom, natural light to every habitable room, and no communal facilities to manage. Several conversions end up there once the daylight assessment comes back.

Management, tenancy length and the character of the use

Officers worry that co-living is a hotel with a longer average stay, or a student block by another name. Answer the worry with the operating model.

• The minimum tenancy length offered, and how it is secured if the policy requires it.
• On-site management presence, hours and staffing.
• What is included in the rent, since all-inclusive occupancy affects council tax, waste and utilities arrangements.
• House rules on noise, visitors and use of communal space.
• The target occupier group, honestly described.
• Whether any rooms are let on a short-stay basis, which would change the use again.

Put this in a management plan submitted with the application and offer it for approval by condition. A scheme with a credible management plan reads as a managed residential use. A scheme without one reads as an unregulated bedsit block, and the objections from neighbours will say so.

Daylight to deep office floorplates

An office floor is usually deeper than a residential floor, with a central core and windows on one or two elevations. Rooms formed in the middle of that plan have no window at all, and rooms at the ends are single aspect with restricted sky visibility.

Test it early with a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment using the BRE 209 (2022) methodology, and report the average daylight factor and no-sky line room by room. The design responses that work are a light well or atrium cut through the floorplate, locating communal uses in the windowless zone, reducing room depth by widening the corridor, and in a few cases removing a bay of accommodation entirely.

What does not work is describing a windowless room as a study or a pod and hoping. Habitable rooms need daylight, environmental health officers know it, and a refusal on living conditions is hard to overturn on appeal.

Overheating is the other side of the same coin. Deep plans with large glazed elevations and shared mechanical ventilation need a design that manages summer temperatures, and the CIBSE TM59 methodology is the reference officers cite for residential overheating.

Cycle parking, refuse and servicing

Co-living generates the trip pattern of a dense residential scheme with the servicing pattern of a small hotel.

Cycle parking at the standard for the number of residents, in a secure ground-floor store, with the numbers shown rather than asserted. Refuse storage sized for the full resident population with communal kitchen waste included, positioned within the collection authority's carry distance, and separated from any commercial waste in the building. Deliveries and move-in traffic managed through a plan that says where a van stops.

Car parking is usually the easy part, because an office conversion in a town centre supports a car-free or permit-free scheme, secured by obligation. Say what secures it, because an unsecured commitment is discounted.

The documents a shared living application needs

The pack is longer than a flat conversion because the use is unfamiliar and the amenity case has to be built.

1. Planning statement addressing the use class position, the policy gap and the housing land supply contribution.
2. Design and Access Statement with the room schedule and communal areas quantified.
3. Daylight and sunlight assessment, room by room.
4. Overheating assessment for the residential rooms.
5. Noise assessment covering plant and any surrounding commercial uses, with the agent of change position addressed.
6. Management plan, offered for approval by condition.
7. Transport statement with cycle parking, refuse and servicing.
8. Fire strategy, and a fire statement where Planning Gateway One applies to the building.
9. Energy and sustainability documents to the local policy standard.

Illustrative example: a 1980s office building with a 22 m deep floorplate, converted to 58 rooms across four floors. Daylight testing killed the original layout on two floors. The approved scheme cut a light well through the rear third, placed the gym and laundry in the darkest zone, and reduced the count to 49 rooms with communal areas on each floor rather than one shared lounge at ground level. Rooftop plant for ventilation needed its own justification, which is a separate exercise set out in the note on rooftop plant enclosures on offices.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports an office conversion on your site is likely to need.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.