Liverpool lays down law on co-living

The city council has said that co-living developments must adhere to residential policies set out in its newly adopted local plan, including minimum space standards. 

Liverpool City Council signed off a planning advice note last week aimed at informing developers of the authority’s stance on co-living when it comes to determining planning applications.

The idea behind the advice note is to ensure the delivery of high-quality residential development in the city, the council said.

Co-living is a relatively new product within the housing market. Accommodation typically comprises a private en-suite bedroom and shared communal spaces and is aimed at a younger demographic, providing a short-term stepping stone between student housing and the private rented sector. 

In planning terms, co-living is designated as sui generis, which means it does not fall within a particular use class. This can present difficulties for developers in their attempts to convince planning authorities of the viability and suitability of the product. 

Some developers have called for co-living to be given its own use class in order to better define the product and give local authorities greater confidence in the business model of the burgeoning sub-sector.

Liverpool City Council has decided against this, instead opting to view co-living in the same way as private rented apartments. The authority says this is to “ensure quality residential accommodation for future occupants”. 

A report to the city council’s cabinet said that “because co-living is sui-generis, developers have suggested that they do not need to align with planning policy requirements in respect of housing”.  

However, Liverpool believes that, as co-living is a type of housing, proposals should comply with the relevant housing policies in the local plan.  

The planning advice note on co-living in the city sets out that developments should: 

  • Have more two-bedroom apartments then one-bedroom apartments 
  • Adhere to nationally described minimum space standards of between 398 sq ft and 753 sq ft 
  • Offer leases no shorter than six months 
  • Be flexible, with the ability to be converted into traditional accommodation easily. 

Whether the co-living product currently being proposed by developers will be able to viably stick to these rules remains unclear. 

In January, the city council rejected Crosslane Group’s plans to redevelop the former Bogans Carpet site on New Bird Street in the Baltic Triangle into a 370-unit co-living scheme. 

Councillors said the number of single-occupancy units was too high and that 192 of the apartments did not comply with nationally described space standards. 

However, a planning statement submitted alongside Crosslane’s application said co-living bedrooms are “not designed to function as self-contained homes”, due to differences in layout and tenancy, and therefore minimum space standards “are not applicable to the scheme”. 

While co-living has not yet taken off in Liverpool, in Manchester there are two major schemes under construction.

Downing’s 2,224-bedroom scheme on First Street is progressing having been approved in 2020, while Vita Group is delivering 1,676 bed-spaces across two towers at Allied London’s St John’s district under its Union Living brand. 

The Vita scheme is institutionally backed, demonstrating confidence in demand for the product in Manchester.

When contacted by Place North West, Vita Group welcomed Liverpool’s stance on co-living. 

“It’s exciting to see local authorities such as Liverpool City Council taking a keen interest in co-living and providing detailed guidance on how they see it working,” said Said James Rooke, head of planning for Vita Group.  

“The clear guidance surrounding space standards align with our vision and design and is something that we welcome. Our vision for Union is that it brings the lifeblood of the city together. In taking a holistic approach to people, place and service, we’re confident that co-living can help to mobilise cities, supporting economic growth both short and long-term.”   


Your Comments

Read our comments policy

Vita schemes are appalling. Tiny flats, no balconies and the scale makes them look like monstrosities. Council in Manchester will allow anything to be built, no matter how ugly.

By Michael

Come on down Vita, let’s see you guys in Liverpool!

By Man on Bicycle

Here we go again, constantly looking at ways to deter developers, now it`s room sizes, meanwhile height restrictions are still on the agenda even though UNESCO has gone.
The Mayor talks about a global, confident city……. what with a city centre full of low-rise houses and bungalows, and the odd mid-rise, very impressive. If Vita are lauding the city council stance then why are they not submitting plans for Liverpool, in fact there`s hardly any schemes waiting to be signed off, you`d think we were in a position to fend off a flood of planning applications…….dream on.

By Anonymous

Two tower cranes in Liverpool currently. Tells you everything.

By Anonymous

Well, that’s not co-living then, is it? It’s two bedroom flats ie BTR. Where’s the co- part?


Still waiting to see the tumbleweed blowing around the city center. Not long now.

By George

re;the post 8 March 3.30pm….2 tower cranes…do you live in Liverpool? we actually have 8, not as much as we`d like, but more than 2…..think we have more coming soon, but we need more, lots more.

By Anonymous

If something isn’t done about our city council Liverpool will (if it’s not already) be left behind. We have TWO cranes erect at the moment… says it all

By Michael

Come on anon, there’s more than 2 not as many as other places, but there will a few more soon, we are just now coming out of the reset from the Elliot/Anderson allegations, it shook the sector very hard. I admit though this current council don’t really emit good vibes for investors.

By Liverpolitis

I think it is odd that any attempts by LCC to provide thresholds or minimum sizes – and the national space standards still results in a small unit – is seen as being anti-development by some commentators on this site.

I’m mindful of central government’s comments circa 2012 about sustainable development being the right development in the right place at the right time. I’m unsure that some of the things being opposed by LCC, but supported by commenters here, would fit within that approach given shortfalls in design, relationship to the area, shortfalls in size etc etc.

By John Mac

It is very good step to facilitate the needs of student accommodation at economic price. And to meet the acute shortage of space of accommodation in whole UK.


Of course Liverpool City Council pulled down 1000`s of good family sized flats at Fontenoy Gardens, Gerard Gardens etc, because they became unpopular, not because of design, as you can see now in similar remaining blocks like Myrtle Gardens and the Bull Ring that people are happy living there. Some were replaced with unsuitable suburban housing , right in the city centre on Park Lane and this prime land is wasted as it should have been used for high and mid-rise both for rent and for sale, it is young people mostly keeping the city centre thriving so there needs to be mainly accommodation suited to their needs.

By Anonymous

Related Articles

Sign up to receive the Place Daily Briefing

Join more than 13,000 property professionals and receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox


Join more than 13,000 property professionals and sign up to receive your free daily round-up of built environment news direct to your inbox.

By subscribing, you are agreeing to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

"*" indicates required fields

Your Job Field*
Other regional Publications - select below