Liverpool warms to co-living
The city council plans to take a more nuanced approach to determining applications for co-living developments, having had little truck with the model to date.
The draft of Liverpool’s revised local plan sets out a specific policy for co-living, which gives hope for developers in this corner of the market. The move to adopt a co-living policy marks a departure from the current local plan, which does not mention it at all.
A more accommodating approach to co-living would bring Liverpool in line with other regional cities, which have more readily accepted the model.
In 2021, Crosslane’s plans for a 236-unit scheme were rejected on the basis that the project provided too many one-bed units and that 192 of the homes did not comply with nationally described space standards.
The following year, the city council published a policy advice note on co-living to give clarity on its stance.
The advice note said that co-living schemes would be treated in the same way as any other residential product, including in terms of minimum space standards.
This stance presented a challenge to co-living developers given the fundamental nature of the model.
High density co-living schemes typically comprise private en-suite bedrooms – smaller than what you would find in a build-to-rent scheme – and a focus on shared communal spaces. Often, the size of the private bedrooms falls below nationally described space standards, which set out that a one-bed flat must exceed 398 sq ft.
The argument from co-living developers is that the amount of communal space provided within developments makes up for the smaller room sizes, while also promoting a more social atmosphere within a building.
Liverpool’s draft local plan offers a glimmer of hope to developers who had given up on the possibility of making a co-living scheme stack up in the city.
Policy H9 in the draft states that, while developers should still aspire to meet NDSS, a project that contains smaller units may still be approved if it is of high enough quality, sustainably located, and provides adequate communal space to make up for the shortfall in private space.
In addition, developers must provide evidence of demand, a 24-hour management plan, and offer flexible tenancies.
“Co-living is not a substitute for conventional housing but may complement the city’s wider housing offer,” the draft local plan states.
Maybe they should visit the Downing and Vita schemes in Manchester and see if they are working first before they take the plunge!
By Anonymous
Having been challenged on a perceived lack of enthusiasm for new development, LCC somehow becomes keen on just about the worst sort.
Have they spotted the declining demand for PBSA given the applications already to repurpose exisitng as hostels, in addition to the ones where landlords just haven’t bothered seeking change of use?
By Rotringer
Liverpool cannot afford to be ignoring these kind of developments, which are going on in every big city throughout the land. It’s just typical of most Liverpool Councillors constantly finding fault with developers and ploughing a lone furrow in seeking the moral high ground, then ending up isolated and empty handed.
There is a wise saying “Pride before a fall”.
By Anonymous
Has the penny dropped with LCC that they will never reach their housing targets by being so high minded about what they want?
By Liverpool4Progess
.. a cube for all of us.. the trouble with communal areas is they tend to be taken over by one group.. then everyone else is trapped in their room.. they won’t cook with everyone else they won’t use the gym.. life becomes miserable and the development semi feral.. and then you will have deaths.
No one can live like that for long.
By Really?
Manchester.. has too many hotels.. why?
Because at some point they will be converted to these kinds of housing.. let’s NOT make Liverpool into Manchester.. Liverpool still has the opportunity to make itself into a destination people want to visit.. Manchester is coming to it’s end.
By Looking out to sea the see
Congrats Liverpool, only 10 years too late this time!
By Anonymous
Speaking to parents of elite school children of Manchester… They will be picking Liverpool above Manchester if they stay north west local.. they will move.. as a family.. for that.. Manchester is dead to the very very well off.. they will live in Cheshire and commute.. if you do the same to Liverpool as Manchester ..they will go elsewhere.
By Anonymous
In common with our national government, Liverpool’s Labour council does not concern itself with what is best for the city and its people. These developments are perfect for profiteering from the national plans to use lower cost “coliving” to house those currently being stacked inside hotels, which includes people who should have the right to a proper home in their home city of London. They cannot because the government won’t tackle the housing shortage in any way that matters.
By James
This doesn’t mean there’s going to be a wave of co living developments just that the council are open to consideration in the right circumstances. It’s good they are showing a degree of flexibility and puts out the right messaging.
By Anonymous
I seem to recall them rejecting a well thought-out scheme in the Baltic which ultimately led to the developer going pop. Not sure the council even cared: being abreast of social and market dynamics is an inconvenience when there’s grand-standing to be done.
By More Anonymous than the others
Posters coming on here constantly telling us Manchester is becoming hell on earth, I don’t get it just because they’ve got a cluster of tall buildings, and it’s incredibly busy, but that’s what Liverpool was like in it’s heyday. We in Liverpool need well paid jobs and a population boost to sustain our economy, unless that happens we’ll be a city underachieving and never fill all the vacant bombsites that ruin the place.
By Anonymous
Co-living is not the answer, does anyone think its acceptable for a grown adult to pay over £1000 pcm for a bedroom in a shared flat? This does not create sustainable, long term neighbourhoods. We need to provide decent sized quality, long term homes which are affordable and within easy reach of public transport. This is should be a basic right in the UK and shouldn’t be eroded by profit margins and shareholders. Short-termism is damaging every part of the UK, so its time for an urgent rethink.
By GetItBuilt!
Liverpool CAN take their time to decide if these kind of developments are a good product or not. Once they’re built we’re stuck with them. Look around at other cities. Due diligence, think of every eventuality. Greedy developers and their minions will always advocate they’re a good thing. Try living in one for a month before deciding either way.
By Anonymous
Given the council’s attitude towards co-living and the need for ‘family’ homes, everyone should object to this!
By TaxPayer
I think the Manchester jealously thing is a coping mechanism when so little real development has been happening in Liverpool. Unnecessary but understandable given the ever growing disparity between the two cities. Co living is a tiny part of the Manchester building boom and not one I’d recommend to anyone. However for Liverpool some may say something is better than nothing, also understandable.
By Anonymous
Sounds awful unless you are a student
By Anonymous
Totally agree that LCC now deciding to agree to something that is the worst possible idea – this is a terrible idea! As usual LCC look at everything in silo – no strategy. Why haven’t we got more family and mixed tenure apartments and homes in the city centres like Paris and London? The city is already awash with student apartments which are of this ilk – the drop in overseas students is meaning developers are going back and having these repurposed – handing over to likes of Salvation Army or as interim housing – if student apartments ending up with this fate what will these be?
By Lizzy Baggot
Given the gulf between Manchester and Liverpool now I’m surprised LCC would object to any development. This would be a nothing burger in Manchester, lost in a sea of office , apartment and Leisure developments but for Liverpool this is a big thing the council should grab with both hands.
By Tom
Liverpool is behind with developments because you get the arl nimbys who don’t like change, the building game has been on its arse In Liverpool for about 2 years think it’s about time we moved forward and start developing
By Anonymous
All the people whi think this is a good idea wouldnt set foot in one of them. Government and councils are determined to squeeze everyone in to tiny prison cells. And people wonder why peoples mental health is messed up. Literally piling us ontop of eachother
By Anonymous
Are several of these comments coming from same IP address I wonder? All sound hysterical and same ‘Manchester is dead…’ syntax. Whatever the thoughts on development strategy you’d be hard pushed to back up that statement.
I doubt such a person is actually getting a lot of insight from the ‘parents of Manchester’s elite school children’ but that sounds a bit creepy too. I very much doubt they’re planning to swap Didsbury or Hale Barns for Liverpool (Dubai maybe?!) and the very very well off have always tended to live in Cheshire and commute anyway. Time to take a breath I think…
By Anonymous
Anonymous.. Manchester isn’t becoming a hell hold because of building ..it’s because of what they have built and how it’s used.. the clubs are down the pan the small music venues are down the pan the art is down the pan the theatre ..is the stuff in the pan..
It’s all big corporate expensive venues with no grass roots.. and that’s why it’s dieing
By Anonymous
Whats with all the anti Manchester rhetoric whenever Liverpools dismal development status is discussed? Manchester is ‘down the pan’ despite continuing to outperform all other regional cities outside of London.
By Mr Mcr
@ Anon 9.03am. cities evolve they don’t or shouldn’t generally remain static or you die. You say Manchester is losing it’s grass roots , but it won’t it will move on and appear in other neighbourhoods which will then revitalise, it’s a constantly moving picture.
By Anonymous
.. walk a city.. you can then understand it.. something has happened to Manchester in the last year or so.. it’s not the spending.. it’s not the business.. something fundamental at it’s heart has changed.. places evolve .. yes.. but you can evolve to be too specialised and leave be unable to adapt.. there’s something of Detroit, Philadelphia and Portland etc happening to Manchester.. I don’t feel confident about it at all.
By Anonymous