Liverpool co-living in line for rejection
Crosslane Co-Living Group has twice scaled back its plans to redevelop the former Bogans Carpet site on New Bird Street in the Baltic Triangle but the city council is not satisfied with the proposals.
Planning officers have recommended the nine-storey, 236-unit co-living scheme be refused as 192 of the apartments “do not comply with Nationally Described Space Standards”, a report to the council’s planning committee said.
Co-living schemes typically feature smaller apartments than build-to-rent developments, with a greater proportion of the overall development dedicated to communal areas.
Crosslane’s project features plans for a café, communal kitchen and dining areas, private dining / function rooms, shared social and living spaces, a cinema, gym, and shared co-working space.
The developer’s planning consultant Savills argues that the higher proportion of communal space offsets the smaller apartment sizes, but the council disagrees.
“It is considered that the scheme constitutes residential development and should therefore adhere to the relevant housing policies,” a report to the planning committee said.
Crosslane insists there is a need for co-living accommodation in Liverpool due to the city’s young population. The model suits millennials’ desire for a “plug and play all inclusive lifestyle package”, according to a needs assessment submitted by the developer.
The original iteration of the project sought approval for an 11-storey development featuring 370 co-living apartments.
Crosslane then reduced the number of units to 326 before cutting another 90.
Sadler Brown Group is the scheme’s architect and Wates is lined up as main contractor.
Once again this council shows it does not understand that younger people, who want to populate the city centre , are happy with 1 bed accommodation even it is for a 6 month or 12 month let, and they will spend money in the local shops and bars.
This is the Baltic we are talking about here, a vibrant and hip area that young people want to live in , it`s not Woolton or Childwall.
The council and it`s councillors are driving developers away, there are no big schemes due to go on site, and those like Patagonia Place or the scheme on the ex Hondo warehouse on Upper Duke Street have been delayed for ages.
By Anonymous
This is a dreadful scheme in a poor location.
By Terry
More space per apartment is needed especially in today’s WFH society. I understand some are only 25 sqm’s in total area if the report is true.?
By More space please!
Some people really do value any old building over place making don’t they!
Thank heavens the council is finally saying no to what are dreadful, detracting profit only enterprises that would otherwise bring us nothing but problems.
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of our city being so easily exploited.
By Jeff
Good on LCC. These rabbit hutches are just signs of late stage capatalism. Also, Millennials are approaching 40. Why should they not have their own kitchen after working for 2 decades already? Babyboomers would never consider this greedy hellscape themselves.
By Bootle
All housing should have accomodation that suits all ages, not for a certain age group.
By Geoff
An interesting one, this. On the one hand you have a developer with its ear to the market and whose return is dependent upon its ability to give people what they want whilst on the other you have a local authority believing that they can dictate what the market wants. In a free market with lots of choice, that’s always worked out well, hasn’t it?
Meantime, yet another developer gets the message that they’re not welcome in Liverpool. It might serve the city well if PNW asked the council where the queue of mythical institutional investors they say want to be here can be found.
By Sceptical
Liverpool: Closed for business
The people brought in to set new standards apply policies so rigidly they close their minds to everything else.
If any apartment, in any development is furnished, the space standards don’t apply in any event! Liverpool don’t like acknowledging this!
By Anonymous
Agree council is mistaken on its tall buildings strategy and continually knocking a few stories of medium rise buildings and also strongly disagree with them on refusing the good quality Waterloo Dock development…..but actually agree with turning down this application given more home working there is a need for decent size apartments
By George
Once again. No vision.
By Beryl