Co-living needs a local planning case

A co-living scheme that works in London may need a different planning case in Leeds or Manchester. That sounds obvious, yet it has a consequence that deserves more attention: the choice of accommodation should remain open until the local planning case has been tested. Fix the product too early and much of the subsequent work becomes an exercise in defending that decision.

​

We think this is where the more interesting debate about co-living now lies. The August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework addresses large-scale shared living accommodation directly. That recognition should give developers greater confidence to explore the model, while leaving room for a different answer on a particular site.

​

London shows why. Its established shared-living framework provides a clearer starting point, but it does not settle what a neighbourhood needs. Existing guidance already considers concentrations of shared living and the relationship with conventional housing. The 2026 draft London Plan gives those questions greater prominence and proposes a fast-track route where the relevant threshold of conventional affordable housing is provided on site. Those proposals remain emerging policy.

​

Developers should take that direction seriously. Well-designed rooms and generous communal facilities may still leave questions about the housing choices available locally. We would welcome that discussion while there is scope to change the mix. Discovering it after the land price and design assume an entirely co-living scheme is a less comfortable position.

​

Hardess Yard in Lambeth illustrates the wider thinking required. Maddox’s work, led by Matt Hill, brought together proposals for 320 co-living units and industrial space, alongside affordable-housing and infrastructure contributions. Employment was part of the planning proposition. Co-living needed to earn its place within the wider development.

​

Leeds sharpens that point. The council’s Technical Guidance Note applies existing housing, design and amenity policies, rather than a dedicated adopted co-living policy. It predates the 2026 NPPF and should now be read alongside the new national policy, with any inconsistency considered when assessing the weight given to the guidance.

​

At Burley Library in Leeds, the Inspector’s 2024 decision accepted that the private and communal accommodation functioned together to provide satisfactory living conditions; it did not establish a room-size formula that other developments could simply copy.

​

That distinction matters commercially. A communal lounge on a floorplan cannot, by itself, answer whether residents have enough privacy, storage or space to work. Equally, judging quality by private room size alone misses how the accommodation operates. The private space, shared facilities and management offer need to be understood together, before a target room count becomes difficult to change.

​

The regional picture also reveals differences between neighbouring authorities. Manchester’s 2020 approach distinguished shorter-term accommodation from longer-term living and placed particular emphasis on management and future conversion. Salford’s adopted plan expressly routes co-living affordable housing through its build-to-rent policy. These differences can affect occupation, income and future uses. They belong in the initial appraisal.

​

Nor does permission settle which use an owner should pursue. At 42 The Headrow in Leeds, the new owner’s announced intention to retain offices and retail followed a co-living consent. That is no verdict on co-living demand, but it is a reminder to keep credible alternatives under review.

​

Co-living may suit a demonstrable local market of younger professionals, graduates and people new to a city seeking flexible, managed accommodation. Explaining that offer can help decision-makers look beyond preconceptions about small rooms. The case still needs to address local housing priorities, affordability, neighbouring provision and the quality of everyday living.

​

Our conclusion is that planning advice should help shape a commercially viable and deliverable scheme from the outset. Co-living may emerge as the strongest option, alone or within a mixed development. By the time the product is fixed, the team should be able to explain clearly why it belongs on this particular site.