Coliving – Navigating the planning system

This article reflects on lessons #ThirdRevolutionProject has learned from guiding Brighton’s first #coliving and #coworking development through the planning system.

Brundell Property has been promoting this mixed-use scheme on Melbourne Street for several years. Third Revolution provided planning consultancy support, resulting in Brighton’s planning committee granting approval earlier in the summer subject to signing a Section 106 Agreement.

In this article, we consider some of the general lessons for those considering bringing forward coliving schemes. We don’t dive into the many site specific challenges that faced the team on an extremely tight site, with no parking, as little as 10m window-to-window with the neighbouring block of flats, and the mature trees forming site boundary and entrance to the registered Woodvale Cemetery.

Lesson 1 – the use class question

Coliving is a new concept for many planning authorities. It has no formal use class, and planning policy makes no direct reference to it.

The proposals comprised a floor and a half of co-working space, designated as use class B1 (in future part of the new use class E). Most of remaining space was individual bedrooms with communal living and dining spaces. For these to be considered use class C3 case law has determined they should provide “the facilities required for day to day private domestic existence” (defined in 1982 by Judge McCulloch in Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment), i.e. they should be self-contained units. We eventually reached agreement with officers that a sui generis class (large houses in multiple occupation, HMO) would be appropriate so long as bedrooms included no kitchen facilities. It’s worth noting that earlier iterations also included clusters of C4 (small HMOs), which would also have been acceptable.

So far, so good. But this led to the second challenge.

Lesson 2 – can coliving be considered as residential?

A bigger question for the planners was whether coliving be classed as residential on a site allocated for an employment-led mix with residential. Brighton has a shortage of housing and while the development plan allocation made no reference to use classes, the planners were seeking development that could contribute towards this shortage.

Helpfully, national planning policy refers to communal living, and the Government’s housing delivery test is clear that such accommodation should be contribute towards an authority’s targets. This realisation by the planners was an important step for the team.

Lesson 3 – how much should coliving contribute towards affordable housing?

So, we had agreement that the homes should not fall into use class C3, and that such a development was appropriate on a site allocated for housing. What then to do about affordable housing contributions?

Some planning authorities specify which types of developments affordable housing contributions apply. National policy is clear that it does not apply to purpose-built student accommodation, which also falls with the sui generis class, but nothing is said about communal living. The Greater London Authority has clarified the point in their recent London Plan, with Policy H18 requiring an off-site contribution from coliving developments towards use class C3 affordable housing. A review of the small number of consented schemes around the country demonstrates that this form of contribution is typical, and so it was agreed the Section 106 Agreement for Melbourne Street should include the same. This left the question of how much the contribution should be.

Coliving is much more than a collection of bedrooms with shared facilities and cannot easily be compared with flats, and so the standard calculators are of little help. Residents have access to co-working space, events, a fitness and wellness suite, café, cinema, games and leisure room, laundry, outdoor amenity space, housekeeping and all bills and utilities covered by a single rental payment. The benefits to residents are significantly greater and the cost of providing them is high. The related lesson is to demonstrate to officers that coliving is a more affordable option for those seeking value for money, convenience, and community, and to factor this into the negotiations.

Lesson 4 – engage with planning officers early and come prepared

Our team was fortunate to have experienced officers who worked constructively with us to address each challenge. But ultimately, coliving was a new concept to them, and it took work to get everyone on the same page before we could begin to address site-specific issues. Critical lessons, therefore, are to engage early with planners and come armed with evidence on the key issues.

Where next for coliving?

With so many people priced out of the housing market, or simply looking for a more communal way of living, coliving looks to be an important growth sector. The arguments around use classes, appropriateness and affordable housing would ideally be addressed nationally. For example, the recent amendments to the use classes order would have provided some clarity, much as it would have helped to do so for other anomalies, such as C2 and assisted living. It is possible that the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), promised as part of August’s Planning White Paper, will directly refer to coliving, but regardless local policy needs to catch up with the clearer position adopted in London. Until it does, be prepared to bring officers on a journey with you.

I would be delighted to talk to you if you would like further information or would like town planning support for your proposals. I can be contacted on 07742 352406.