What a way to make co-living? Bristol City Council’s co-living consultation

Co-living is very much the new kid on the development block. Bristol City Council is currently consulting on a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which you can find here. I wanted to use this consultation to reflect on co-living from a local authority perspective, its potential and the challenges that may arise as a result. 

This SPD will set out minimum floorspaces for rooms in co-living areas, right down to what furniture should be in each room and how big that should be. 

On the one hand, documents like this can be of great value to councillors, officers and developers, in that it is unambiguous. Here are the minimum standards we’d like to see, bring schemes forward that comply with these policies and they’ll be recommended for approval. Easy, right? 

The other dimension to this is that co-living’s comparative newness to council planning committees means it’s also misunderstood. Student accommodation, build-to-rent, affordable housing, new housing estates are all broadly understood, with the associated policy implications. Councillors will be familiar with how these things play out, but for me there isn’t enough evidence of what success looks like for co-living for planning committees to be totally comfortable with it. That’s where I feel this SPD in Bristol is attempting to bridge that gap. 

Co-living, as student accommodation before it, may also be the victim of the ‘gold rush’ effect – lots of schemes of the same type coming forward in the same area or council ward. Too many of one type of housing gaining planning consent presents challenges for councillors, not least because of the way it is perceived by their constituents. In my view, though, co-living does have the chance to plough a different furrow to purpose-built student accommodation. 

Firstly, because unlike student accommodation those living there will be there all year round. Co-living’s target demographic is also clearly defined – many cities have a problem with graduate retention, so keeping them in university cities has obvious benefits. The obvious challenge, however, is that they will also need a job to keep them there. 

Secondly, the areas where co-living schemes are likely to be brought forward can be brownfield sites, in city centre locations, so the only other type of housing scheme they are likely to compete with is student accommodation. Politically, revitalising town and city centre high streets has been something councils and governments of all political colours have been attempting to bring about. Shops, cafés, bars and restaurants will surely benefit from having an influx of people living nearby. 

However, the downside of such guidelines could be that developers find that viability of co-living schemes is not possible, and that other locations in other parts of the country are preferable. 

In addition, there is also the question of whether being so narrow in terms of target demographic doesn’t do much for young families wanting to live in a central location; or for those who ‘outgrow’ co-living and are looking to settle down – and suddenly finding they have to move from a car free development to one on the edge of town. 

Done right, however, and co-living is clearly part of a modern housing ecosystem. It requires good communication from political leaders to differentiate it from ‘just student schemes by another name,’ and to align with wider objectives like revitalising high streets. 

Co-living is clearly another brick in the planning wall, and by consulting on it now Bristol City Council are clearly hoping that this document will help inform both councillors and developers. In my opinion, anything that helps make life easier for decision-makers, who after all are not professional planning experts, can result in better outcomes all round. 

Bristol City Council’s SPD consultation runs until 17 November, further details can be found here.