Nottingham City Council has approved new planning guidance for large-scale shared living accommodation, known as co-living, as the city prepares for more proposals for the emerging form of housing.
Co-living schemes are described by the council as large, professionally managed residential developments made up of smaller private units supported by shared communal facilities. The council says they are generally aimed at young professionals, post-graduates and key workers, offering flexible rented accommodation in accessible urban locations.
The guidance has been produced because co-living is not specifically covered in national planning policy or Nottingham’s adopted Local Plan. The council says this has created uncertainty over how applications should be assessed and could lead to inconsistent decision-making if proposals come forward without a local framework in place.
The Informal Planning Guidance will be used to explain how existing planning policies should be interpreted when assessing co-living proposals. It applies to both new-build schemes and conversions of existing buildings, including purpose-built student accommodation.
The council says the guidance is intended to support consistent decisions, improve transparency for applicants and communities, and set expectations on design, living standards, communal space and management arrangements. It also says the document should help reduce the risk of planning appeals and improve the council’s ability to defend decisions.
The guidance is not a new planning policy and does not have the same status as a Local Plan document or Supplementary Planning Document. Legal advice included in the decision report says it will be a material consideration when planning applications are decided, but will carry less weight than formal planning policy.
A consultation on the draft guidance took place from 12 March to 17 April, after the original four-week period was extended to take account of the Easter break. The council says it sought views from residents, statutory bodies, professional interests, institutional stakeholders, national co-living providers and elected members.
Responses raised differing views. The report says residents generally expressed concern about smaller unit sizes below Nationally Described Space Standards, while professional respondents were more supportive of flexibility where schemes included high-quality communal facilities. There was wider agreement on the need for schemes to be in central locations, but concerns remained over affordability, management, safety and the relationship with the purpose-built student accommodation market.
Following the consultation, the council amended the guidance. The final version makes clearer that it is guidance rather than policy, adds stronger evidence, introduces a tiered communal space standard depending on the size of a scheme, eases wording around unit mix, removes a needs test and retains 25 square metres as the minimum benchmark for studio accommodation.
The report says the guidance is intended to address concerns about small unit sizes and living standards by setting benchmarks for studio space and communal areas, while requiring schemes to show acceptable living conditions throughout both private and shared spaces. It also says robust management plans will be expected for the ongoing operation of co-living buildings.
The decision has no immediate cost to the council and does not commit it to capital or revenue spending. Finance comments in the report say the guidance is financially neutral in the short term, but could have modest positive benefits by reducing appeal-related risk and potentially increasing planning fee income if more applications come forward.
The council’s Corporate Landlord also supported the guidance, saying it could help provide clearer expectations where co-living proposals involve the conversion of existing buildings or changes of use. The report says this could be relevant to future council asset sales and the wider rationalisation of council property, while also noting risks including over-concentration of co-living, lower-quality housing stock and loss of strategic control over key sites after disposal.
An Equalities Impact Assessment found the guidance is expected to have largely neutral to positive impacts across equality groups, with no significant adverse effects identified. The council also says no Carbon Impact Assessment is required because the document does not introduce new policy, and no Data Protection Impact Assessment is needed because no personal data will be collected as a result of the guidance.
