The Bristol Civic Society welcomes the opportunity to comment on Bristol City Council’s draft supplementary planning document for Co-living dated September 2025.
We understand that residential accommodation opportunities are changing due to the increased pressure on land, costs and the increase in the population. A different type of residential accommodation needs to be developed. This new term for homes in multiple occupation, on a larger scale is what we believe is now referred to as Co-living.
Generally, we support this move. However, we have several observations which we believe need to be addressed before the SPD can be used as a material consideration in any planning application.
Fundamentally these properties will be for rent only with no process to enable purchase by individuals. They are possibly a stepping stone from student living to residential purchase or longer-term rental. They could of course be a long-term rental for occupants that wish to stay in this type of property. If this is the case and to quote the SPD, the design of the properties should take account of the many design policies that will enable good quality accommodation and a high standard of liveability and amenity for residents. Should this SPD cross reference the Urban Living SPD?
We understand the SPD needs to have some flexibility, but we would suggest there is too much within the documents and it should be tightened, especially around space standards. Suggesting a floor size no greater that student accommodation will inevitably mean most Co-living proposals will come forward with the smallest size suggested in the SPD. Why not show typical layouts and sizes. Also, why cap the size? If you wish flexibility, why not allow any size above a statutory minimum.
We note that the section on management plan says: “That no part of the Co-Living development is operated as a hotel, hostel or student accommodation;” We would wish to see Airbnb added in here.
Reference should also be made regarding the provision of health services. Also, reference should be made to a proactive ongoing building maintenance plan. Both should, in our opinion be part of any planning application submission and be tied to any approval via a section 106 agreement.
Ian Jenkins