Charity raises concerns about co-living apartments in Cardiff
Ted Peskett, local democracy reporter
A charity has raised concerns about the introduction of a new type of apartment block in Cardiff, consisting of living spaces that will be slightly bigger than a garden shed.
Cardiff Council’s planning committee approved plans last month for what will be the city’s first purpose built blocks of co-living apartments at the site of Asset House in Penarth Road.
At the time of the planning committee meeting, councillors praised the chosen location of the development and its use of brownfield land.
It also represents a moment where Cardiff is following in the footsteps of other large cities in the UK, like London and Manchester, which are already familiar with co-living schemes.
‘High rise HMOs’
However, Cardiff Civic Society and others have questioned what the approval of the homes, likened to ‘high rise HMOs’ could mean going forward.
In a letter to the council’s head of planning, Simon Gilbert, and the planning committee chair, Cllr Ed Stubbs, a trustee at Cardiff Civic Society noted that Cardiff didn’t have any planning guidance on standards for co-living apartments.
The apartments are a type of housing that combines private living space with communal areas.
They are not unlike studio apartments, but the private living spaces are usually smaller.
Cardiff Council already has planning guidance that states the minimum space standard for studio apartments is 30sqm.
Individual private living spaces in the co-living apartments approved for where Asset House currently stands will measure between 20.1sqm and 29.9sqm.
It’s possible to purchase garden sheds online that measure 20m by 10m.
Communal space
Standards adopted in London advocate for co-living units that are between 22sqm and 27sqm. Cardiff Council officers argued when the most recent apartment blocks were approved that the small living spaces of co-living developments were balanced by the amount of communal space that was on offer.
Once Asset House is demolished, the site will make way for two apartment blocks, one of which will be six storeys high and the other 13 storeys high.
Together, they will deliver 182 apartments.
There will also be commercial space on the ground floor of one block and internal amenity areas, like a communal plaza area, co-working rooms, a fitness room, cinema, games room, dining spaces, and roof gardens.
In total, there will be 838.8sqm of communal space.
However, Cardiff Civic Society claimed in its letter to the council that the development still fell below the London standard which it said didn’t include a number of communal areas that were in this total.
The letter goes on to add: “The Report [on Asset House] acknowledges that the design does not meet expected standards in areas such as daylight or overlooking, but it argues that it should still be approved.
“It is worrying that this is considered acceptable for a new purpose-built building.”
Precedent
The Cardiff Civic Society trustee went on to say their main concern now was the precedent that this approval would set and how future plans for co-living apartments would be assessed.
A Cardiff Council spokesperson said: “Co-living is a new type of housing becoming more common in UK cities.
“It typically offers private rooms with shared communal spaces and is often aimed at young professionals looking for flexible, community-style living.
“While Cardiff does not yet have formal planning guidance specific to co-living, we are carefully reviewing each proposal to ensure high standards of design, amenity, sustainability, and quality of life.
“We’ve already approved some schemes and officers are carefully reviewing each application on its merits, considering emerging guidance and experience of other core cities and we are working on local guidance to support consistent, high-quality decisions going forward.
“The council remains committed to creating inclusive, sustainable, and well-designed places to live.”
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
Slums in the sky. We are back to the old closes.
If the council doesn’t have policies for this type of accommodation the solution is to get London and Manchester to fax theirs over.
You’d think so but, if councils start sharing best practice and learning, then they can share services and won’t need so many people in various departments. This could save us all millions which could be transferred straight to frontline services. This would be called ‘efficiency’ and we can’t have that sort of thing.
In its letter to Council, CCS suggested adopting the London standard until Cardiff adopts its own policy, if for some reason it needs to diverge from that. As yet it has received no explanation of why that could not be done.
‘British’ politics is winning in Wales isn’t it, now seeping into the construction industry? Cardiff residents obviously do not deserve to be treated under the same standards as London residents (and you’d question how well London residents are cared for). Sums it up really.
Desperate for any kind of investment whatever it is.
Co-living developments are popular around the world. As explained here https://youtu.be/zbFxy4pEbB8 they’re a new concept not a race to the bottom. This is a positive move for a European capital city as long as it meets the highest standards.
It isn’t the concept that’s the problem. But the size of accommodation. Below even London expectations, I believe.
According to the 2024 Knight Frank Co-Living Report “more recent schemes have moved away from the box rooms delivered in earlier developments, with the average studio surpassing 200 sq ft in numerous schemes”.
200 sq ft is well under 20 sqm which is the smallest unit in this development according to the article.
The problem is not the concept but the standard. The individual units in the development are below the minimum size acceptable for studio flats. This is supposed to be compensated for by communal facilities but those in the approved development are under the London standard, both in size and in the absence of laundry facilities.
‘Co-living’ is not being driven by a desire for communal living but by cost. Build-to-rent developments in Cardiff already offer shared facilities plus normal-sized flats, but the escalation in rents has made them unaffordable for most people.
Which standards are you quoting? This 2024 document “London Plan Guidance: Large-scale purpose-built shared living” from the Mayor of London states that units should be between 18 and 27 sqm, and this development will have units between 20 sqm and 29 sqm according to the article. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/LSPBSL%20LPG%20Feb24.pdf >> “3.11.2 The units should be suitably sized to accommodate the amenities listed in table 3.5, below, for sleeping, eating, working, relaxing and storage. They should be no less than 18 sqm, and no more than 27 sqm, to avoid them being used as substandard self-contained units. Larger units may be suitable for… Read more »
Yes, but it doesn’t meet the London standard for communal space per resident. The planning officer report repeats the developer claim that it does but that is false as the developer has included spaces that are excluded in London.
Nor does it include laundry facilities. The officer again repeats a developer statement that washing and drying facilities will be included in the flats, further shrinking space if that happens. But the planning officer admits that the plans do not show how that will be done!
Why do public officials not do their job?
The article is making a specific claim about unit size.
And I’d be astonished if it didn’t include communal laundry facilities because this would make the facility far less attractive commercially. It’s not difficult to have a room with a dozen washing machines and dryers, and this is normal in similar developments.
Even if there are plumbing options to have a washer dryer in the unit, this should be a personal choice not mandatory.
But I’m not really sure this is a planning matter.
The question of unit size cannot be separated from that of communal provision as the ‘co-living’ claim is that such provision makes small units acceptable.
I have read the Planning Officer report and looked at the plans. There is no laundry. Nor does there appears to be space in the units for washing/drying.
Of course this is a planning matter.
So let’s look at this.
The London guidance says there should be 4sqm of amenity space for the first 100 residents, and 3sqm above this number.
The article only mentions units not residents but assuming one occupier per unit there will be 839sqm for 182 residents, which is 4.6sqm per resident.
What information do you have that breaks the London guidance?
As p.21 of the Officer report for 24/02716 shows, the applicant has included 206sqm external space in the 839sqm claim, but the London standard explicitly states this should be accounted for separately (the development does meet the external space standard). Other areas (e.g. foyer) are included but should also be excluded.
On my calculation, the London comparable figure is just 487sqm. It’s also worth noting that some of the units are expected to be rented to couples.
I have pointed this out to Cardiff’s planning department, who have not refuted my figures.
Have you factored in the commercial units open to the public that this development includes? The London guidelines allow “Cafes, bars and restaurants or other spaces that are open to the public to use or not for the exclusive access and use of residents and their personal visitors” to be included. This is further clarified: “Facilities open to the public may count towards resident communal space requirements where they are integrated within the LSPBSL accommodation; managed integrally by the building’s manager; and accessible to residents at least 12 hours a day, and at least six days a week.”
No, I haven’t because the applicant has not claimed that such spaces would be integrated and so count towards the total.
But they had opted to include external space which many reasonable people would be comfortable including in the communal space figures.
If you want to use the London guidelines to exclude external space you should use them to include commercial space which is integrated by virtue of being on the same site. It can’t be integrated in the sense of free access to the accommodation because this would allow the public to access the accommodation.
They have double counted the outdoor areas, both towards the external communal space. That is an explicit breach of the London guidelines.
You have above quoted the conditions that commercial space must meet to qualify; now you want to say just being at the same site is enough. It isn’t.
Housing quality matters. You sound increasingly desperate to justify approval for this development.
The London guidelines aren’t in force here.
But isn’t it the case that they could be met by reducing the size of the units by 2 sqm (freeing up 364 sqm for communal space) and converting 24 sqm of external space to internal space. With the 487 sqm you calculated that’s 875 sqm of communal space without including the external space, commercial plots or foyer.
So rejigged to satisfy London pen pushers but with smaller units and less outside space. Which doesn’t sound like an improvement to me.
The fundamental problem is that Cardiff has no guidelines. The senior people in Cardiff planning (officers and cabinet) agree with me on that. The new LDP has a short section but is not yet in force, and then an SPG will be required. Reducing planning rules to ‘pen pushing’ is a recipe for letting developers get away with anything. The London standard is at least published, so would be better than nothing. in any case, officers should not allow applicants to make claims without checking and challenging those. Groups like Cardiff Civic Society play an essential role of public scrutiny,… Read more »
But London’s rules are flawed as I pointed out as they encourage smaller units and less outside space. There should be a sliding scale so smaller units need more shared space. Outside space needs to be given more credit. The lesson from Covid was that people valued that more than sqm. Cardiff needs to do better than London but it can’t hold back development while it thinks about it.
CCS should be pushing for better, not trying to hold Wales’s capital city back.
Policy is needed urgently if developers are not to get away with setting unacceptable precedents. If Cardiff needs time to work out what would be best here, then it should adopt an existing policy from elsewhere (London or otherwise) in the interim.
Pushing for better is exactly what CCS is doing, which is why it challenges unsubstantiated developer claims. You seem to think the people of this city should accept any conditions foisted on them as long as someone makes money from it.
Let’s keep slum landlords in the history books.
You haven’t acknowledged the point that applying London’s standards to this development will result in smaller units and less outside space. The London guidance is useful of course and should certainly inform planners where there are no formal guidelines. But blindly applying them out of some sort of subservient deference is an insult to everyone involved. With respect you are not pushing for better. You are looking for reasons to say no rather than reasons to say yes. You have no experience of this type of proposal and are trying to apply semi-detached cul-de-sac thinking to urban city centre development.… Read more »
You are so full of ignorant prejudice. ‘Semi-detached cul-de-sac thinking’? I live in an inner-city flat next to a youth club. ‘No experience?’ My daughter once lived for several months in an early ‘co-living’ development, in which her room was so small her storage was under her bed. Facilities were minimal. Her route to the small external space was clambering through a window because the builder had put the door in the wrong place. I was relieved she was out of there before covid lockdowns. So yes, I’m pleased London has set some minimal standards. And that’s what they are:… Read more »
I think the world has thankfully moved on from bedsits your daughter endured. These developments have cinemas, gyms and the best even have swimming pools. You still haven’t acknowledged the point that blindly applying London’s standards to this development could result in smaller units and less outside space. This isn’t an acceptable fall back option. I of course agree policy and standards are needed. But I’d also suggest looking beyond London to see what other jurisdictions have adopted. What are they doing in Manchester, Melbourne, Lisbon or San Francisco? Who’s to say London isn’t erring on the side of the… Read more »
OK, we have different contexts in mind, so it’s not surprising that we are arguing. I agree that co-living has a place in the overall mix. Nomadic working is not new. I used to work for a large corporation that regularly brought workers from overseas to work here for periods of time and accommodation was an issue, usually resolved by the supplier leasing property that could be rotated among their staff. But nomadic working is increasing, and good co-living, with short notice periods, could provide more flexibility. No argument there. Similarly, I can see them being useful for others wanting… Read more »
Viability is relevant because there are a limited number of investors, developers and construction companies. A project isn’t necessarily unviable because they can’t make money out of it. It can also be unviable because the same project with the same investors, developers and construction companies in another city has better numbers. So that gets built instead and the landbanked plot in Cardiff sits empty. And that’s not good for anyone.
This is why we need a radical break from the past half century of housing failure. We need a mass programme of public house building, enabled by a land value tax, compulsory purchase of land at pre-development value, and nationalisation of large builders.
Putting developer profits above housing need is not going to solve the housing crisis.
But that’s change that can only be delivered from the top by politicians that have a democratic mandate to deliver it. It’s irrelevant in the planning process as it now stands. Because the choice here is three-fold. One, blindly accept this development. Two, obstructively engage so as to create a substandard alternative that ticks boxes but leads to compromises that damages the final result, or sends the investment to another more welcoming city leading to no development at all exacerbating the housing crisis and putting off other developers who see the city as regressive and hostile to improvement and either… Read more »
I note you have never responded to my point that planning officers should check and challenge the claims of applicants, not just repeat them to the Planning Committee.
Do you agree with me on this?
Which claims?
“It is stated by the applicant that this would still comply with the London Plan standard of 3.6 sqm per unit.” (p.21) This is then followed by a breakdown that includes areas (e.g. external) excluded by the London standard, but the officer seems not to have checked this.
“On the matter of laundry facilities, the applicant has confirmed that each unit would include washing/drying facilities, although this is not clear from the submitted plans.” (p.22) Why was the applicant not asked to submit plans that would show this?
As I’ve already pointed out the London standards allow the commercial space to be included.
And I’m not going to tell planners what to do but there’s scope to simply add these apparently unverified commitments to the approval notice which would then put the developer in breach should they prove to be inaccurate or not delivered as promised.
Also I don’t agree you should automatically exclude the foyer if this is laid out as an area where social interaction or personal enjoyment such as quiet reading is possible, for example with sofas or other seating.
I would agree on the foyer if suitably laid out, but the word IF is critical here, and I have not seen anything to say that this would be the case. If you find anything, let me know.
SP746 – P05 REV E (PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLANS) shows the 47 sqm foyer with sofas.
It has a couple of sofas in a largish space, so I’d be reluctant to count the full area towards communal space as that’s not its primary purpose. Compare it with the other spaces on that plan. A part value towards the total might be justifiable.
Page 22 of the 24/02716/FUL officer report states, ‘On the matter of laundry facilities, the applicant has confirmed that each unit would include washing/drying facilities, although this is not clear from the submitted plans. Given this, it would be unreasonable to warrant a refusal alone on the grounds that there are no dedicated laundry areas.’
This is an astonishing admission of a lack of due diligence. Why was the applicant not asked to submit revised plans to show where the washing/drying facilities would be located in the individual units?
My personal view is that there should be communal facilities but it’s hard to argue that providing an individual washer-dryer in each unit is unacceptable, particularly when the smallest unit is 2 sqm larger than the London guidelines mandate.
One point about the London laundry recommendations, they suggest that shared laundry facilities shouldn’t be chargeable which I would argue could lead to unenvironmental behaviour such as washing single items. On the other hand charges should be only to cover costs and not be an opportunity for profiteering.
Just because London says so doesn’t always make it right.
One of the selling points for these developments seems to be all-in charging, which I agree might not be efficient environmentally. I think that financial model confirms that ‘co-living’ is not aimed at those who want to live communally but at those obliged to be careful with their money. I don’t have an in-principle objection to an in-flat washer-dryer, although I would object to obliging people to live with lines of wet clothes in such small spaces. But the plans should show this, and the planning conditions should require proper provision, however met. There is a worrying lack of professionalism… Read more »
It doesn’t matter where you are in the world. More space costs more than less space. A central location costs more than being stuck on the outskirts. It should be up to those paying the rent to decide what to prioritise. They should have the option to pay less for less space in a very central location. If their lifestyle means they’re out all the time, and saving by not paying for taxis and long journeys on buses then it can be very convenient. If circumstances or priorities change they can upgrade for more space or simply move further out… Read more »
Yes, some people, particularly when young, will spend little time at home, and prioritise easy access to work or social activities. But that has always been the case. It doesn’t explain why ‘co-living’ has become a favoured investment for developers. The big housebuilders have all but abandoned building modestly priced reasonably sized homes, whether houses or flats. Up to a decade ago, this was still happening but now all large corporate developments in Cardiff are executive houses, expensive build-to-rent, student accommodation, or now ‘co-living’. The only exceptions to this are where they are obliged to include some affordable units, or… Read more »
There has been a change in the way investors approach development but I’d argue it’s a positive one. Traditional housebuilders could build huge numbers of shonky properties and after selling them to wide-eyed newbies suckered by a fancy show home simply walk away with a one-time profit and leave insurers to pacify the few complainers. But developments like co-living, build to rent and modern student blocks are different because the developers aren’t builders looking for a fast buck but a institutions like pension funds looking for long-term investment that will generate reliable revenues for decades. So it’s not in their… Read more »
Also the rents aren’t always directly comparable with other options as they can include bills such as water, energy, gym membership and broadband which add up to substantial additional costs for someone in a traditional home.
Yes, but the total cost is still going to come in lower, otherwise why would anyone want to live there rather than in a nearby Build-to-Rent that offers a full-sized flat plus communal spaces? I’m excluding here mobile workers attracted by short notice periods.
I think you missed the point. A co-living unit and a self-contained studio flat may have similar rents so on the surface the co-living option looks like a bad deal. But the included bills and services that are all extra on the studio flat could amount to several hundred pounds more a month for those taking the studio.
I didn’t dispute that that might be possible. But you’re missing the point that high rents for alternatives are one of the drivers for this, and that the comparison I made is valid.
The Platform development a couple of hundred metres away offers a far superior experience but starts from £1100pcm. Why would anyone (other than short stay) choose Asset House if they could afford Platform instead?
https://platformlife.co.uk/cardiff-ga
I haven’t seen the commercials for either but I assume that development is intended for long term tenants with a six month or 12 month minimum term, and a large deposit and separate bills while this development is much more like checking into a hotel with none of that hassle. But feel free to share the commercial terms for both if you have them so we don’t need to speculate. And this difference matters because to go back to the nomadic worker point I’m not sure you grasped the point because today’s digital nomads are not a bus load of… Read more »
I understand digital nomadism. I worked 30+ years in IT and telecoms, often away from home. Please don’t try to patronise me. You’re quite right about what BTR like Platform expects. Asset House doesn’t exist yet but if it follows the co-living nomad model then I expect it to work as you say, although the plans do not suggest a glossy development like those in the Arte feature you shared. As I’ve said several times, my concern is not about short stay tenants. It is about the use of this model to accommodate those who cannot afford better. The RLDP… Read more »
There has indeed been a shift in investment, although the traditional model still applies for houses if not for flats. But few affordable houses are being built. Developers may more profit from selling one house at £600k than two smaller ones at £300k. The result is little impact on waiting lists and inefficient land use. The old ‘build then bolt’ model left homeowners carrying the risk of poor construction. But the new model still has many players: developer, builder, insurer, financiers, service management, etc. And the post-Grenfell experience is that they will argue interminably among themselves over who picks up… Read more »
There are lots of problems in the housing sector but they shouldn’t be conflated. You don’t create more new homes to buy by turning down co-living developments. You just have less places for people to live, an undeveloped garage and empty warehouse. It may be that some get “stuck” in co-living for longer than they hoped but this is still a choice they wouldn’t have if the only alternative on their budget was to move back home. And I would just highlight that more build to rent, purpose built student accommodation, co-living or serviced apartments will provide alternatives to the… Read more »
At no point have I said that all co-living projects should be rejected. I have said that LPAs should recognise that much of what is said in their favour is marketing hype, that some people (in my judgment many) will find it hard to move on, and that we should insist on minimum standards that would make that tolerable. I stick with that. If you believe that ‘co-living’ will deliver good quality, then why object to a decent standard? The argument that the LPA should accept poor quality developments because worse ones already exist is not one I am willing… Read more »
I’m not objecting to decent standards, I’m objecting to inappropriate standards that don’t understand the concept and would damage the concept if applied.
The officer report admits at several points that Council’s position is weakened by lack of policy. That has also been admitted to me by senior planners and councillors. Your stance of not wanting any standards until they are ‘appropriate’ is allowing developers a free hand. Other cities are ahead of Cardiff on this, so take one of those as a temporary measure while this is sorted out. The report states, ‘Research by officers, and reference to standards adopted in London as cited by the applicant, indicates that a good scheme would include the following: – Individual units which are between… Read more »
I’m not sure where that came from because the London guidance I found which you didn’t challenge quotes an 18 sqm minimum. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/LSPBSL%20LPG%20Feb24.pdf This development has a 20 sqm minimum so enforcing London rules could result in smaller units than currently planned in an effort to increase shared space within the same plot size. These London guidelines also don’t demand 5 sqm per unit of communal space so again I don’t see where that has come from. They ask for 4sqm for the first 100 units then 3 sqm above that. This development also has more external space than the… Read more »
*less external space
You just don’t get that minimum standards are meant to provide a quality floor not a ceiling. The London standard says the units should be suitably sized to accommodate the amenities for sleeping, eating, working, relaxing and storage. It doesn’t expect washing/drying as the Asset House develop asserts the units will have (although I’m not convinced that’s true). In any case, I don’t think 18sqm is good enough for more than short stay. You’ve complained about just adopting the London standard, now you’re objecting to an attempt to draw on other city experiences to modify that. I don’t think you… Read more »
I’m pointing out that mandating the London standards could lead to smaller units and less outside space. So why do it?
We need policy. Quite happy to set better than London. At present there’s nothing.
The report says, ‘It is intended that the co-living accommodation would be marketed towards young professionals, key workers, mature students, single people and couples.’ So that’s pretty well anyone except children. The problem is that there is not one concept here but two. The marketed vision is of small but decent units with good communal amenities, aimed at mobile (predominantly young) people looking for short-term accommodation. I don’t have a problem with that. But behind that is a grimmer danger of lower quality developments with poorer communal space and facilities, in which people who cannot afford anything better find themselves… Read more »
I don’t see anything controversial in the quoted statements that need to be challenged by planners.
Seriously? You don’t think that when an applicant makes a specific claim that the planning officer should check it? The claim that the communal space meets the London standard is demonstrably false and should have been checked.
Do you think planning officers should just nod through anything developers want to do?
I was referring to the quoted section “It is intended that the co-living accommodation would be marketed towards young professionals, key workers, mature students, single people and couples”.
OK, but that says nothing except no children.
‘Desperate for investment’ is a good characterisation. In this case, it seems the planning officer had not properly checked the developer’s claims before recommending approval.
Cardiff is supposed to have a policy of 20% affordable housing on brownfield sites, or an equivalent section 106 payment that Council could use to buy homes. But it does not enforce that, losing tens of millions of pounds.
I spent a couple of months in a similar scheme in Beijing China. No room for a kitchen but they had a decent sized shower room. A
communal kitchen provided meals from breakfast to dinner. A shared courtyard, a good sense of community. Couldn’t fault it.
But would you have wanted to live there for ever with little prospect of moving on?
How many young people have ever left home and moved straight into their forever home? What a strange requirement.
And if the suggestion that there’s “little prospect of moving on” refers to these units being more affordable so people are trapped by alternatives being unaffordable then you don’t solve this by making the affordable options unaffordable.
So we should make properties affordable by reducing standards to an unacceptable level? Welcome back slum landlords. The private sector is dominated by large house builders, landowners and financial capital. It has no interest in providing affordable housing. The evidence over 150 years since the Artisans’ and Labourers’ Dwellings Improvement Act 1875 shows that only the public sector can do this. Welsh Government has taken an important step towards this by ending ‘Right to Buy’, but it is going to miss its affordable housing target in this Senedd. It needs to spend much more on council housing but Reeves’ misguided… Read more »
Unacceptable to whom? Just because you wouldn’t want to rent a unit like this doesn’t mean you should deny others the choice. The state should get on and build better alternatives, not block private developments. You’re right about misguided fiscal rules which stem from a misunderstanding of public debt. Singapore has one of the highest debt per GDP ratios in the world. Yet they also have the highest credit rating possible because the have no net debt – the value of their state owned assets exceeds the money they owe because so much has been spent on assets that are… Read more »
I do not have an in principle objection to ‘co-living’, which may well suit some people for a time, but we should acknowledge that the primary driver is high rents.
Government has a responsibility to ensure minimal standards as other cities recognise. Cardiff too knows that it needs policy on this. The risk is that unsatisfactory precedents are being set not in the public interest but just to suit developers.
Net debt is indeed a much better measure.
Sounds like halls of residence in university.