Cross-Collection Agent Performance: Pool Separation, Outcome Variation, and the McLoughlin Case Study

Agent Presence Across the Dataset

Across 101 applications and four collections, 22 named agents appear in the public planning record. The distribution of agent activity is not uniform. Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat accounts for the largest and most varied agent pool. Collections 2 and 4 each produced smaller, distinct agent populations with no meaningful overlap with each other or with Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat. Chorlton, Chorlton Park, Didsbury East and Didsbury West recorded no agent-submitted applications within the study period.

This article sets out the agent-level record as it appears in the dataset. Where approval rates are quoted for individual agents or collections, they reflect the outcome record within the study period. Small agent-submitted totals — which apply to most named agents in this dataset — limit the weight that can be placed on any individual rate.

Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat: The Largest Agent Pool

Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat (Withington, Fallowfield, Old Moat) recorded 27 agent-submitted determined applications across 17 named agents. It is the only collection in the dataset where agent-submitted applications outnumbered self-submitted applications and where agent-submitted Certificates achieved a higher approval rate than self-submitted Certificates — 90.5% against 66.7% on a Certificate-only basis, as documented in Article 4.

The Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat agent pool produced a wide spread of individual outcomes. Ten of the fifteen named agents recorded at least one granted application. Five recorded only refusals, all with a single determined application each. McLoughlin Planning recorded the highest volume of any single agent in the collection — 8 applications, all granted — and is the only Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat agent with a cross-collection presence.

The Stephen Lamb / Steve Lamb entries appear as two separate name formats in the portal record. Both refer to applications in Fallowfield. Treated as a single agent, the combined record is 3 determined applications, 2 granted, 1 refused. The dataset does not confirm whether the two name formats represent the same individual; they have been consolidated on the basis of name similarity and ward proximity.

Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range: An Isolated Agent Pool

Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range (Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme, Whalley Range) recorded 5 agent-submitted applications across 4 named agents. No Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range agent appears in Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat or Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden. No agent-submitted application in Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range was approved within the study period.

The Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range agent pool is small and entirely distinct from the other collections. The 0% agent approval rate across Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range is a feature of this pool within this study period — not a figure that can be compared directly with Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat agent performance, given that the two pools share no agents and operated in different ward environments.

DS Design & Planning’s two refusals are the Pentapura submissions documented in Article 16 — a simultaneous batch of two Certificate applications refused on identical evidentiary grounds on the same determination date. They account for two of the four agent-submitted refusals in the collection. The dataset does not record whether DS Design & Planning submitted applications outside the Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range ward area or outside the study period.

Planning by Design appears in Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range under Silas Willoughby (London). As noted in the methodology note, its appearances across collections have not been consolidated.

Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden: Low Volume, No Approvals

Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden (Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme, Northenden) recorded 7 agent-submitted determined applications across 5 named agents. No agent-submitted application in Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden was approved within the study period. The collection-level agent approval rate of 0% is the most extreme in the dataset and, as noted in Article 23, holds on both a Certificate-only basis and an all-applications basis.

The Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden agent pool produced no approvals across five agents and seven determined applications. The refusal grounds were consistently evidentiary — failure to demonstrate 10-year continuous HMO use — consistent with the wider Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden refusal pattern documented in Articles 19 to 21. The dataset does not record whether any of these agents submitted applications in other areas of Manchester outside the study scope, or what their outcomes were in those cases.

Case Study: Cross-Collection Data Trends

The dataset contains one substantive instance of an agent appearing across multiple collections with a sufficient number of applications to serve as a cross-collection illustration. McLoughlin Planning — recorded in the portal as both “McLoughlin Planning” and “Mr Nathan McLoughlin” — submitted applications in both Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat and Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden. The contrast in those records documents how geographic collection corresponds with planning outcomes within this study period.

The 100% versus 0% contrast is recorded here as an observable feature of the public record. The Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden refusals align with the wider collection-level pattern: all seven agent-submitted applications in Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden encountered the same evidentiary ground regardless of the agent involved. McLoughlin’s two Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden refusals are part of that pattern, not exceptions to it.

Cross-Collection Agent Overlap

Beyond McLoughlin Planning and the Planning by Design name, no agent active in one collection appears in another. The Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat, Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range, and Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden agent pools are effectively separate. This is the more significant structural finding of the cross-ward agent analysis.

Where collection-level patterns differ — agent approval rates running in opposite directions between Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat and Collections 2 and 4, as documented in Article 23 — the absence of shared agents across those collections means the difference cannot be attributed to agent-level factors. The agents operating in Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat are not the same agents operating in Collections 2 and 4. The patterns are collection-specific, not agent-portable.

This limits the analytical weight that can be placed on cross-ward agent comparisons generally. With one substantive exception — McLoughlin — there is no agent-level data point that spans more than one collection. The collection-level differentials documented in Article 23 are a product of collection-specific conditions, application pools, and ward environments. The agent record confirms this separation rather than explaining it.

Conclusion

Twenty-two named agents appear across the dataset. The agent pools of Collections 1, 2, and 4 are distinct: no named agent with a substantive application record in Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat appears in Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range or Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden, with the exception of McLoughlin Planning.

McLoughlin Planning is the only agent with a confirmed cross-collection presence and a substantive application record in more than one collection. Its record — 8 granted in Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat, 2 refused in Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden — is documented as a cross-collection illustration of geographic outcome variation within the dataset.

In Collections 2 and 4, no named agent recorded an approval within the study period. All approvals in both collections were self-submitted. The collection-level differentials documented in Article 23 are a product of collection-specific conditions — the agent record confirms this separation. The dataset does not record agent activity outside the 14-ward study scope or outside the January 2024 to March 2026 study period.

The master Executive Summary, consolidating the findings of the full series across all four collections, is presented in Article 25.