Fallowfield HMO Planning Patterns (2024–2026)

Fallowfield Application Outcomes

Thirteen HMO planning applications were submitted in Fallowfield between 2024 and 2026. Eight were approved, five were refused, and none were withdrawn.

This represents the lowest approval rate among the three study wards.

Data Scope

This analysis examines 13 HMO planning applications submitted in Fallowfield between 2024 and 2026, representing 27.7% of the total South Manchester dataset (13 out of 45 applications).

Of 45 applications submitted across the full dataset, 43 were formally determined and 2 were withdrawn prior to decision. Approval and refusal rates are calculated against determined applications (n=43) unless otherwise stated. No applications were withdrawn in Fallowfield. All 13 proceeded to formal determination.

This article focuses specifically on Fallowfield’s approval patterns: the Certificate versus Full Application outcome divide, H11 citation frequency, and refusal language observed in officer determinations.

Application Type Outcomes

The 61.5% overall approval rate (8/13) aggregates two application types with markedly different outcomes within this dataset.

Certificate Applications: 80.0% Approval

Certificate applications in Fallowfield achieved an 80.0% approval rate within this dataset. This sits between Withington’s 68.8% (11/16) and Old Moat’s 92.3% (12/13). Certificate refusals in Fallowfield cited evidentiary insufficiency only. Neither Certificate refusal referenced Policy H11 or density context.

Full Applications: 0.0% Approval

All three Full Applications in Fallowfield were refused. All three cited Policy H11. No Full Application in Fallowfield received approval within this dataset.

H11 Citation Pattern

All three H11 citations in Fallowfield occurred in Full Application refusals. Certificate refusals cited evidentiary insufficiency only, consistent with the dataset-wide pattern.

Full Application Refusal Language

All three Full Application refusals in Fallowfield are recorded below in full.

Refusal 1 (139847/FO/2024):

“The increase in occupancy, and proposed dormer extension, would result in an over intensive use of the property, with a consequential increase in the levels of activity, noise and disturbance levels, waste generation and potentially demand for parking, which would result in an unacceptable detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers, contrary to policies H11, DM1 and SP1 of the Manchester Core Strategy.”

Refusal 2 (139393/FO/2024):

“1) The proposed development would result in the loss of quality residential accommodation, which would reduce the supply and availability of family housing. The development would thereby fail to positively respond to an identified housing need and thereby undermine the formation of cohesive and sustainable neighbourhoods where people would choose to live. The development would thereby be contrary to policies SP1, H1, H6 and DM1 of the Core Strategy for the City of Manchester.

2) The proposed development would result in an over intensive use of the application dwellinghouse and result in a consequential increase in the levels of noise and disturbance and activity through its occupation as a house in multiple occupation (HMO) with limited usable amenity space. Occupation as an HMO would undermine the formation of sustainable communities, have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents and thereby be contrary to policies H11, DM1 and SP1 of the Core Strategy for the City of Manchester.”

Refusal 3 (139348/FO/2024):

“1) The proposed change of use would result in the loss of a family sized dwellinghouse which would reduce the standard and availability of such housing in the area, undermining the provisions of policies H1, H6, H11 and SP1 of the Manchester Core Strategy, which seek to provide an appropriate mix and balance of housing provision in the locality, in order to maintain a sustainable neighbourhood and cohesive housing market.”

Refusal Language Patterns

The dataset does not record density calculations performed by officers in these determinations.

Certificate Refusal Language

Refusal 1 (143511/LE/2025): No refusal reason text available in the dataset.

Refusal 2 (139258/LE/2024):

“The applicant has failed to demonstrate that 6 Landcross Road, Manchester, M14 6NA has been occupied as a small House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) for a continual 10 year period up to the date of the application.”

Both Certificate refusals cited evidentiary insufficiency. Neither referenced H11 or density context, consistent with the dataset-wide pattern for Certificate refusals (0/8 H11 citations across all three wards).

Certificate Versus Full Application Divide

Certificate refusals cited documentation gaps. Full Application refusals cited Policy H11 and cumulative impact. The dataset does not record whether any Full Applications in Fallowfield were located on streets below the 25% density threshold referenced in supplementary guidance.

Comparison With Other Wards

Metric	Old Moat	Withington	Fallowfield
Overall approval rate	85.7% (12/14)	66.7% (12/18)	61.5% (8/13)
Certificate approval rate	92.3% (12/13)	68.8% (11/16)	80.0% (8/10)
Full Application approval rate	0.0% (0/1)	50.0% (1/2)	0.0% (0/3)
H11 citation rate in refusals	50.0% (1/2)	16.7% (1/6)	60.0% (3/5)

Fallowfield recorded the highest H11 citation rate and the lowest overall approval rate in this dataset. It also recorded the highest number of Full Applications (3) and the only ward with zero Full Application approvals alongside more than one Full Application attempt.

Certificate Approval Rate Variation

Fallowfield’s Certificate approval rate (80.0%) exceeds Withington’s (68.8%) but falls below Old Moat’s (92.3%). The 12.3 percentage point gap between Fallowfield and Old Moat Certificate rates is observable within the dataset. The dataset does not record the factors underlying this variation.

Conclusion

Fallowfield recorded a 61.5% overall approval rate (8/13) — the lowest of the three study wards.

Certificate applications achieved 80.0% approval (8/10). Both Certificate refusals cited evidentiary insufficiency. Neither referenced density or Policy H11.

Full Applications achieved 0.0% approval (0/3). All three Full Application refusals cited Policy H11. Refusal language referenced over-intensive use and loss of family housing in two of three cases.

H11 was cited in 60.0% of Fallowfield refusals (3/5), compared to 16.7% in Withington (1/6) and 50.0% in Old Moat (1/2).

The dataset does not record street-level density calculations for individual applications or the factors underlying Certificate approval rate variation between wards.

---