Pentapura Properties: Simultaneous Batch Submissions and the Evidentiary Refusal Pattern in Moss Side

A Simultaneous Batch Submission

The South Manchester HMO planning dataset contains one instance of a single corporate applicant submitting multiple Certificate of Lawful Development applications on the same date for separate properties in the same ward. On 15 December 2025, Pentapura Properties Ltd — represented by DS Design & Planning of Bolton — submitted two LE applications to Manchester City Council simultaneously.

The two applications were for properties at 67 Viscount Street (M14 5UJ) and 338 Great Western Street (M14 4DS), both within Moss Side ward. Both sought to establish lawful use as a C4 house in multiple occupation on the basis of 10 years of continuous use. Both were refused on 6 February 2026 — 53 days after validation — on identical grounds.

This article documents the pattern as recorded in the public planning record. The dataset does not record the internal decision-making of the applicant or agent, the evidentiary basis of either submission, or whether further action was taken following the refusals.

Application Detail

The two applications share identical submission and determination parameters across every recorded variable.

Refusal Reasoning

Both applications were refused on the standard Certificate evidentiary ground: failure to demonstrate continuous C4 HMO use for the required 10-year period. The refusal wording was identical across both decision notices:

“The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the use of property as a house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), has continued for a 10-year period up to the date of the application.”

No policy grounds were cited in either refusal. Neither decision notice referenced Policy H11, density concerns, amenity harm, or any planning merit assessment. Both refusals were purely evidentiary in character — consistent with the Certificate refusal pattern documented across Collections 1 and 2.

The 53-day determination window for both applications falls within the tight refusal clustering observed across the wider dataset. In Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat, Certificate refusals were determined within a 5-day window with a standard deviation of 1.7 days. The Pentapura refusals were determined on the same date, 53 days after validation.

The Batch Submission Pattern

Simultaneous submission of multiple LE applications by a single corporate entity is not prohibited. The Certificate of Lawful Development process is designed to assess each application on its own evidential merits, and a corporate landlord holding multiple properties may have legitimate reasons to pursue certificates for several addresses concurrently.

What the Pentapura submissions record is a specific pattern: two applications for two separate properties, submitted on the same date, refused on the same date, by the same case officer, on identical grounds. The simultaneity of submission and refusal is observable in the public record. The dataset does not record what evidence was submitted in support of either application, whether the properties shared common ownership histories, or whether the 10-year use period could be demonstrated for either address.

Context Within the Moss Side Dataset

The two Pentapura refusals account for half of the four refusals recorded in Moss Side ward across the study period. They also account for two of the four agent-submitted applications in the ward — and two of the three agent-submitted refusals. The fourth Moss Side refusal (142097/LE/2025, 93 Lloyd Street South) was self-submitted and subsequently approved on resubmission.

The remaining two agent-submitted applications in Moss Side were: 141018/LE/2024 at 47 Sedgeborough Road (Jeff Atkins Architect, refused) and 139741/LE/2024 at 108 Heald Grove (Stephen Lamb, approved). The agent-submitted approval rate in Moss Side was 1/4 = 25.0% across the study period. The two Pentapura refusals account for half of that result.

The dataset does not record whether Pentapura Properties Ltd holds additional properties in Moss Side or other South Manchester wards, or whether further applications were submitted outside the study period. No resubmission for either Pentapura property appears in the Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range dataset.

Agent and Applicant Record

DS Design & Planning (Bolton BL1 5PJ) appears in the Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range dataset only through the two Pentapura submissions. Both resulted in refusal. No other applications in the Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range dataset are attributed to this agent.

Pentapura Properties Ltd (applicant) does not appear elsewhere in the Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range dataset. The dataset does not cover planning activity outside the January 2024 to March 2026 study period, or applications in wards outside the 14 covered by this series.

Conclusion

The Pentapura submissions represent the only instance of simultaneous batch Certificate applications by a single corporate entity in the Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range dataset. Both were refused on identical evidentiary grounds on the same determination date. The pattern is recorded here as a distinct feature of the Moss Side application record within this study period.

The refusals contributed to the agent-submitted approval differential documented in Article 15 and are part of the broader evidentiary refusal pattern that characterises Certificate determinations across both collections. The dataset does not record what remedial steps, if any, were taken by the applicant or agent following the decisions.