Street-Level Application Clustering in South Manchester HMO Determinations (2024–2026)

Street Distribution Overview

Old Moat recorded one application per street across all 14 submissions — the only ward with no multi-application streets. Fallowfield recorded the highest application density per street despite the lowest street count.

Data Scope

This analysis examines 47 HMO planning applications submitted between 2024 and 2026 across Withington, Fallowfield, and Old Moat, mapped to 37 unique street addresses.

Of 45 applications submitted, 43 were formally determined and 2 were withdrawn prior to decision.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.

This article focuses specifically on street-level application clustering: which streets recorded multiple applications, what outcomes were observed at those streets, and what the distribution pattern reveals.

Streets With Multiple Applications

Eight streets recorded 2 or more applications within the dataset timeframe.

Kingswood Road, Withington — 3 applications

All three applications were Certificates. All three were granted. Kingswood Road recorded the highest single-street approval concentration in the Withington portion of the dataset.

Braemar Road, Fallowfield — 3 applications

Two Certificate applications and one Full Application. Both Certificates were granted. The Full Application was refused, citing loss of family housing, Policy H11, and amenity harm.

Beech Grove, Withington — 2 applications

One Certificate application and one Full Application. The Certificate was refused. The Full Application was approved.

Lindleywood Road, Withington — 2 applications

Both applications were Certificates. Both were granted. Sequential validation references indicate near-simultaneous submission.

Egerton Road, Withington — 2 applications

Both applications were Certificates. One was refused, one was granted. This street is documented in detail in Article 3 — the refused application was resubmitted 89 days later and approved by the same case officer.

Furness Road, Fallowfield — 2 applications

Both applications were Certificates. One was granted, one was refused. The refused application is noted elsewhere in this series as the case with no refusal text available in the public record.

Landcross Road, Fallowfield — 2 applications

Both applications were Certificates. One was refused, one was granted. This street is documented in detail in Article 3 — the refused application was resubmitted 28 days later and approved.

Standish Road, Fallowfield — 2 applications

Both applications were Certificates. Both were granted. Sequential validation references indicate near-simultaneous submission.

Single-Application Streets

29 streets recorded exactly one application. Outcome distribution:

Ward	Single-App Streets	Granted	Refused	Withdrawn
Withington	11	5	4	2
Fallowfield	5	2	3	0
Old Moat	14 (all streets)	12	2	0

Multi-Application Street Outcomes

The 5 refusals on multi-application streets comprised: 1 Full Application refusal citing H11 (Braemar Road), and 4 Certificate refusals citing evidentiary insufficiency (Beech Grove, Egerton Road, Furness Road, Landcross Road). Three of those four Certificate refusals occurred on streets that also recorded a subsequent approval — either through resubmission or a separate property on the same street achieving approval.

Street Concentration by Ward

Fallowfield’s 13 applications across 8 streets produced the highest application-per-street ratio (1.6). Five of Fallowfield’s 8 streets recorded at least one refusal. Fallowfield is also the only ward where Full Applications appeared on streets with existing Certificate activity.

Withington’s 20 applications across 15 streets produced a ratio of 1.3. Seven of Withington’s 15 streets recorded at least one refused or withdrawn application. Withington contains both the dataset’s highest-volume street cluster (Kingswood Road, 3 approvals) and its principal anomaly (Beech Grove, the only Full Application approval).

Old Moat’s 14 applications across 14 streets produced a ratio of 1.0. Two streets recorded refusals. No street recorded repeat applications. Old Moat’s single-application-per-street pattern distinguishes it from the other two wards.

Conclusion

The 45 applications in this dataset were distributed across 37 unique streets. Eight streets recorded 2 or more applications. Twenty-nine streets recorded exactly one application.

Old Moat recorded one application per street across all 14 submissions. Fallowfield recorded the highest application density per street (1.6 average) across 8 streets. Withington recorded 20 applications across 15 streets.

The two streets recording both application types (Braemar Road and Beech Grove) produced divergent outcomes by application type, consistent with the dataset-wide pattern. Beech Grove additionally produced the dataset’s principal anomaly — the only Full Application approval — alongside a Certificate refusal on the same street.

Three repeat-application streets (Egerton Road, Landcross Road, Furness Road) are cross-referenced with Article 3’s repeat submission analysis. Two near-simultaneous submission pairs (Lindleywood Road, Standish Road) both resulted in approval.

The dataset does not record street-level HMO density calculations. The full street-by-street outcome matrix, named addresses, application references, and timeline sequencing data are contained in the complete report.

---