What 37 Applications Reveal About HMO Planning in Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range (2024–2026)

Data Scope

This analysis covers 37 HMO planning applications submitted between January 2024 and March 2026 across four South Manchester wards: Moss Side (26 applications), Rusholme (8), Whalley Range (2), and Hulme (1).

Of 37 applications, 35 were formally determined (Granted or Refused) and 2 were withdrawn prior to decision. Approval and refusal rates are calculated against determined applications (n=35) unless otherwise stated. The methodology convention for “determined” — applications where the Council issued a formal decision, excluding withdrawn applications — is defined in Article 13 and applies throughout the series.

The original data collection recorded 8 applications as Restricted/Unavailable on the portal. Subsequent investigation resolved 6 of these into verifiable outcomes (3 approved, 3 refused), identified 1 as outside the date range, and confirmed 2 as phantom records with no corresponding application. The dataset published here reflects the corrected figures.

Ward-Level HMO Planning Outcomes

Moss Side dominates this collection. It accounts for 70.3% of all applications (26 of 37) and 71.4% of determined applications (25 of 35). No other ward in the South Manchester dataset shows this degree of volume concentration.

Ward	Total	Determined	Approved	Refused	Approval Rate
Moss Side	26	25	21	4	84.0%
Rusholme	8	8	5	3	62.5%
Whalley Range	2	1	1	0	100.0% (n=1)
Hulme	1	1	0	1	0.0% (n=1)
Total	37	35	27	8	77.1%

Moss Side’s 84.0% approval rate drives the collection-level figure. Rusholme — now fully resolved from the restricted records — shows a materially different profile at 62.5%, with 3 of 8 determined applications refused. Two of Rusholme’s refusals cited Policy H11 (both Full Applications); the third was a Certificate refusal for evidential insufficiency.

Whalley Range and Hulme produced insufficient volume for statistical analysis. Whalley Range recorded 1 determined application (approved) and 1 withdrawn. Hulme recorded 1 application — a Full Application that was refused.

Application Type Breakdown

Type	Total	% of Total	Determined	Approved	Approval Rate
Certificate (LE)	30	81.1%	30	25	83.3%
Full Application (FO)	7	18.9%	5	2	40.0%

The LE dominance (81.1%) is consistent with Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat (85.1%). Certificate applications achieved an 83.3% determined approval rate — higher than Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat’s 79.5% (31/39).

Full Applications present a more complex picture than Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat. Of 7 submitted, 5 were formally determined: 2 approved, 3 refused. The 40.0% approval rate exceeds Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat’s 16.7% (1/6), but the sample remains small. Notably, one of the 3 Full Application refusals (139652/FO/2024, 18 Schuster Road, Rusholme) was subsequently overturned on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. Article 22 in this series examines that appeal decision in detail.

Moss Side’s application type distribution is particularly concentrated: 25 of 26 Moss Side applications were Certificates (96.2%). The single Moss Side Full Application was withdrawn before determination.

Refusal Patterns

Eight applications were refused across this collection. The refusal pattern maintains the application-type separation observed in Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat, with one significant addition: the appeal pathway.

Certificate refusals (5 of 8): All five cited the standard evidential insufficiency wording — failure to demonstrate continuous HMO use for the required 10-year period. No Certificate refusal cited Policy H11, density concerns, or amenity impact. This is consistent with the Certificate refusal pattern across all collections.

Standard refusal wording:

“The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the use of the 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.”

Full Application refusals (3 of 8): All three cited Policy H11 and concentration concerns. Two were in Rusholme, one in Hulme.

The Hulme refusal (144407/FO/2025, Trinity Court) cited family housing loss, over-intensive use, and amenity harm — a multi-ground pattern consistent with Full Application refusals in Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat. The five-component scorecard recorded FAIL on density, waste, and amenity.

One Certificate refusal warrants particular note. Application 141018/LE/2024 at 47 Sedgeborough Road, Moss Side, sought Sui Generis certification for a 14-bedroom HMO — above the C4 threshold of 6 persons. This was the only Sui Generis LE application in Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range. It was refused on the standard evidential ground.

Submission Channel

The submission channel profile in Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range diverges sharply from Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat.

Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range is predominantly self-submitted. The outcome pattern associated with this distribution is notable: self-submitted determined applications achieved an 86.2% approval rate (25/29), while agent-submitted determined applications achieved 33.3% (2/6).

This appears to invert Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat, where agent-submitted Certificate applications achieved 90.5% approval compared to 66.7% for self-submitted Certificates. However, the Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range agent-submitted population is small (6 determined) and includes specific cases that may account for refusal independently of agent involvement: the Pentapura Properties batch submissions (2 LE applications by DS Design & Planning, both refused on the same date for identical evidential reasons), the Hulme apartment conversion (refused on policy grounds), and the Sedgeborough Road Sui Generis application (14-bedroom HMO, a high threshold). Article 18 in this series examines the submission channel question in detail.

Agent Patterns

Two agent patterns emerge from this collection.

Pentapura Properties Ltd / DS Design & Planning: Applications 144563/LE/2025 and 144564/LE/2025 were submitted simultaneously for two different Moss Side properties by the same applicant (Mr Mohammed Reza Rizvi, Pentapura Properties Ltd) through the same agent (Mr Daanyal Shairaz, DS Design & Planning). Both were refused on the same date for identical evidential reasons. This batch submission and simultaneous refusal pattern represents a notable dataset signal. Article 17 examines this in detail.

Stephen Lamb: This agent handled at least 3 applications across the Rusholme and Moss Side area within this collection — 14 Schuster Road (approved), 18 Schuster Road (refused, appeal allowed), and 108 Heald Grove, Moss Side (resolved from the restricted records as approved). Lamb also acted as the appeal agent for the Schuster Road PINS case. This cross-ward presence makes Lamb a notable agent entity for subsequent cross-collection analysis.

The Quiet Wards

Three of this collection’s four wards produced insufficient volume for standalone analysis.

Hulme recorded a single application — a Full Application to convert an apartment in Trinity Court from C3 to C4. It was refused on multiple policy grounds including loss of family accommodation, over-intensive use, and amenity harm. Hulme’s housing stock includes significant purpose-built student accommodation and newer apartment blocks, which may not present the typical HMO conversion profile seen in the terraced-housing wards.

Whalley Range recorded 2 applications, both Full Applications, both self-submitted. One was approved (141415/FO/2024, determined in 53 days). One was withdrawn. The absence of Certificate applications in Whalley Range is notable — it may indicate low existing HMO stock or that HMO activity in the ward has not reached the 10-year threshold required for Certificate applications.

Rusholme — now fully resolved — tells a more complex story than the other quiet wards. All eight Rusholme applications were determined: five approved and three refused. The 62.5% approval rate sits below the collection average (77.1%) and below Moss Side (84.0%). Two of Rusholme’s refusals were Full Applications citing H11 concentration — including the Schuster Road case subsequently overturned on appeal. The ward’s housing stock borders Victoria Park and includes properties within the Conservation Area, creating a different planning context from Moss Side’s terraced-housing corridor.

Holding Times

This is tighter than Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat (mean 58.8 days, range 38–161 days). Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range contained no duration outliers comparable to Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat’s 161-day LP determination or 134-day Full Application approval. The tighter clustering is consistent with a dataset dominated by straightforward LE applications.

Cross-Collection Position

Collection	Wards	Total	Determined	Approved	Rate
Withington, Fallowfield and Old Moat	Withington, Fallowfield, Old Moat	47	45	32	71.1%
Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range	Moss Side, Rusholme, Hulme, Whalley Range	37	35	27	77.1%
Chorlton, Chorlton Park, Didsbury East and Didsbury West	Chorlton, Chorlton Park, Didsbury East, Didsbury West	2	1	1	1 determined (approved)
Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden	Levenshulme, Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Northenden	15	11	4	36.4%
Combined	14 wards	101	92	64	69.0%

Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range sits at the permissive end of the spectrum. Burnage, Gorton & Abbey Hey, Levenshulme and Northenden (36.4%) sits at the restrictive end. The 40.7 percentage point gap between Collections 2 and 4 represents the widest collection-level variation in the dataset.

What This Article Establishes

This overview documents the structural characteristics of Rusholme, Moss Side, Hulme and Whalley Range. Subsequent articles in this series examine individual dimensions in detail:

---