Aisling Merriman.
Last recorded decision Dec 2023 — no decisions in this record since
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 93% across 127 decided planning applications, spanning 13 wards.[1] Decision speed and appeal performance publish when decision notices are ingested.
Topic mentions per 1,000 words of their own report text (boilerplate stripped), indexed against all parsed Hammersmith And Fulham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Merriman's caseload includes a notable share of window replacement and conservation-area alterations, and she is distinctive for stating the precise measured distance in metres between a new or replacement window and the nearest opposing neighbouring window, checking it against the 18m/60-degree-arc privacy standard explicitly rather than a qualitative judgement. On roof terraces that formally infringe the 45-degree line, she compares the proposed terrace's overall area against a specific, named comparable terrace already approved at a neighbouring address, noting where the new terrace would in fact be smaller despite extending marginally further in one dimension.
· states the precise measured distance in metres between a new or replacement window and the nearest opposing neighbouring window, checked explicitly against the 18m/60-degree-arc privacy standard
· compares a proposed roof terrace's overall area directly against a specific, named comparable terrace already approved at a neighbouring address under its own reference, even noting where the new terrace is smaller overall despite one dimension extending further
· treats an EXISTING building that already infringes the 45-degree angle as context reducing the marginal impact of a new addition, while still explicitly acknowledging the technical infringement rather than omitting it
· the precise distance in metres between a new or replacement window and the nearest opposing habitable room window, tested against the 18m/60-degree-arc standard
· whether a proposed roof terrace's overall area is smaller than a specific, named comparable terrace already approved at a neighbouring address
· whether the EXISTING building already infringes the 45-degree angle, providing context for assessing a new addition's marginal impact
“None of the existing windows are located less than 18 m from existing opposing windows measured in an arc of 60 degrees from the centre of the proposed windows.”
2022/02806/FUL
“would align with the approved roof terrace at No. 44 Stronsa Road (permitted under application 2020/02776/FUL) and would nevertheless have a smaller overall area than this approved terrace given its narrow width”
2021/00594/FUL
Measured from 62 published Hammersmith And Fulham officer reports written by this officer, with recited policy boilerplate stripped before any counting. These describe how this officer works and writes — they are not outcome predictions. Every quote is from a named public report.
The policies this officer cites most in their own reports — times cited across 62 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–23.[1] Click the map above to focus this page on a ward, or a row to open the ward.
- [1]Applications decided, approval rate, per-year trend and ward breakdown — London Borough of Hammersmith And Fulham planning register and published decision notices, 2021–23. · methodology
- [2]Appeal overturn and decision-time benchmarks — Planning Inspectorate (PINS) appeal decisions and application date pairs; not yet computed per officer, shown as a dash until they are. · PINS appeals casework
- [3]Condition load — mean effective conditions attached to Hammersmith And Fulham decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 62 published Hammersmith And Fulham officer reports written by this officer, recited policy boilerplate stripped before counting; disposition text coded from their own reasoning with every quote machine-verified verbatim. Descriptive of how they work — not outcome predictions.