Calum McCulloch.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Merton with an approval rate of 92% across 567 decided planning applications, spanning 21 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 Merton reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
McCulloch's caseload spans householder extensions through small multi-unit residential schemes, and his reports consistently split the assessment into a labelled 'Character and Appearance' paragraph followed by a separate labelled 'Neighbouring Amenity' paragraph, each addressed to specific named neighbours by house number, with a direct comparison to that neighbour's own existing depth/extension as the anchor for the amenity verdict. On larger schemes he is meticulous about tabulating each unit's proposed vs required GIA and external amenity space against the London Plan/Nationally Described Space Standards before reaching a standard-of-accommodation conclusion, and is willing to accept a shortfall against the CURRENT London Plan where a scheme was submitted and substantially progressed under the PRIOR London Plan's standards.
· splits every report into a distinct 'Character and Appearance' paragraph and a separate 'Neighbouring Amenity' paragraph, addressed sequentially rather than blended
· compares a proposed extension's depth/height directly against the SAME named neighbour's own existing extension of similar type, before reaching an enclosure/daylight verdict
· on space-standard shortfalls against a NEWLY adopted London Plan, checks the application's own submission date and accepts compliance with the PRIOR London Plan's standards where the delay was a legal-agreement/administrative one rather than a design failing
· whether a proposed extension's depth/height is proportionate to, or exceeds, the SAME named neighbour's own existing comparable feature
· whether each residential unit's GIA and external amenity space meet the applicable London Plan/NDSS minimum standard table, with the applicable plan version checked against submission date where relevant
· whether cycle/car parking provision complies with the applicable London Plan parking standards table for the site's PTAL rating
“Given the outdoor space complies with the London Plan 2016 and National Space Standards, Officers consider outdoor space provided in this instance acceptable.…Given the cycle parking complies with Policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2016, Officers consider the number of cycle parking spaces provided acceptable”
20/P0303
“No. 278 has an existing extension at 3.4m in depth and no. 280 has an extension 3m depth. As such, there is not expected to be any harm to amenity from increased sense of enclosure or loss of light to the adjacent properties”
20/P0389
Measured from 350 published Merton 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 350 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 21 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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 Merton planning register and published decision notices, 2020–26. · 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 — Merton's decision-notice parsing is limited coverage, so no borough or officer figure is shown.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 350 published Merton 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.