Charlotte Gilhooly.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Merton with an approval rate of 93% across 568 decided planning applications, spanning 19 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×.
Gilhooly's caseload is dominated by approvals of householder extensions, outbuildings and shopfront/heritage alterations, and her reports are notable for measuring EVERY proposal's exact depth and height to two decimal places before any qualitative design judgement, and for structuring conservation-area assessments around a two-part test — visual prominence from the public realm first, then impact on the specific designated heritage asset second. Refusals are comparatively rare in her sample and concentrate on cases where a housing scheme's Standard-of-Accommodation shortfall (undersized amenity space, poor outlook) compounds a design concern, rather than design alone.
· states the exact depth and height of every extension to the decimetre (e.g. '4.5m in depth... height of 2.9m/4.05m') before any qualitative design judgement is reached
· for conservation-area/heritage schemes, splits the assessment into visual prominence from the public realm FIRST, then impact on the specific designated heritage asset second, as two distinct sequential tests
· checks each affected neighbour's OWN existing extension/depth as the direct comparator before judging daylight/sunlight/enclosure impact, citing the specific extant permission reference where one already exists at that neighbour's own property
· the precise measured depth and height of the proposal set against the specific neighbouring property's own existing extension or extant permission
· whether a heritage asset (locally listed building, conservation area) is affected, assessed as a discrete second test after public-realm visibility
· whether internal floor areas and outdoor amenity space meet the London Plan/NDSS minimum standards table for the relevant unit size
“Number 321 to the north has an extant prior approval for a 6.0 m deep single storey rear extension and therefore this could be implemented. The current proposal would be less depth than this extension and officers are satisfied that the proposal would not cause material harm to number 321”
20/P0161
“At 4.5m in depth, the proposed single storey rear extension and rear terrace is considered in keeping with the scale form, proportions and appearance of the original building and surrounding area”
20/P0161
Measured from 371 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 371 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 19 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 371 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.