Francis Saayeng.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Merton with an approval rate of 93% across 322 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 Merton reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Saayeng's caseload mixes small commercial change-of-use applications (protected local shops/neighbourhood parades under Policy DM R3), telecoms equipment on existing buildings, and multi-unit residential schemes with a low refusal rate in this sample. His change-of-use reasoning works through the Sites and Policies Plan's own closed list of protection criteria (alternative shops within 400m, no adverse amenity impact, independent access) as a checklist, and his housing-standard assessments tabulate each flat's GIA and external amenity space against the required minimum before concluding, explicitly noting where a shortfall is accepted as consistent with an already-extant permission on the same site.
· on protected-shop/neighbourhood-parade change-of-use applications, works through the Sites and Policies Plan's own closed list of protection criteria (400m alternative-shop distance, amenity impact, independent access) as an explicit checklist
· tabulates each residential unit's GIA and external amenity space against the required minimum standard, flagging non-compliant units individually rather than giving a single scheme-wide verdict
· accepts a housing-standard shortfall where it is 'as with the extant permission' already established on the same site, treating consistency with a prior approval as a mitigating factor
· whether an alternative convenience shop exists within 400m before supporting a protected-shop change of use
· each individual flat's GIA and external amenity space measured against the required minimum, not just a scheme-wide average
· whether a shortfall against current standards is consistent with an already-extant permission on the same site
“The policy supports changes of use when the following criteria are properly considered: -There are alternative convenience shops within 400 metres; -The proposed use has no adverse impact on amenity; and -Independent access to separate units is ensured”
22/P2250
“Flats 1, 4, 6 and 8 would fall short of the external amenity space requirement, however as with the extant permission, it is not considered unacceptable given the increase need in housing”
22/P2449
Measured from 136 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 136 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 13 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2022–26.[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, 2022–26. · 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 136 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.