Myles Bartoli.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Merton with an approval rate of 88% across 377 decided planning applications, spanning 24 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×.
Bartoli's caseload is dominated by householder extensions and outbuildings, and his reasoning consistently structures each report around a fixed three-part sequence — 'Principle of development', 'Character and appearance'/'Design', then 'Residential amenity' — with a specific measured garden-footprint-coverage percentage cited for outbuildings before a verdict is reached. His refusals concentrate on cases where a two-storey extension's massing is 'incongruous with the single property domestic scale' of a terrace/block of similar properties, judged by comparing the proposal against the UNIFORM single-storey character of the specific named block rather than the wider street.
· structures every report around the same fixed three-part sequence — Principle of development, then Character/Design, then Residential amenity — in that order, even for short outbuilding applications
· for outbuildings, states the exact garden footprint and the proposal's coverage percentage/area in square metres before judging acceptability, rather than a qualitative 'modest scale' statement alone
· on two-storey extension refusals, compares the proposal specifically against the UNIFORM single-storey character of the SPECIFIC named block of similar properties (not the wider street), citing which other properties in that block do or don't have comparable extensions
· the exact footprint of a proposed outbuilding as a proportion of the total garden area
· whether other properties in the SAME specific named block already have a comparable extension/addition
· whether a flood zone designation (Flood Zone 2/3) applies and requires specific mitigation conditions
“The massing and bulk of the two-storey flat roof extension is incongruous with the single property domestic scale of the block of similar properties”
22/P1642
“The proposal's main footprint is approximately 34.4 m2.…The garden is approximately 244 m2, the proposal is not considered excessive for the site”
22/P1735
Measured from 172 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 172 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 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 172 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.