Elisa Merlo.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Brent with an approval rate of 77% across 316 decided planning applications, spanning 14 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 Brent reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Merlo's Certificate of Lawfulness reports quote the exact GPDO-defined technical term (e.g. the precise definition of 'eaves height') before applying it to a proposal's measurements, and refusal cases rely on aerial-photo evidence to determine whether a rear projection is an original feature of the dwelling before applying the relevant Class A/B test.
· quotes the exact GPDO-defined technical term (e.g. the precise 'eaves height' measurement definition) before applying it
· uses aerial-photo evidence and comparison to similar neighbouring properties to determine whether a rear projection is an original feature
· identifies the specific lettered GPDO sub-part (e.g. Part (i), Part (j)) a proposal fails under, rather than a general non-compliance statement
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the GPDO's own precise definition of a technical term (e.g. eaves height) before applying it to measurements
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: aerial photo evidence and neighbouring-property comparison to determine whether a rear projection is an original feature
· what this officer's reports consistently look for: the specific lettered GPDO sub-part a proposal fails under, not a general non-compliance statement
“The Permitted Development Technical Guidance defines the "eaves height" as follows: Eaves height is measured from ground level at the base of the outside wall to the point where that wall would meet the upper surface of the roof slope - the overhang should be ignored for the purposes of measurement.”
22/3309
“It appears from Google map aerial view that the rear existing projection is a feature of the original house. It is noted that the properties within vicinity of the application site contain a similar rear projection.”
22/3309
Measured from 61 published Brent 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 61 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 14 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 Brent 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 — Brent'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 61 published Brent 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.