Melissa Vingoe Wright.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Hammersmith And Fulham with an approval rate of 96% across 326 decided planning applications, spanning 18 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 Hammersmith And Fulham reports. Attention, not stance.
Mark = borough average (1×). Bar capped at 2×.
Vingoe-Wright's caseload includes a notable share of mixed-use and residential-conversion applications alongside standard extensions, and she is distinctive for engaging closely and critically with consultee comments rather than simply reciting a 'no objection' finding — in one case flagging an internal inconsistency between a submitted odour impact assessment's stated flue discharge height and the actual submitted plans, and using conditions to require the applicant resolve the discrepancy before works could proceed. On flood risk in Flood Zone 2/3 sites she pays close attention to drainage connection specifics (e.g. confirming a private drain can be connected to the combined sewer where the standard 5m clearance cannot be achieved) rather than a boilerplate sign-off.
· cross-checks consultee-submitted technical assessments (e.g. odour impact assessments) against the applicant's own submitted plans for internal consistency, flagging discrepancies rather than accepting the assessment at face value
· engages with drainage/flood-risk mitigation at a technical, site-specific level (e.g. confirming an alternative discharge route where standard clearance distances cannot be met) rather than a boilerplate FRA sign-off
· on residential conversions, explicitly checks proposed unit floorspace against the National Space Standard minimum in square metres before finding compliance
· whether a submitted technical assessment (e.g. odour impact) is internally consistent with the applicant's own submitted drawings, flagging any discrepancy via condition rather than accepting it uncritically
· whether non-standard flood mitigation/drainage arrangements (e.g. an alternative discharge route) have been confirmed acceptable by the Environmental Policy Team
· whether a proposed residential unit's floorspace in square metres meets the National Space Standard minimum for its bedroom/person count
“the calculations state that the flue discharges 1m above the ridge height but the submitted plans show that the flue discharges at the height of the eaves”
2024/00540/FUL
“as a 5m clearance cannot be achieved, an alternative discharge system will be provided”
2024/00429/FUL
Measured from 197 published Hammersmith And Fulham 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 197 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 18 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2023–26.[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 Hammersmith And Fulham planning register and published decision notices, 2023–26. · 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 — mean effective conditions attached to Hammersmith And Fulham decision notices (grant/split), parsed from the published notice text; a borough figure, not yet split per case officer.
- [4]"How this officer decides", the policy playbook and all quotes — parsed from 197 published Hammersmith And Fulham 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.