Lan Pham.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Merton with an approval rate of 83% across 498 decided planning applications, spanning 17 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×.
Pham's caseload mixes routine householder extensions, vehicle-crossover applications and GPDO Certificate-of-Lawfulness assessments, and her vehicle-crossover reports consistently cite the Council's own Highway Engineer's separate technical approval (by its own reference) as the determining factor once a design/character check has been passed. Her Certificate-of-Lawfulness refusals are grounded in a single measured GPDO Class A breach (extension width exceeding half the house width once it passes a side elevation) stated as the sole determining fact, and her heritage/conservation-area refusals quote an adopted Conservation Area Design Guide's own explicit roof-form prohibition verbatim rather than reaching an independent character judgement.
· on vehicle-crossover applications, treats the Council's own Highway Engineer's separate technical approval (cited by its own reference number) as the determining factor once a character/design check has been passed
· on GPDO Class A refusals, isolates a single measured breach (e.g. extension width exceeding half the house width once past a side elevation) as the sole stated determining fact
· cites the exact wording of an adopted Conservation Area Design Guide (e.g. a hipped-roof prohibition) verbatim as a direct textual bar rather than reaching an independent character judgement
· whether the Council's own Highway Engineer has separately approved a vehicle crossover, cited by its own reference
· the precise GPDO Class A measurement (extension width vs house width, position relative to a side elevation) determining compliance
· whether an adopted Conservation Area Design Guide explicitly prohibits the specific roof form proposed
“The applicant has received approval from the Council's Highway Engineer for a vehicle crossover on 18th October 2022. (22/P2474) Consequently, with no objection received by the Highways team, the proposed vehicle crossing is considered acceptable”
22/P0651
“The Westcoombe Conservation Area Design Guide states that "The hipped roof style should not be changed as this is an integral part of the character of the area and it contributes to the regular and uniform rhythm of the building mass along the street. Any extension into the roof space should not therefore convert the hipped roof into a gabled roof”
22/P2265
Measured from 248 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 248 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 17 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 248 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.