Martin Miranda Antelo.
Recently active — last recorded decision Sep 2025
A case officer at Merton with an approval rate of 80% across 386 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×.
Miranda Antelo's caseload has a distinctive concentration in BT Street Hub telecoms kiosk applications alongside routine householder extensions, and he has the highest refusal share among the high-volume officers in this set, driven substantially by repeated Street Hub refusals where the replacement unit's increased footprint and new siting are found to obstruct pedestrian/vehicle movement or clash with the character of a specific named street. On householder schemes his reasoning is grounded in direct comparison to specific numbered neighbouring properties' own existing depths and separation distances, and on TPO/tree-protection cases he treats a standing objection from the Council's own Tree Officer or Greenspaces team as carrying substantial weight toward refusal.
· on BT Street Hub applications, treats the unit's INCREASED footprint/height relative to the phone box it replaces as the trigger for classifying it as a 'new piece of street furniture' rather than a like-for-like replacement, before assessing pedestrian/vehicle movement impact
· cross-references specific numbered neighbouring properties' own existing extension depths and outbuilding footprints as the direct comparator for a proposed scheme's acceptability
· gives a standing objection from the Council's own Tree Officer or Greenspaces team on TPO/landscape-loss grounds substantial weight toward a refusal recommendation, rather than treating it as one factor among many
· whether a replacement street-furniture unit's increased size/new location means it must be assessed as NEW street furniture rather than a like-for-like replacement
· the specific numbered neighbouring property's own existing extension/outbuilding depth as the comparator for a proposed scheme
· whether the Council's own Tree Officer or Greenspaces team has raised a standing objection on TPO or landscape-loss grounds
“Due to the combination of the increase in size and new location the proposal would be considered a new piece of street furniture and not a replacement”
22/P0952
“This proposal is out of character with the current rhythm, existing street pattern and would diminish the visual appeal of the landscape features. It would therefore have a negative impact on the local street scene”
22/P1323
Measured from 218 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 218 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 24 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2021–25.[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, 2021–25. · 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 218 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.