Rebecca Martin-Fraser.
Active — last recorded decision May 2026
A case officer at Merton with an approval rate of 78% across 844 decided planning applications, spanning 37 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×.
Martin-Fraser's caseload is dominated by everyday householder extensions, loft/roof conversions and certificates of lawfulness, and her reasoning is compact and formulaic: a short 'Material Considerations' framing sentence naming the topic, then a numbered 'Neighbouring Amenity' paragraph that walks each affected neighbour by house number, comparing the proposal's projection/height directly against that neighbour's OWN existing extension or outbuilding rather than an abstract standard. She leans heavily on 'no objections have been received' as a supporting (not determinative) factor, and where a GPDO/Class A eaves-height or depth threshold is marginally breached she will refuse a Certificate of Lawfulness on that single measured fact alone, quoting the Technical Guidance's own definition of 'eaves height' verbatim.
· for each affected neighbour, compares the proposal's specific dimensions (depth/height/setback) against THAT neighbour's own existing extension or boundary condition, rather than a generic amenity standard
· on Certificate of Lawfulness refusals, isolates a single measured GPDO/Class A threshold breach (eaves height, raised-platform height) and quotes the Technical Guidance's own definition of the term directly into the reasoning
· treats an absence of neighbour objections as a supporting fact for approval but not as substituting for her own measured assessment of light/outlook/enclosure
· the exact projection, eaves height and depth of each proposed element measured against the specific neighbouring property it would abut
· whether a GPDO Class A/B/C numeric threshold (eaves height 3m, cubic content 40/50m3, raised platform 0.3m) is met or marginally breached
· whether any objection has been received and, if so, whether it raises a planning (not just amenity-preference) ground
“The eaves height has been measured from the bottom of the roof which is incorrect according to the technical guidance. Therefore the eaves height of the extension would exceed 3m in height and would hence not comply with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A”
20/P2190
“Neither neighbouring property has rear extensions, however the extension is fairly modest in size and keeping with the character of the houses. The flat roof and height of the proposed development would not result in a loss of outlook, overshadowing or undue visual impact for the neighbouring properties”
20/P1861
Measured from 653 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 653 parsed reports. Whether refusals citing each survive appeal isn't traced per policy yet.
Show all 37 rows
Where this officer's caseload concentrates, 2020–26.[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, 2020–26. · 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 653 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.