The Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) was scheduled to convene to discuss several planning matters, including tree preservation orders and a development management application. The meeting was set to address objections to proposed Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and consider an application for the construction of social rented homes.

Tree Preservation Order (TPO): 79 and 83 Mina Road and Land Rear - 83 Mina Road London SE17 2QS

The committee was to consider the confirmation of a provisional TPO for trees at 79 and 83 Mina Road and land to the rear of number 83. The TPO was issued following reports of work to a cherry tree. The council's Urban Forester considered two trees worthy of protection: an Ailanthus altissima (Tree of Heaven) and a Prunus avium (Wild Cherry).

Four objections and three letters of support were received. Objections stated that the Ailanthus is a non-native invasive species, and the Cherry is in poor condition and causing damage. Concerns were also raised about the visibility of the trees.

The report recommended that the provisional TPO reference 747 be confirmed, unamended.

Tree Preservation Order (TPO): 153 Turney Road, London Southwark SE21 7JU

The committee was to consider the confirmation of a provisional TPO for trees at 153 Turney Road in Dulwich Village. The TPO was issued following a notification to remove two Lime trees and prune a Pittosporum to accommodate a garden shed.

Two objections were received, stating that the Lime trees have little visual amenity and need to be removed to construct a sunken garden outbuilding, which is to be constructed under a certificate of lawful development.

The report recommended that the provisional TPO reference 748 be confirmed, unamended.

Tree Preservation Order (TPO): Old Salt Quay 163 Rotherhithe Street London SE16 5QU

The committee was to consider the confirmation of a provisional TPO at Old Salt Quay, 163 Rotherhithe Street. The TPO was issued following a complaint about the removal of trees at Old Salt Quay.

The land is a Southwark Freehold demised on a long lease to Greene King¹, a subsidiary of CK Asset Holdings.

One objection was received from Knights, acting on behalf of Greene King. The basis of the objection was that the trees are causing damage to the hard surfacing and need to be removed on health and safety grounds.

The report recommended that the provisional TPO reference 752 be confirmed, with amendments to the map and schedule, and a variation from a group to an individual order.

A supplemental agenda noted that additional comments had been received from Knights on behalf of Greene King, objecting to the inclusion of T1 (Lime) and so protects tree pits at the site, for a tree that has not yet been planted.

The report stated that it would be for the committee to consider whether to confirm the order, with the amendment to the map and to the schedule, varying the order from a group to an individual order which includes T1, or, to confirm the order, removing T1 but with a view to varying the order once T1 has been planted by the Trees Team.

Development Management: Elim Estate Western Street, London SE1 4DA

The committee was to consider planning application 22/AP/1887 for the construction of 34 social rented homes across two separate buildings, along with the provision of external community/sports/play facilities and associated landscaping and car parking at Elim Estate, Western Street.

The application was a resubmission, following a successful legal challenge to a previous grant of planning permission.

The report noted that the council had accepted that the original decision was unlawful on flood risk sequential test grounds, and that four additional grounds relating to the Leathermarket Grant Agreement, Equality Duties, Daylight and Overshadowing, and Consultation were not considered by the judge.

The report assessed the application against the five grounds of judicial challenge.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the applicant entering into a legal agreement.

A supplemental agenda noted that additional comments had been received, and that the Environment Agency had stated that they had no objection to the planning application as submitted on tidal flood risk grounds.