Appeal 6004946

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the relocation of cafe from existing building to a new building with associated stores and parking at [name], Galmpton, Brixham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 0694/25/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal relates to development that has already been carried out. During my site visit, I observed that the development, as built, differs from that shown in the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal solely on the basis of the drawings before me, and any permission granted relates only to those approved plans. It would not regulate or grant consent for any development carried out on the ground that is not shown in the submitted scheme.

The appeal site is within the South Devon National Landscape (SDNL). In reaching my decision, I have had full regard to the statutory duty in Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the Act), as amended by the Levelling‐up and Regeneration Act 2023, which requires decision‐makers to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes (formerly Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty).

On the 16 December 2025, the Government launched a consultation on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). As the proposals could be subject to change, they carry little weight. Accordingly, my decision was made with reference to the December 2024 version of the Framework.

A Statement of [name] (SoCG), agreed between the main parties, together with their responses to my pre-hearing note, have informed my consideration of the appeal.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether a need for the development within a countryside and coastal location has been demonstrated; • whether the location of the site is suitable for the development having regard to access by sustainable or active transport modes; and • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area including the SDNL, the [name], tranquillity and dark landscapes.

The main parties agree that although the appeal site is in the countryside, it is not isolated for the purposes of Policy TTV26 of the South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034 (adopted March 2019) (the JLP). Based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, I have no reason to disagree. Consequently, only part 2 of Policy TTV26 applies to the appeal. The specific criteria of the policy in dispute are whether the development: (iv) responds to a proven agricultural, forestry and other occupational need that requires a countryside location and (vi) helps enhance the immediate setting of the site. The latter criterion is considered under Main Issue 3.

As well as being in the countryside, the appeal site is also within the [name], where, amongst other criteria, Policy DEV24 of the JLP indicates that development will only be permitted where the development 1) can demonstrate that it requires a coastal location and 2) it cannot reasonably be located outside the [name].

Turning to the appeal site itself, it is located within the established [name] complex, which is understood to have accommodated a range of food and drink outlets in various forms over time. These have included a staff canteen demolished around 1995; a gate hut demolished around 2000; a static canteen caravan operating between 2000 and 2010; a canteen within an existing office building from 2005 to 2020; two modular container units operating during 2019- 2021 and 2021-2024 respectively; a static caravan between 2021 and 2024 and three visiting food vans between 2000-2020. No conclusive evidence has been submitted to substantiate these operations, aside from a photograph showing a modular container unit within the appeal site. Notwithstanding this, the Council accepts that the appeal scheme replaces some form of food and drink provision within the boatyard, and based on what I have read and heard, I have no reason to take a different view. The main area of dispute between the main parties’ concerns whether the scale and operating hours of the café go beyond the needs of the boatyard.

The Statement of Need1 submitted with the application indicates that the amalgamation of Dartside and [name], along with expansion of marina facilities, has resulted in an increased demand for on-site catering facilities at the 1 Statement of Need V1 145-SON-V1/OCT 24 boatyard. At the Hearing, the appellant indicated that the marina now accommodates approximately 70 berthed boats, representing a 30% increase in berth numbers and reflecting an increase in boating activity at the established boatyard. I accept that the expansion of boating and associated activity would increase the functional need for on-site food and drink facilities to serve users of the marina.

Furthermore, the boatyard includes a range of marine and non-marine related businesses housed within industrial-estate style buildings located close to the appeal site. The appellant advised that, notwithstanding some fluctuation, approximately 40 businesses operate from the boatyard, alongside a further 40 or so businesses that visit the site on a daily to undertake work on the vessels moored or stored there. This level of permanent and transient commercial activity would generate a regular on-site workforce and visitor presence which further supports the need for the level of on-site food and drink provision proposed.

The appeal building measures approximately 12 metres by 15 metres and is single storey in height. Having regard to its size, I consider it commensurate with the scale of the boatyard and marina, and the level of activity associated with the number of businesses located there. At the Hearing, the [name] for the [name] and Navigation Authority advised that other boatyards and marinas of a similar scale to the [name] include catering facilities of a comparable size to the appeal building. Therefore, I do not consider that the size of the café would be unduly disproportionate to the needs of marina users and those working in the boatyard.

The proposed opening hours of the café are 07:00–23:30 Monday to Saturday and 08:30–23:30 on Sunday and [name]. The appellant indicated that, while the majority of activity within the boatyard typically ceases around 17:00, the boatyard and marina remain operational open at all times. This is typical of many boatyards and marinas which function early in the morning and remain active into the evening, especially during the boating season. Therefore, the proposed hours are not, in my consideration, inherently inconsistent with the operational rhythm of an active boatyard and marina. While the café may draw a degree of trade from outside the boatyard during its evening hours, those hours would nonetheless serve the needs of marina and boatyard users in parallel.

At the Hearing, the appellant indicated that approximately 25% of the café’s trade is derived from customers not directly associated with the boatyard. Although no robust evidence was provided to substantiate this figure, and marketing material may attract a wider customer base, I am nevertheless satisfied, having regard to the scale and character of activity in the boatyard, that the café’s primary function would be to serve marina users, employees of businesses located within the boatyard and visiting contractors. Any trade from outside the boatyard would be incidental to that primary role and would not, in my view, alter the café’s fundamental purpose.

Paragraph 7.31 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014- 2034 Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) states that ‘Applications for development to support leisure or recreational pursuits are unlikely to be supported on the basis that the proposal is not meeting a need that requires a coastal location but rather responding to a personal preference or choice.’ However, in this case, the appeal site lies within an established boatyard. Boatyards and marinas are, by their nature, water-dependent uses that must be located adjacent to navigable waters in order to operate. In this context, the café’s siting within the [name] is not a matter of preference but arises directly from its functional relationship with the boatyard and marina. It follows that such a facility, while capable of attracting a degree of trade beyond the boatyard, could not reasonably be located outside the [name], without undermining its functional relationship with the water-dependent use it is intended to serve.

For the reasons given, a need for the development within a countryside and coastal location has been demonstrated. Accordingly, the development complies with Policies TTV26 and DEV24 of the JLP and does not conflict with the SPD.

Policy SPT1 of the JLP seeks to manage development in accordance with the principles of sustainable development as set out in the policy. Policy SPT2 of the JLP requires development to support the overall spatial strategy of the JLP, through the creation of sustainable linked neighbourhoods and communities which, amongst other things, are well served by public transport, walking and cycling opportunities.

Policy TTV1 of the JLP prioritises growth through a hierarchy of sustainable settlements. The appeal site falls within category 4 Smaller villages, Hamlets and the Countryside, where development will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated to support the principles of sustainable development and sustainable communities (Policies SPT1 and 2) and Policies TTV26 and TTV27.

Policy TTV2 of the JLP supports development proposals in the [name] and Villages Policy Area. The policy supports the growth, expansion and diversification of rural businesses and the retention and enhancement of important rural services and community facilities. It also supports the delivery of sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit rural businesses, communities and visitors and respects the character of the countryside. The policy goes on to indicate that the provision of sustainable transport accessibility should be appropriate to the specific context of the proposal.

Policy DEV15 of the JLP relates to the rural economy and supports proposals in suitable locations. Part 8 ii) of the policy requires proposals to avoid a significant increase in the number of trips requiring the private car and facilitate the use of sustainable transport, including walking and cycling, where appropriate. [name] are required to be submitted.

Policy DEV29 of the JLP requires development to contribute to achieving a high quality, effective and safe transport system, promote sustainable transport choices and facilitate sustainable growth.

The appeal site is approximately 500 metres from the settlement village of Galmpton. While the café is within walking and cycling distance of the village, [address] is narrow and unlit with no pedestrian footway, making journeys by these means unattractive. There is a Public Right of Way – [name] 51 (PROW), which runs from [address] through part of the boatyard to the appeal site, as well as other public routes identified on the Devon County Council Environment Viewer Map. However, these are also narrow, unlit and not suitable for all users. Despite this, the travel survey conducted as part of the submitted Sustainable Travel Plan (STP)2 indicates that the vast majority of daytime customers travelled to the café on foot, with a small proportion arriving by bicycle. Even during the evening period, the STP shows that approximately half of all customers continued to access the café on foot. While the survey appears to pre-date the suggested commencement of the café’s operation, there is no evidence before me to suggest that the survey results are unreliable. The evidence demonstrates that the appeal site is readily accessible, particularly by walking, and that customer travel is not wholly reliant on private car use during the evening period. In addition, the appellant’s appeal statement includes parking data collected from the boatyard visitor car park. Excluding commercial tenants, staff and boatowners who benefit from free parking, the data shows that parking demand peaks at 17:00 before declining sharply thereafter.

The travel survey undertaken as part of the STP indicates that approximately 20% of weekly customer trips to the café during the daytime were made by car, compared with 50% in the evening period. In absolute terms, the equates to a total of 139 customer car trips across both the daytime and evening in week, or an average of around 20 car trips a day. This represents a modest level of car-based travel, and in my judgement, does not amount to a significant increase in private car movements.

The STP includes an action plan aimed at encouraging active travel by raising awareness of the ease and opportunities for walking and cycling, including through the promotion of local footpaths and cycleways. It also sets out targets to increase levels of cycling and car sharing among customers. At the Hearing, the appellant confirmed a willingness to accept a suitably worded condition, should the appeal be allowed, to monitor the implementation of the STP and ensure the measures and targets are delivered.

The closest bus stops are located at [name], [address] and [address], which are approximately 1500 metres (an [address]) from the appeal site. The bus stops are served by two services. Service 12 (Brixham - Paignton) runs every 10 minutes between 6:00 and 19:00 and every 20-30 minutes between 19:00 and midnight. Service 120 (Kingswear – Dartmouth/ Paignton) runs hourly. The closest railway station is located in Paignton with frequent trains to [name] and several direct trains to London daily. Therefore, the appeal site benefits from relatively good public transport accessibility for a rural location.

For the reasons given, the location of the site is suitable for the development having regard to access by sustainable or active transport modes. Accordingly, the development complies with Policies STP1, TTV1, TTV2, DEV15, and DEV29 of the JLP.

The appeal site is within the SDNL and the [name]. In addition to the statutory duty under Section 85 of the Act, the Framework advises that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. 2 Sustainable Travel Plan 28.03.25

This is reflected in Policy DEV25 of the JLP which confirms that the SDNL will be afforded the highest degree of protection with great weight given to conserving its landscape and scenic beauty. The policy sets out detailed criteria for development, including the avoidance of incongruous features, the prevention of increased light pollution and the safeguarding of tranquillity. It also encourages small-scale proposals that are sustainably and appropriately located and designed to conserve, enhance and restore protected landscapes. Policy K1 of the Kingswear Parish Neighbourhood Plan Referendum [name] 2020 (KNP) requires development to comply with Policy TTV26 of the JLP and Policy K2 of the KNP, which seeks to conserve and enhance the landscape and biodiversity of the SDNL.

Policy DEV24 applies to the [name] and Heritage Coast and seeks to protect, maintain and enhance the unique landscape and seascape character and special qualities of these areas. Policy DEV20 requires proposals to meet good standards of design, contributing positively to both townscape and landscape. In addition, Policy DEV23 seeks to conserve and enhance landscape, townscape and seascape character and scenic and visual quality, while Policy DEV15 requires development to avoid incongruous or isolated new buildings.

The SDNL is designated for its special qualities including its fine, undeveloped rugged coastline, ria estuaries, rolling agricultural landscape, wide expansive panoramas, significant habitats and areas of high tranquillity and natural nightscapes. The South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2019-2024 (the MP) sets out key policy objectives and principles designed to achieve them. Of relevance is Lan/ P1 which seeks to conserve and enhance the special qualities, distinctive character and key features of the SDNL. Furthemore, Lan/P4 aims to maintain the tranquillity, natural nightscapes and dark skies of the SDNL, while Est/ P1 promotes a thriving maritime economy, complemented by high quality boating facilities and infrastructure at the same time as striving to protect the tranquillity and unspoilt character of the rivers and estuaries by safeguarding them from the spread of moorings and development. Equally, Acc/P7 promotes the quiet enjoyment of the SDNL through recreation, leisure and sports activities that respects the character of the SDNL. Annex 1 of the MP sets out Planning Guidance for development proposals in the SDNL which reflect the policies of the JLP.

At a national scale, SDNL lies wholly within National Character Area 151, known as [name]. At a more local level, the Landscape Character Assessment for [name] and [name] (June 2018) (the LCA) identifies the site as being located within landscape character type ‘3G [name] and Combes’ which is valued for its secluded, rural tranquil valley landscapes, extensive woodland and dark night skies, amongst other attributes. However, as the appeal site is close to the estuary, landscape character type ‘4A Estuaries’ is also of relevance. The valued attributes of 4A include its remoteness and tranquillity, visually dynamic landscape and seascape and winding rivers and overhanging woodlands extending to the water’s edge. The LCA includes landscape guidelines for each of the landscape character types. Those most relevant to the appeal are discussed below.

The Devon Character Area: [name] guidelines seek to protect the area’s scenic quality and valued maritime character through, amongst other things, conserving the open, expansive views across the estuary and the area’s coastal and sea views, maintaining a sense of tranquillity and utilising traditional building styles and materials. The guidelines also require the sensitive siting of any new development, avoiding prominent locations such as valley sides and shorelines and the spread of built development into currently undeveloped parts of the estuary. Additionally, the guidelines seek to ensure that recreation infrastructure is appropriate to the landscape setting.

The cafe is situated on an area of hardstanding that has been used for open air boat storage, and forms part of the [name]. Therefore, it cannot be reasonably regarded as undeveloped. Despite these factors, the Landscape and [name] (LVAS) 3 submitted with the application concludes that the site and immediate surrounding landscape is of medium/ high overall landscape value. I agree with this conclusion, given the site’s immediate woodland backdrop and contribution to the riverside character of the area. However, I recognise that the appeal site occupies a quay that has been used for boat storage, with the result that its tranquillity and landscape quality have been diluted to some degree by its established working character within an active boatyard. Therefore, the appeal site’s contribution to the special qualities of the SDNL and the [name] are somewhat tempered.

The appeal building is a single storey black-stained timber structure with a flat roof and glazed roof lantern, raised around half a metre above ground level and accessed via timber steps on its northern and southern elevations. While more contemporary in design than the surrounding buildings, the café’s simple form, dark colour, and use of natural material allow it to integrate with the surrounding character and landscape setting. In doing so, it does not appear visually intrusive within its context.

The LVAS assessed the visual impact of the development from 6 viewpoints, including one across the estuary from the southern part of the [name]. The visual effect of the development from all viewpoints, including the one across the estuary was judged by the LVAS to be negligible. I agree with this assessment as the building is modest in scale and, when viewed from the south across the estuary, is read within the wider context of the larger buildings associated with the boatyard. Its visual presence is further moderated by its set back from the edge of the water and its proximity to mature trees and shrubs along the eastern boundary, which provides some degree of natural containment and softening.

A viewpoint from the estuary itself was not assessed by the LVAS. However, such views are likely to be transitory in nature and, from certain perspectives, would also be seen largely within the context of the boatyard. Consequently, any visual effects arising from these views would be limited and unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area.

The LVAS did not assess any viewpoint from the PROW. During my site visit I observed the appeal building from the south east across the estuary, where it is perceived against a woodland backdrop and is more visually separated from the boatyard context. Nevertheless, its limited scale, simple form and use of visually recessive colouring ensure that it does not appear unduly prominent within the surrounding landscape. As such, the open character of the estuary is largely 3 Landscape and [name] prepared by Green Earth Landscape November 2024 preserved and views to and from the surrounding landscape are not detrimentally affected.

Activity associated with the café, including the comings and goings of people and vehicles, would result in some erosion of tranquillity, particularly during the evening period. However, the effects would be limited by the modest scale of the operation, its location within an established and active boatyard environment, and the intermittent nature of such activity. Consequently, any resulting impacts would be localised and would not give rise to significant harm to the overall tranquillity of the area.

At the Hearing, the Council confirmed that it did not object to the development on grounds of lighting impacts on ecology, but rather due to impacts on the natural nightscape and dark skies. During my evening site visit, I observed that the glazed elevations of the building, its roof lantern and external lighting give rise to light spill into the surrounding area. However, this effect is tempered by the use of low light transmission film to the windows of the building, low wattage external lighting and the presence of existing lighting associated with the operational boatyard. Furthermore, I am satisfied, that should the appeal be allowed, a condition could be imposed requiring a comprehensive lighting strategy to minimise light pollution to ensure that any residual impacts on the character of the night-time environment would be limited.

The development is modest in scale and is closely associated with the established boatyard. Its footprint and overall massing are limited, and while the appeal site has not recently accommodated built form, it has been used for open air boat storage. The siting of the building takes advantage of the surrounding landform and vegetation. As a result, views of the development from public vantage points within the wider landscape would be localised and limited. Where visible, the building is perceived largely in the context of existing human influence rather than as a discordant or intrusive feature.

In terms of design, the use of materials reflects those commonly found in rural and waterside contexts. While the building has a contemporary form, it is simple and understated, avoiding excessive articulation or visual clutter. I acknowledge that the proposal cannot reasonably be described as enhancing the scenic qualities of the SDNL, however, neither would it erode or materially diminish them.

I have carefully considered whether the development conflicts with or undermines the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the SDNL and the aforementioned JLP policies. In this case, I am satisfied that the development leaves the essential landscape qualities of the SDNL unharmed and is therefore compatible with the aims of the designation and the overall purposes of the relevant JLP policies.

No substantive evidence has been presented which demonstrates that alternative sites within the boatyard exist that are suitable, available and achievable for the proposed development and would have less of an impact on the SNDL and [name] than the appeal scheme.

For the reasons given, the development does not conflict with the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the SDNL and does not materially harm the character of the surrounding area including the [name], tranquillity and dark landscapes. Accordingly, the development complies with Policies DEV15, DEV20, DEV23, DEV24 and DEV25 of the JLP.

The appeal site is approximately 5km from the South Hams Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and falls within the [name] [name] and close to the [name]. The qualifying features of the SAC include its vegetated sea cliffs, European dry heaths, semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies, caves not open to the public, [name] forests of slopes, screes and ravines and the [name].

Regulation 63(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations) requires me to make an Appropriate Assessment of the implications of the proposal for the conservation objectives of the SAC. I have sought to apply that requirement reasonably and proportionately, relative to the nature and context of the development proposed.

I have consulted with Natural England, which has confirmed that the development would not give rise to any likely significant effects, either alone or in combination, on the integrity of the SAC or its relevant features. I am satisfied that the mitigation measures secured are sufficient to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC. Consequently, the development would not harm the ecological integrity of the SAC and would comply with the relevant policies in the JLP and the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

An Ecological Impact Assessment (revised March 2025) (EIA) was submitted with the application. There is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the development has resulted in the loss or destruction of habitats. At the Hearing, the Council confirmed, that subject to the imposition of an appropriate condition securing the mitigation measures identified in the EIA, it raises no objection to the development on ecological grounds. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to take a different view.

Given the site’s location within an area at risk of flooding, it is necessary to ensure that staff and visitors are adequately informed of flood risk and have clear procedures to follow in the event of a flood, as requested by the Environment Agency. At the Hearing, both the appellant and the Council confirmed that a [name] and Evacuation Plan has not been submitted but agreed that it could be secured through the imposition of an appropriate condition, should the appeal be allowed.

The Council has no objections to the development on highway safety grounds. There is little evidence before me to suggest that the development would result in in unacceptable traffic impacts or compromise highway safety. I therefore see no reason to disagree with the Council’s assessment in this regard.

The Council confirmed at the Hearing that the appeal site does not constitute green space. No substantive evidence was submitted by interested parties to demonstrate that the site performs a green space function or should be regarded as such. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.

Following the Hearing, the Council and appellant provided an updated and agreed list of suggested planning conditions. I have considered the conditions against the Framework and advice contained in Planning Practice Guidance. Where appropriate, I have amended the wording for clarity, including the removal of tailpieces that would circumvent the statutory process for varying conditions or limit the opportunities for interested parties to comment.

I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans to ensure that the development is carried out solely in accordance with those plans [1]. A lighting strategy is necessary to minimise light spill and glare, thereby protecting the character and appearance of the area including the natural nightscape and dark skies [2]. To ensure the safety of staff and visitors, a [name] and Evacuation Plan is required [3], as well as a condition to secure the implementation and maintenance of the flood mitigation measures identified in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (Version 2) [4].

While a sustainable travel plan has already been submitted, the main parties have agreed to the submission and implementation of a further plan which would include details of a monitoring and review framework, including responsibilities for implementation and data collection. I am satisfied that such a condition is necessary in order to promote sustainable modes of travel and reduce carbon emissions [5]. A condition requiring the implementation of the measures identified in the EIA are necessary in the interests of protected species [6].

The proposal accords with the development plan when taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Site Location Plan; S-03 140 Block Plan; S-01 Plans and Elevations and S-02 140 Layout Plan.

Within three months of the date of this permission, a comprehensive [name] shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The Lighting Strategy shall demonstrate how impacts from all external and internal lighting associated with the development will be minimised in accordance with current best practice guidance (Bat Conservation Trust / Institute of [name], 2018), and shall include: a. The position, height, type, design, luminance, orientation and cowling of all external light fittings; b. Confirmation that no individual external lamp shall exceed 5 watts; c. Measures to limit light spill, glare, and sky glow, including the use of warm colour temperatures and appropriate shielding; d. Details of any tinted window film installed/to be installed, including specification and light transmission values, where used to reduce light spill from internal lighting; and e. Details of how all external and internal lighting will be controlled, including timers, sensors, or other mechanisms, to ensure lighting is switched off when the restaurant is not in use. Such a [name] as is approved shall be implemented in full within three months of the date of the decision and all lighting and measures to control lighting shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. No additional external lighting, other than that expressly approved within the Strategy, shall be installed or operated on the site without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Within three months of the date of this permission, a [name] and Evacuation Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Such a [name] and Evacuation Plan as is approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall come into force immediately upon its approval and shall thereafter be adhered to for the lifetime of the development.

Within three months of the date of this permission all flood mitigation measures indicated in the approved Flood Risk Assessment (Version 2) received by the Local Planning Authority on 16/05/2025 shall be implemented in full and these measures shall thereafter be maintained in the approved form for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Within three months of the date of this permission, a Sustainable Travel Plan to serve the development shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The Sustainable Travel Plan shall include, as a minimum: a. a summary of the business operations, site location and the types of travel generated by the development, including staff, suppliers and visitors; b. identification of baseline travel data, including travel modes, journey numbers and associated carbon emissions where relevant; c. clearly defined aims and targets to reduce reliance on the private car and promote sustainable travel choices; d. an action plan setting out measures to encourage walking, cycling, public transport use, car sharing, electric vehicle use and reduced travel demand; and e. a monitoring and review framework, including responsibilities for implementation and data collection. The approved Sustainable Travel Plan shall be implemented in full within three months of the date of its approval and shall thereafter be reviewed every two years, with details of any updated measures submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to their introduction.

Within three months of the date of this permission, all ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures applicable to the existing development and use, as set out in the Ecological Impact Assessment prepared by [name] and revised March 2025, shall be fully implemented, unless already completed. Where any measure is required to be secured under a separate licence issued by Natural England, the development shall be operated in full accordance with the terms and timing of that licence. Within one month of completion of the applicable measures, a written confirmation of compliance shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority by a suitably qualified ecologist, confirming that the recommendations of the approved Ecological Impact Assessment have been implemented in full. All these mitigation, compensation and enhancements measures shall thereafter be maintained for the lifetime of the development. END OF SCHEDULE APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT A Graves Managing Director, PCL Planning Ltd B Morris [name], The Dolphin Boatyard W Ridalls Planning Consultant, PCL Planning Ltd M Simons [name] LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY R Clark Business Support Officer, South Hams District Council R Dugard Senior Planning Officer, South Hams District Council J Greenslade South Hams District Council A McNamara South Devon National [name] Plan ning Officer, South Hams District Council INTERESTED [name] of [name] [name] for the [name] and Navigation Authority K Dear Local resident and member of Galmpton Residents Association T Hembury Local resident and member of Galmpton Residents Association R Wallis Chair of Galmpton Residents Association [name] [name] [name] [name] AND THE COUNCIL A final schedule of planning conditions (received 28.04.26) agreed between the main parties.