Neighbourhood Forum




Ecological Appraisal


Link to the original document on the Torbay Council website.

"Further protected species surveys have confirmed that the site is utilised by a range of commuting/foraging bat species including greater horseshoe bat; the site lies within the South Hams Greater Horseshoe Bat Consultation Zone."

"Nesting birds and commuting/foraging badgers utilise the site."

"A small breeding population of slowworm and common lizard has been identified."

"The proposed works will result primarily in the loss of scrub habitat which supports a range of nesting bird species".

It is worth noting that all scrub present within the site has already been removed, in advance of the planning application being held.


"Due to the extent of habitats present on site, and the proposed development in the wider surrounding area, it is considered unlikely that mitigation and enhancement measures will result in a net gain in biodiversity within the footprint of the application site post development.

Suitable mitigation is therefore being sought, ideally in the local vicinity, in order to enhance horseshoe bat commuting and foraging habitat in proximity to the site. This mitigation will be required in order to assess and mitigate residual impacts on greater horseshoe bats and ensure a measurable net biodiversity gain in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)."

And yet, the planning application makes no further reference to the mitigation that is necessary to remain within the NPPF guidance.


"It is proposed to develop the land into a supermarket with associated infrastructure and parking. This will involve removal of the majority of the dense scrub present within the site, however the north-western woodland and boundary hedgebanks will be retained."

That "scrub habitat" has already been lost. Presumably Lidl have the right, as land owners, to remove scrub habitation on the land?


The report states that:

"During the automated detector survey in May, technical issues resulted in both of the two remote detectors failing to record. A total of 42 nights of automated detector data was collected and this is still considered to be sufficient to ascertain the levels of bat activity present throughout the site."

Natural England in their response state that this is not sufficient. Throwing into doublt the survey of bat activity. It goes on to further state that this "ecological appraisal" is not sufficient from an ecological perspective.

Last Updated: Saturday 18 December 2021