Seems a strange condition. Is it maybe because(having seen where it is myself) it is built well away from the main animal areas? I wonder why they did that and not put it somewhere it wouldn't be subject to such a condition? Or did they fail to get permission for it or something so this is retrospective?
Seems a strange condition. Is it maybe because(having seen where it is myself) it is built well away from the main animal areas? I wonder why they did that and not put it somewhere it wouldn't be subject to such a condition? Or did they fail to get permission for it or something so this is retrospective?
This area in the original planning permission has planning permission for the Indian Coral Reef exhibit. It does seem strange though, that it needs to be restored in 10 years. It would be interesting to know how much it cost to develop the site.
