South Lakes Wild Animal Park South Lakes discussion thread

I cannot see a zoo operating at SLWAP beyond the licence expiry and DG still at the helm or "in place". Given the considerable number of licence irregularities and stuff that is just plain unsound zoo operation and management, DG and his henchmen have got to go if a zoo is to operate beyond that date.

Sure - in part - it has become a personal matter precisely because DG has made it his personal crusade. That has not been to the benefit of himself, the zoo, its staff nor the collection. As the zoo inspection is an operation quite away from Council duties and has been followed up several times in the not too distant past one can argue that due diligence and transparency has been taken care of by Council.

I still have a - very, very slight ... - lingering hope the ad interim senior zoo officer put in place will take over and allow a completely new management team, including various director posts, a senior and qualified vet and several well qualified curatorial staff to oversee the animal management and husbandry side of SLWAP.
 
Not a chance in my opinion will DG EVER let this place go from his control hence this situation... After knowing this place for over 20 years the only fears I ended up with was for primarily the animals themselves open or shut, the workforce and recently D Armitage, I worried if he knew what he was going into and worried about him. I think the council report states 64 animal deaths since January?? ( this figure could be corrected but from memory i think it was 64) not too sure if thats representative in relation to other establishments of this type, but, in the hands of someone that can kill a full flock of birds for getting out instead of simply clipping their wings...... I worry for them all.
 
My reading of the Council report * is that the officer recommendation** is that the existing licence should NOT be renewed (for the normal further 6 years) but that SLWAP should be given the opportunity to apply for a NEW licence within the six month 'window' provided for by the legislation.

However, any new licence application is unlikely to be approved unless it is with a new robust management structure.

Independent of the owner.




* For the record I am a former councillor at an authority which had zoo licensing responsibilities. And my thanks to Farmer for providing the link.

** Which councillors may - or may not - choose to approve.
 
The links to the reports do in fact read the same to me... but what I also read into these reports knowing the attitude of our local council is they are absolutely sick to death of the way this 22 year debacle is going.... As I said.... to get the licence needed in NO WAY will DG sign any aspect of the park over without seeming to but in fact being right where he always has been.... in charge 100%..... Most issues like this would be estimated using the train of thought of normal circumstances but it really doesnt apply to this.... Apart from the papers that the council hold there are other aspects like a 1.1 million (at least) Tax issue and of course his unfinished problem with that young girl getting killed and her parents possible / probable continuing actions. There are quite a few tentacles to this one and ALL running at the same time..
 
gentle lemur said:
That is an improper suggestion. The Council must act, and must be seen to act, in a fair and impartial manner. On the other hand, if any zoo does not fulfil all the conditions required to renew its Zoo Licence, the local authority cannot issue a new licence.

Alan
Click to expand...

It is not meant to read as an improper suggestion, I said it could be seen, by some people, (not forgetting that certain councillors are very tired of the whole situation), that the refusal of a licence would put an end the matter.
I think the council have actually being very patient and considerate to Gill and have given him every opportunity to rectify the issues.

I am fully aware of the licencing procedure and what it involves.

Farmer - I completely agree with you, Gill will definatly not leave the place.
That is, in essence, the big problem, because as long as he is connected, even loosely with the place, I cannot see any future for it as it is currently.
 
Shorts said:
The company also has a potentially massive problem with HMRC -the notes to the accounts mention that they're investigating the company's use of an "EBT scheme". Without getting too technical they're, at the very best, borderline legal and, in my opinion, ethically disgraceful -regardless of legality many of them are being successfully dismantled by HMRC usually using new (GAAR, if you're interested) rules.

The potential liability to the company should HMRC win their argument (though, no doubt, the company could and would appeal to, at least delay matters) would exceed £1,000,000* :eek:.

*Though, for balance, it should be noted that HMRC often "over-egg" calculations of liabilities through technical errors and/or political reasons.
Click to expand...

Gill obviously has a much bigger problem with them than I had thought.
I can`t claim to understand all the tax issues, but it is clear the place appears to be doomed. There is just far too much to rectify.
 
Barrow Council have not just been " very patient" they have verged on the side of some kind of suspicious favoritism, in the context of being ohhhhh so lenient as im sure NO person, or company over the 22 years would have gotten away with so much for so long. He truly is a golden child... I know that a person with experience in planning law can read exactly the same papers as I do and it reads instantly factual and of course it has to, and I also know that ANYONE dealing with DG has to be EXTREMELY careful and watch their backs as law suits and legal threats are second nature to DG hence I believe the actions of Barrow Council in their dealings with DG. Barrow Councilors are at the end of their patience with DG.
 
Also.... I see DG has a list of suppliers in the council papers.... I wonder ... do they know? ive a VERY strong feeling they dont have any idea about their names being on this. , and is it legal or proper for him to do this if not? He has a lifetime of making unfounded and unproven claims and is never taken to account for them oh so much like a Walter Mitty... He has laid claim to hundreds of achievements and breakthroughs in animal care only for me to find upon a little research that these claims arent true and he is making claim to breakthroughs of others... \i just wish there was a way of all of the people / companies on this list to know they have been mentioned to the council as a sort of referee. The list is on pages 27 - 30 Gill / ZOO....
also on pages 25 onward of pages 101 in the appendices under the heading, " Mortality and causes of mortality" you can access off the link I have give,n it shows since Jan 1st till April 31st, 61 animals died in the care of this place.

Just a little addition to this post, as I looked at this list of supposed companies " that they use" I saw the name of a company and I know the owner, I rang him and asked if he had worked on the zoo and he said no, and had no idea he was on the list. Thats just one of them. that I happened to know?? as for the few hundred other names on these three pages I have no idea how many others know.
 
Last edited:
The Accounts reproduced within the Council Report are ... interesting ...

For example, £500,000 seems to have been expended on "Sums paid to third parties for directors' services" - presumably the same £500k which is also listed as "Benefits under long-term incentive schemes (excluding shares)". So where does that £500k go? (There are similar sums listed for 2014, so that's £1M over 2 years).

The creditors include "Directors' Current Accounts £704,935". Is this £704k of the million which was due to be paid?

I like to think I'm pretty good with Accounts, but these have got me puzzled.
 
What interests me as well is the Sumatran Tiger Trust...... A trust he made to take funds people give. I don't think these money's are traceable..... well not by me anyway. I just wonder....
 
Last edited:
Nisha said:
Barrow Council is due to meet over the next few days to make a final decision on whether to renew the parks licence or not. If they decide not to renew then the park will be shut to visitors with immediate effect

South Lakes Safari zoo could close after inspectors find a range of failings
Click to expand...

This report says it all.
It is clear the zoo has a whole range of problems, and it seems very unlikely that the zoo can overcome so many issues it is faced with, in order to survive.
 
The local council meeting was held yest and today and as of the finish of the day the final update was
" 2.00 - Members are deliberating and making decisions over whether certain licence conditions can be removed.

These conditions relate to health and safety of walkways, design features and future designs of the baboon housing,and public feeding." Can DEFRA recommendations be overturned? not too sure...
 
3.00pm David Gill's licence has been rejected but the zoo has a further six months to reapply.

The zoo will remain open with the exception of the snow leopard and wolf viewing areas and "immediate attention" is needed to address management issues.

A meeting to discuss the new licence has been scheduled for July 21
 
Farmer said:
3.00pm David Gill's licence has been rejected but the zoo has a further six months to reapply.

The zoo will remain open with the exception of the snow leopard and wolf viewing areas and "immediate attention" is needed to address management issues.

A meeting to discuss the new licence has been scheduled for July 21
Click to expand...

The ball ... to use an appropriate expression for Wimbledon fortnight ... is definitely in the zoo's court.

South Lakes faces an existential choice. A future without Gill at the helm; or - possibly - no future.
 
David Gill's own Facebook page mentions that his plan is to run away and start a new park elsewhere in the Country as early as next year....

It seems all facts that implicate the council and their role in the past 22 years is always lost or unavailable, we have been subjected to a serious witch hunt. the cost if this is not resolved is the loss of the best tourist attraction in the region, the loss of 100 jobs and the loss of immense conservation work all over the globe.

The country will lose around £1million pounds a year in taxes paid to the government . To the electorate of Barrow , as it is your council that has set out to do this a long while ago. They set out to destroy me and the zoo and they have done now ... I feel for the staff as they are the ones who are the victims and the animals are the very sad losers as they will be dispersed all over with families and partners being split up to make sure they get new homes.

We shall have a great summer and encourage as many people as possible to get an experience of the Zoo before the New Year.
But watch this space because we are welcomed by other local authorities who would love to have our zoo in their area and we would love to go there too as quickly as possible
 
What a surprise throwing the dummy out of the pram again!!!

Have heard the rant that other places want his zoo so many times its old hat!!!!

Alas Yorik the end is near!!!!
 
Im not too sure of the talks to secure the future of the Zoo because the original requirements stated that in no way would a licence be granted to any person connected with DG. Yet the new management in mind to be successors to Gill are his workforce and were made directors and CEO by him and also are directors of his certain charities that he founded. Surely if the Zoo is handed over to his workforce he is still in total control. A lot of people that know him are saying it is said, " no way will he ever let this go. " From a past post on here it was also mentioned that at least one of the possible new management is also a director on his tiger charity, would this be a "connection" or conflict? Also wouldn't a "new" management have to have some credible substantial Zoological background?
 
Nisha said:
David Gill's own Facebook page mentions that his plan is to run away and start a new park elsewhere in the Country as early as next year....

It seems all facts that implicate the council and their role in the past 22 years is always lost or unavailable, we have been subjected to a serious witch hunt. the cost if this is not resolved is the loss of the best tourist attraction in the region, the loss of 100 jobs and the loss of immense conservation work all over the globe.

The country will lose around £1million pounds a year in taxes paid to the government . To the electorate of Barrow , as it is your council that has set out to do this a long while ago. They set out to destroy me and the zoo and they have done now ... I feel for the staff as they are the ones who are the victims and the animals are the very sad losers as they will be dispersed all over with families and partners being split up to make sure they get new homes.

We shall have a great summer and encourage as many people as possible to get an experience of the Zoo before the New Year.
But watch this space because we are welcomed by other local authorities who would love to have our zoo in their area and we would love to go there too as quickly as possible
Click to expand...

What will it take for David Gill to see sense and admit he is in the wrong?
 
bongorob said:
What will it take for David Gill to see sense and admit he is in the wrong?
Click to expand...

I fear there is nothing.


There is a potential future for South Lakes (as I see it).

Mr Gill carries out his promise to transfer S Lakes to a charitable trust.

Such a Trust is set up with a minimum of five trustees (Gill not being one of them). No more than two to have had previous direct contact with Gill/ S Lakes.

The "zoo community" has enough goodwill toward S Lakes (and I'm unsure whether this would be the case) to second a core leadership team for the next 12-24 months.

Said Trust - with an effective governance arrangement and a competent management - obtains a Zoo Licence.

Mr Gill is granted the status of Honorary Life Vice-President (or similar) to recognise his past contribution, but has no direct role.

That could work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top