South Lakes Wild Animal Park South Lakes to Close to the Public

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maguari

Maguari

Never could get the hang of Thursdays.
15+ year member
Premium Member
...from 9th January, according to their Facebook page:


https://www.facebook.com/SouthLakesSafariZoo/posts/1020568377999385


Safari Zoo is to close its doors to the public from 9th January 2016.
Due to decisions made by Barrow Borough Council today and in the past year the management have been forced by councillors and officers into a situation where they decided to close the Zoo.
It is a difficult decision to make but the Management of the Zoo have no alternatives available to continue. We assure everyone that the zoo is safe and there is no evidence whatsoever to say otherwise. Further detailed information about the situation will be released when authorised.
Click to expand...
 
alfiethetortois said:
Taken from facebook page

"Safari Zoo is to close its doors to the public from 9th January 2016.
Due to decisions made by Barrow Borough Council today and in the past year the management have been forced by councillors and officers into a situation where they decided to close the Zoo.

It is a difficult decision to make but the Management of the Zoo have no alternatives available to continue. We assure everyone that the zoo is safe and there is no evidence whatsoever to say otherwise. Further detailed information about the situation will be released when authorised."

Yikes!!!
Click to expand...

An action that just cements his legion of followers to hate the council....why not just sit down like adults and sort out the issues... :confused:
 
more hot air from david gill,despite what he says the local council have tried to work with him but he always wants things his own way,this is yet another example of him throwing a tantrum and taking his toys home.attendances this last few weeks have been realy poor and he will use the council as a reason for closing the zoo, bet he is open again for easter.in fact its probably a publicity stunt to attract visitors over the next two weeks before he closes then he will undoubtedly say that due to public demand he has decided to remain open
 
Last edited:
There is a little more information available elsewhere on the internet:

A statement was issued this afternoon after Barrow Council ruled all public walkways must be shut with immediate effect due to concerns about safety.

The decision was made at a meeting of the Licensing Regulatory Committee - prompting zoo spokesman Karen Brewer to say the attraction would be 'effectively closed'.

She said: "In effect if you close the walkways you are closing the zoo.

"We would be closing the only access areas to the natural park. You have been round to see the area and in effect you would be closing us.
Click to expand...

South Lakes Safari Zoo to close, say bosses in shock announcement

Of course, having to close all the public walkways with immediate effect is mutually excusive with remaining open until January 9th 2016, so he is still not complying with the council.......
 
TeaLovingDave said:
There is a little more information available elsewhere on the internet:




Of course, having to close all the public walkways with immediate effect is mutually excusive with remaining open until January 9th 2016, so he is still not complying with the council.......
Click to expand...


our thoughts exactly, just seen a petition to save him and the zoo!!!!! I'll save the zoo.........
 
Two observations:

1. Why have a muckheap inside an enclosure?

2. Putting wire on boardwalks is standard, basic maintenance.

So why - it appears - would Mr Gill rather have a row with the Council than just do as requested?
 
This posted an hour ago on the park's Facebook page:

It is with regret zoo management have had to come to some hard and upsetting decisions.

The very first statement at yesterday's licensing meeting was how Barrow Borough Council wants to work with and has no animosity towards the zoo.
The Zoo management team have actively sought resolutions and are desperate to find a solution and a way of working with council officers who appear resolute in their goal to see the closure of the zoo.

We have on several occasions approached council leaders, chief executive's Phil Huck and Steve Soulsby for discussion talks only to be refused or most recently totally ignored. Barrow Borough Council seem hellbent, to the point of providing misleading and untrue information to councillors and public via public documents , on driving this zoo into the ground. We are not infallible but what we are is a team of passionate managers who want to work with the council to continue to build and develop not just this zoo but the borough as a region, a region which should have so much to offer.

We feel we have been constantly harassed by the council for the past two years, sent enforcement orders before even telling us of any issue to be enforced , pressurising change, creating confusion and fear within the staff and breaking down morale and confidence in the zoo team. We believe that the council has created an atmosphere that increases risks because of the pressure and fear of prosecution at every turn they make. Just because an officer writes a report does not make it true, accurate or logical.

All zoo walkways were designed and constructed by external independent contractors with vast expertise. All undergo regular strict maintenence checks. Barrow Borough Council requested an in-depth survey to be repeated in 2015. The engineers who designed and have previously supplied reports underwent company changes in November 2015, the staff remaining in place informed us at that time they could not provide the necessary report this year. A new engineer was found, comissioned and has carried out an on-site survey. They were due to deliver their report Monday but in order to complete had requested code standards from which to work from Barrow Borough Council who delivered that response just yesterday. Today council officers admitted the engineers had been in contact with them directly and the report would be complete in the next couple of days. The zoo asked for 14 days to deliver the report and carry out any necessary. work asked for , no work was asked for before this inspection. The decisions made in council committee amazed us all when a Vet, Matt Brash, who was advising the council on animal matters was asked to give his opinion of the structural issues of the walkways. He decided they should be closed and the committee just agreed . The closure of the walkways without any factual grounds to do so prevents access to many areas and removes disabled access to the zoo. A Veterinary surgeon was used by the council to provide a structural engineering opinion to base a Directive Order on to force the closure of wooden walkways in the Zoo?

Barrow Borough Council have requested the rhino muck pile to be moved back from its historic position of the past 16 years which the zoo has done on 3 occasions. the report placed by officers to committee did not state that the inspectors failed to go within around 200m of the pile to make their professional judgement. they simply took a photo from a huge distance and made conclusions and demands based on this . They could have gone in close and inspected at any time if they had requested but they did not. At Tuesdays inspection once again the inspectors failed to enter the field , they could have entered if they had requested but chose to make a decision based on a view from 100m away and no direct view of the distance from fences. However to get resolved this very personalised opinion it was agreed between both parties during a site visit on Tuesday that the pile should move 200 cm more. This despite no Baboon ever jumping over this fence at any time . The real failure of consistency and a professional scientific approach however is the concern of the management. the council are issuing a Directive Order claiming we have not given enough space to prevent an escape of a baboon. Yet the fence at this point is on average 1.2 m higher than at most other points around the baboon enclosure. Many part the fence are just 1.2m high and baboons cannot jump it at all. This area they discuss we find the inspector insisting by Directive order a height of around 2.4 m from ground to top of fence , simply inconsistent, illogical and we have to ask for what reason this issue is being dramatised in this way?

This fence has been there for 16 years without issue until this last year when a change of inspectors had their own opinion without any legitimate factual grounds for demanding change.

It is hard for lay people to comprehend the issues but any suggestion we do not care or we do not action issues with speed and energy is a lie. We are being subjected to an unprecedented attack and attempt to undermine our credibility and professionalism at every chance created. The Management team cannot work under these conditions and hence the decisions made.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder if the council is going to issue a press release? (A cynical person might add "with what the real story is" at the end of that sentence).
 
I remain no fan of David Gill's antics, nor do I relate much to his autobio. But having said that he ... (in his defence - let me be the Devil's advocate here ...) does have somethings going for him too.

Aside, SLWAP is not just David Gill. There is a management team and senior curatorial staff on site that do know their business and duties and constraints within which they have to work to fullfill the judicial requirements of operating a zoo on site within the county.

Further, I cannot help but agree that there are more than real elements of truth in what has now been posted on the SLWAP website regarding the Council's relationship with SLWAP. It is a very political agenda on the part of Council and one which is I am sad to say also based around egos that are willing and deem themselves able to drive thru their own version / will / vision over any other. In that, they do not serve the local community at large, nor do they do the local zoo, the animal collection and their staff full justice.

For what it is worth: to me Barrow County Council constitutes one of those renegade lots that are damn well hard trying to change management at SLWAP into their favor while only paying lipservice to improve management and acknowledge there is a zoo on site that has a more than regional importance and value. Whatever their antics ... this wildlife park is an active and accepted member of both EAZA and BIAZA and thus seems to fullfill their minimum criteria in zoo management, animal husbandry and zoo association and judicial requirements. It also does its fair bit to support in situ field conservation activitities (something certainly not all zoos are prone to do).

Effectively, by stepping down from a directorial seat David Gill has already opened the way forward to the current management to do what should be done.

It would be a real baddo if the zoo were to close and in no way does that justice to SLWAP and the fact that BCC cannot and should not mess with that at all.

So for what it is worth, let Barrow County Council do whatever they need to do (by Law and by that only .....) and let the zoo operate (as per the Law and by that only ...), while respecting each other's area of operation and judicial and formal responsibilities and acknowledging both are there to stay and remain.
 
Dave Gill posted the following:

"This internal memo was circulated early this week FYI. from The Safari Zoo Team

To all concerned with the management and operations of SAFARI ZOO.

Dear All,
I write to officially record my deep and urgent concern at the situation that has developed between the Zoo and the Local Authority.

In the past two years or so we have seen a dramatic change in the way the Authority has handled issues , treated staff and used enforcement over using decent fair communication.

There is a siege mentality in the Zoo that is causing real cause for concern and needs addressing before there is an incident that is caused directly by this negative relationship between Zoo and Council Officers.

In the past the relationship with officers was excellent, we worked together in an amicable way and resolved all issues quickly and without more than discussions and mutual agreements. Since a change in the leadership of the Authority and new staff appointments today we have officers of the council who are seemingly in a points scoring exercise of issuing legal notices without ever telling us we had an issue to address. This is not just unfair and unreasonable it is causing fear within the management of the real aims and wishes of the authority and a fear of actually doing any job without breaching a rule .

The net effect of this aggressive and negative tactic by the authority is to make the management change tactics themselves going from positive support and encouragement to follow all rules and procedures to a far more forceful approach to compliance.

Due to the management living in fear of prosecution and these sudden out of the blue enforcement orders rather than being able to do their work with confidence they are unable to enjoy their work as it has become a fear of failure as opposed to a enthusiastic group of achievers.

The way the Council have acted , in the words of a number of staff and ex staff “bullied and intimidated” them to make statements and forced words from them has led to a number of staff leaving.

The fact the management are in a mode of defence has placed uncomfortable pressure on keepers and other staff to conform in full to every regulatory issue by policing in effect.

This in turn has led to staff leaving due to a work environment that is based on the fear of doing something wrong as opposed to enjoying their work.

The sum of this is that because of the Councils legal action against the Zoo and because of the continuous failure to engage with us on a fair and reasonable level and give us confidence that we are conforming to our obligations we have a staff confidence crisis, we have staff leaving or planning to leave and this in turn could place us in breach of other conditions and have the effect of closing the zoo via the fear of prosecution despite all the effort and conscientious will we have to follow all regulations and have a safe and content working environment.

I am making this clear :

It is my considered view that the Councils Officers actions and approach is placing our staff in real increased danger of an accident and certainly does nothing to improve safety or confidence in the staff environment in fact it is my view that safety is lowered by the “fear” factor .

The issues:

Staff are now unsure of what they can and cannot do due to changes enforced by inspectors.

They have the approach now to check risk assessments before doing a job ( you would assume this was a positive thing. ) However they claim to be confused and complicated by the risk assessments and that they do not assist them in fact they hinder them in the format they are presently, this format demanded and enforced by the Council. More than one member of staff have also stated that they cannot physically read the wordy documents and they are far too complicated for them to follow.

I have made numerous representation on their behalf to the management team and this has been passed on in writing to Council officers with no response whatsoever to these genuine and real concerns from staff forced to use these risk assessments.
It seems that officers produce and require risk assessments that please their own requirement rather than ones that are clear, effective and actually usable to the majority of staff abilities.

A further complication to our long term position is the inability to recruit. The negative press and prosecution of the Zoo has placed Safari Zoo in a position where no one wishes to work for us due to the press reports and negative image being portrayed by the council .

So we loose staff because of the councils actions and aggressive tactics and we cannot recruit quality replacements for the same reason.

All of the predictions made about our position over 1 year ago are now reality and getting worse not better.

Of course all this does in the Zoo world is place our name even further down the desired places to work list !

I have recorded my concerns , management are fully delegated to have absolute enforcement of ALL conditions, regulations and rules that apply and I still live in absolute fear each day of staff failing to conform and causing me to be punished in a dramatic way when all I have ever done is my best to get everyone on board to conform.

All in all the future for Safari Zoo is bleak if this attitude by the council to find fault is not changed to a positive working together arrangement as in virtually every other zoo in the UK we are aware of.

We do not believe that the best result is by hitting the child (zoo) but by being caring and understanding and encouraging good practice by talking. Bullying tactics simply create negative feeling, fear and a mentality of us and them.

Finally if the Council are to continue with fabricating situations falsely reporting to the public and creating issues that don't really exist then there is no way to defend ourselves against deliberate misleading information and false representation.

This is a true and fair assessment of the overall staff position and moral and the destructive approach of the council and increase in risk of accidents caused by such overbearing pressure and fear."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Posted this elsewhere last night however, not many have read it. You will find the the local council have acted fair and given Dave Gill and the safari zoo many chances, it also shows police reports, council comments and then you have two very spurious reports from Dave Gill and his team.

Barrow BC - Licensing Regulatory Committee

here is one part held within the first document report.

Officer Comments

Having considered section 7 (1) of the Act and the related Defra Guidance, the Council has determined that the statutory pre-requisite of a transfer application requiring their ‘approval’ places an obligation on the Council to analyse the impact and appropriateness of any proposed transfer and in particular whether:

a) The transferee is suitable to hold a licence; and
b) The conservation measures set out in section 1A of the Act would be
complied with.

Council Officers consider that if the transfer of the licence from Mr Gill into the Companies name (South Lakes Safari Zoo Limited) goes ahead, there is a risk that there could be a reduction in the accountability for the Zoo’s conduct in the future.

The reasons for this are given below:

The Operating Structure of the Company

Whilst Mr Gill retains 100% of the shareholding in the Company, he will retain constitutionally absolute control over the Company and its activities. As a majority shareholder, he can influence any investment decision and would expect to be consulted on any expenditure of significance. He also retains the exclusive power to appoint and remove Directors. Mr Gill is therefore the ‘controlling mind’ of the Company.

The Need for Accountability

The Council attach considerable weight to the fact that the licensee should remain accountable for the conduct and operation of the Zoo. Impliedly this means that the licensee should retain adequate control of the Zoo’s function in order to fulfil its licensed obligations. In view of the Zoo’s absolute ownership by Mr Gill, he should remain as the licensee.

If the transfer went ahead into the Company’s name it is the Directors that would be accountable under the Act for the operation and proper conduct of the zoo. Mr Gill is currently a Director but there is nothing to stop him resigning at some point in the future and should this occur there would be disconnect between the ‘controlling mind’ of the Company and the Directors that are accountable under the Act. Members will note a number of appointments and terminations of Directors in recent months but the reasons for these changes are unknown.

Past Performance

The zoo licence continues to be the subject of enforcement action and some matters have been brought before Members today in a separate report. In recent years there have been many conditions added to the zoo licence as a result of the concerns of inspectors. A recent Periodical Inspection of the Zoo on 17th and 18th November, 2015 has revealed further concerns and these will be brought before Members at a future Committee Meeting.

The Council take the view that for any transfer to be adjudged suitable there would impliedly have to be some prospect of the new licensee improving the Zoo’s past performance of compliance with the terms of the Act. On balance and for the reasons mentioned earlier, the Council are not satisfied that the proposed transfer would present better prospects of improvement with compliance.

If this zoo had a good history of compliance, the proposed transfer would give rise to no concerns. However that is not currently the position.

Officer’s Recommendation

It is the Officer’s recommendation that the transfer be refused and that Mr David Stanley Gill should retain the licence to operate a zoo at South Lakes Safari Zoo Ltd.

Reasons for Recommendations

1. Mr David Gill remains the sole shareholder and as such retains absolute
control over the Zoo and its activities with the power to appoint and remove directors. He also retains the power to direct investment and is therefore the ‘controlling mind’ of the Company.

2. Mr David Gill, could resign as Director at any time following completion of the transfer if granted and thus allow a disconnect of the ‘controlling mind’ and those directors who are accountable for the Zoo’s conduct under the Act.

3. The zoo licence continues to be the subject of enforcement action and the Council are not satisfied that the proposed transfer would present better prospects of an improvement with compliance.

Options for Members

1) Accept the Officer recommendation and reject the application to transfer the zoo licence from Mr David Gill’s name into that of South Lakes Safari Zoo Ltd.

2) Reject the Officer recommendation and accept the application to transfer the zoo licence from Mr David Gill’s name into that of South Lakes Safari Zoo Ltd.

Considerations

(i) Legal Implications
The Zoo requires a licence to be able to open to the public and the Act makes the local authority responsible for administering the Licence. Anyone running a Zoo without a licence is guilty of an offence.

Discretion is given to the Local Authority under ss.7(1) of the Act to transfer the Licence

(1) A licence for a zoo may with the approval of the local authority be transferred to another person, and in that case the transferee shall become the holder of the licence from the date specified by the authority and notified by them to the transferor and transferee.

There is a right of appeal under s.18 of the Act to the Magistrate’s Court if the holder of the licence wishes to challenge the decisions of the Committee.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just read this on a comment on an Evening Mail article

"Theyaren't closing the zoo, Just been on the phone with the management as we have several adopted animals there. Blown out of all proportion by the media was the exact phrase used."
Click to expand...

So, simply a social media coo by the zoo to rally everyone against the council - I suspect the closure is to move large animals around the zoo, rhino, giraffe etc - as this was always planned for spring 2016
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those who may not be able to access the documents regarding the council committee meeting, here is another part that may help understand:

Background

Mr David Stanley Gill holds a zoo licence issued on 8th June, 2010 to operate a zoo at premises known as South Lakes Safari Zoo Ltd, Crossgates, Dalton-in-Furness, Cumbria, LA15 8JR [the Zoo].

On 28th and 29th January, 2014, a Special Inspection was carried out at The Zoo and the results of the inspection were brought to a special meeting of the Licensing Regulatory Committee on 23rd June, 2014 following which Members resolved on 1st July, 2014 to place 11 additional conditions on the zoo licence.

The Zoo had been subject to 3 Special Inspections (11th November, 2014, 26th February, 2015, and 23rd April, 2015) to assess compliance with a number of these conditions. The results of these inspections were reported to Committee on 13th August, 2015 and the Committee resolved to make alterations to the zoo licence.

Three of these alterations involved conditions;

• 20a – Removal of the muck heap away from the moat in the African Field;
• 21 – Survey of the wooden public walkways; and
• 23 – Firearms protocol and training

A Periodical Inspection of the zoo has now taken place (17th and 18th November, 2015) and this has revealed that the three abovementioned conditions have not been complied with in relation to the deadlines set by the Committee. The three conditions and details of the non-compliance along with Officer recommendations are set out overleaf.

For Members’ information, the full findings of the November 2015 Periodical Inspection will be placed before the Licensing Regulatory Committee at a future meeting when the Inspectors’ report has been completed.

Condition 20(a) In accordance with 8.5 and 8.10 of the SSSMZP the existing muck heap in the African Exhibit must be moved to the middle of the paddock within 14 days so that waste does not fill the adjacent moat and aid escape of the Baboons
(Category 1 animal)

Officer’s Comments

In the Zoo’s African Paddock there are Rhinos and Giraffe housed together with Baboons. Waste bedding and faeces from the animal housing is disposed of on a muck heap close to a moat and the perimeter fence with a view to it rotting down over the year and then being spread over the other paddocks annually. During the January 2014 Special Inspection the Inspectors considered that this is unacceptable due to:

• The risk of bacterial diseases being transmitted from the animal waste to inhabitants of the exhibit.

• The run off from rotting manure posing an environmental contamination
risk.

• The muck heap providing an aid for the baboons to scale the fencing.

The original condition required the removal of the muck heap by 31st December, 2015 but the Zoo requested an extension as they proposed to move the muck heap to a purpose built facility that is off show and separated from the animals. However, they stated that it was not practical to utilise the new facility until the Rhino and Giraffe were moved to their new paddock in spring 2016.

In the meantime to deal with the escape risk from the baboons it is was agreed at the April Special Inspection between Senior Zoo Management and Council Officers that the muck heap would be moved further into the field and it would also be ensured that the muck was not able to fill the moat which currently runs along the fencing. It was verbally agreed at the time that this could be accommodated immediately by the Zoo.

At the Periodical Inspection on 17th November 2015 it was apparent that the Zoo had not complied with this condition as the muck heap, although moved from it’s original position, was still adjacent to the external fence, therefore the potential for the baboons to escape still exists.

Recommendation

That the Committee elevate Condition 20(a) to a Direction Order with a compliance deadline of 14 days.

Reason for Recommendation

It has been accepted that the Zoo is unable to move the muck heap, due to the issues of vehicles negotiating multiple gates, until the large animals are moved next year. However, moving the muck heap away from the moat and enclosure fence will reduce the escape risk and is deemed to be an easy task. The timescale for achieving this was agreed during a Special Inspection with the Zoo Management.

Options

The options available to Members are:-

• Accept the Officer’s recommendation
• Accept the officer recommendation and authorise officers to serve a Direction Order with a different timescale for compliance.
• Reject the officer recommendation and grant the Zoo an extension of the deadline for the existing condition.

Condition 21 In accordance with 8.13 and 8.18 of the SSSMZP, the public
wooden walkways and platforms must be designed to meet BS 6399-1: 1996 and be able to cope with the heavy duty loading and maintained in safe condition. The effect of any walkway or platform stanchions being submerged in water for prolonged periods should be assessed in terms of deterioration and structural stability. A programme of inspection, maintenance and structural repairs needs to be documented.

A report must be produced for the Licensing Authority addressing the following six issues:-

1) The Zoo must produce design calculations that
demonstrate that all timber walkways and platforms are
designed to carry the loads specified in Clause 10 and
Table 4 of BS 6399-1: 1996 with structures considered to be
carrying ‘heavy duty’ loading;

2) Design calculations must be produced to confirm that
‘stability critical’ longitudinal and lateral sway stiffness of
the structures is confirmed for at least 10% of the 5kNm-2
vertical loading in the appropriate combinations with lateral
loading on the parapets and the timber post supports;

3) The Zoo must demonstrate through design and calculations
that the design incorporates protection against any
accidental (impact) loading on the timber posts;

4) The Zoo must demonstrate through design and calculations
that the design incorporates a suitable assessment for any
disproportionate collapse (i.e. structural integrity under
failure of one or possibly more timber posts);

5) That the Zoo provides an independent Structural Engineer’s
report on the condition of the timber walkways and platforms within the Zoo and carry out any works that will meet the design standard and specifications above; and
6) That the Zoo implements a regular recorded assessment,
inspection and maintenance regime
[Timescale by 13th November 2015]

Officer’s Comments

The walkways have been a cause of concern over the duration of the zoo licence and the issues are as yet unresolved. The previous history has been reported to past Committees but concerns were raised during Formal Inspections in 2009 and 2013 as well as Special Inspections in 2014

The SSSMZP states that:

paragraph 8.13 Buildings and structures to which the public have access must be maintained in a safe condition.

paragraph 8.15 Areas where visitors are encouraged to go should have surfaces to avoid the risk, as far as is reasonably practicable, of visitors falling or tripping.

paragraph 8.18 Where a walkway passes over an animal enclosure it should be designed, constructed, and maintained to ensure that it is safe.

It is fundamental to public safety that elevated walkways, viewing platforms, and other similar structures should be designed to the correct standard and also subject to the correct level of inspection and preventative maintenance. A failure of a walkway or a platform may place members of the public in close proximity to dangerous animals that may then hamper rescue operations.

During the inspection of November 2015, it was noted by the inspectors that;

1. According to the accident book there have been a number of slips/ accidents on the wooden walkway within the last year.

2. That within the previous month chicken wire has been laid down on the
walkways to decrease the potential of slips. Although this decreases the
potential of ‘slips’ in many areas, the chicken wiring does not cover all of the wooden surface leaving a number of areas that are still slippery. In other places the chicken wiring edging is loose, or already lifting due to foot wear and may act as a trip hazard. Considering the high foot fall of public on these walkways this chicken wire as it stands may not be suitable and will not be sustainable for a prolonged period of time.

3. The structural integrity of the some of the walkways is of concern. Some wooden posts were noted to be rotten, either at the top of the wooden posts (e.g. post on the walkway overlooking the ant eater enclosures), or at the bottom (e.g. support post adjacent to the tiger enclosure)

The Zoo have failed to comply with the revised condition 21 imposed by this Committee.

Recommendation

That the Committee elevate Condition 21 to a Direction Order with a compliance deadline of 28 days and that the Direction Order requires all walkways and platforms to be closed to the public until the Direction Order is lifted

Reason for Recommendation

The Zoo has, to date, been unable to satisfy the Council that the design is sufficient to take the projected load, and that the structures are subject to suitable inspection and maintenance.

At the summing up of the Periodical Inspection on 18th November the Zoo admitted they had not yet found a contractor to progress the report despite the deadline having passed.

The photographs included above demonstrate that the wooden walkways have deteriorated and that they have sustained damaged which could be structurally significant. Collapse of any of these sections could put members of the public in contact with the zoo’s animals which include those regarded as Category 1 (capable of significant harm), as well as the height involved in any potential fall.

Options

The options available to Members are:-

• Accept the Officer’s recommendation.
• Accept the officer recommendation and authorise officers to serve a Direction Order with a different timescale for compliance, and determine that the walkways do not need to be closed.

• Reject the officer recommendation and grant the Zoo an extension of the deadline for the existing condition.

Condition 23. Firearms cover and Protocol regarding escapes
In accordance with 8.20 and 8.34 of the SSSMZP there must be an agreed and written protocol for liaison with the Cumbria Constabulary in response to the escape of an animal outside of the perimeter of the licensed premises and appropriate firearms cover for the premises. This must be reviewed on a yearly basis and be provided to theLicensing Authority upon review.

[Timescale by 1st December 2015 and then annually by 1st
April]

Officer’s Comments

There was no Police representation at the periodical inspection however Inspector Telford of the Firearms Operations Unit has provided the following written statement.

The condition contains two requirements; the first is for a written protocol for liaison with the Police. This was completed earlier this year to the Police’s satisfaction. The second requirement is for appropriate firearms cover and here Inspector Telford is not content that the Zoo is meeting the minimum requirements of the legislation.

Instead he points to the need for further training in competent weapons handling by those members of the Zoo staff authorised, and further training along the Police.

Recommendation

That the committee escalate the condition to a Direction Order with a compliance date of 30th March 2016

Reason for Recommendation

The Zoo has, to date, not been able to satisfy Cumbria Constabulary that the Zoo has suitable firearms and staff trained in their use.

The Police, through the Firearms Operations Unit are continuing to work with the Zoo and therefore it is expected that 4 months is required to complete the work and ensure that the firearms provision meets the minimum required.

Options

The options available to Members are:-

• Accept the officer recommendation.
• Accept the officer recommendation and escalate the condition to a direction order with a different compliance deadline.
• Reject the Officer’s recommendation and extend the compliance date for the Zoo to meet the condition.

Considerations

(i) Legal Implications
(ii) The Zoo requires a licence to be able to open to the public and the Zoo LicencingAct 1981 makes the local authority responsible for administering the Licence. Anyone running a Zoo without a licence is guilty of an offence. The Local Authority’s power to alter a licence is contained within Section 16 of the same Act

(1) At any time after the grant of a licence under this Act, it may be altered by the local authority if in their opinion it is necessary or desirable to do so for ensuring the proper conduct of the zoo during the period of the licence (whether their opinion arises from an inspectors’ report or an alteration of standards specified under section 9 or otherwise).

(1A) Subsection (1B) applies where—

(a) the authority have made a direction under section 16A(2) in respect of a zoo;
(b) the period specified in that direction by virtue of section 16A(2)(c), including such a direction as varied under section 16A(4), has expired;
and

(c) the authority are satisfied that a condition specified in that direction which requires any conservation measure referred to in section 1A to be implemented at the zoo is not met in relation to—

(i) if the zoo was specified under section 16A(2)(b)(i), any section of the zoo;

(ii) if a section of the zoo was specified under section 16A(2)(b)(ii), that section of the zoo or any smaller section of the zoo included in that section.

(1B) The authority shall make such alterations to the licence as they consider to be necessary or desirable to ensure that the section of the zoo in relation to which they are satisfied that the condition is not met is closed permanently to the public.

(2) Before exercising the power under subsection (1), the local authority shall give the holder of the licence an opportunity to make representations.

16A Enforcement of Licence Conditions
(1) Subsection (2) applies where the local authority, after giving the licence holder an opportunity to be heard, are not satisfied that a condition attached to a licence granted by them under this Act is met in relation to the zoo or a section of it.

(2) Unless subsection (3) applies, the authority shall make a direction specifying –

(a) The licence condition which they are not satisfied is met;
(b) Whether they are not satisfied that the condition is met in relation to –
(i) the zoo; or
(ii) a section of the zoo, and if so, which section;
(c) steps to be taken by the licence holder to ensure that that condition is met in relation to the zoo … within a period specified in the direction, which may not exceed two years from the date of the direction; and
(d) whether the zoo or a section of it is required to be closed to the public
during that period or any part of it specified in the direction.

There is a right of appeal under Section 18 to the Magistrate’s Court if the holder of the licence wishes to challenge the decisions of the Committee.

(1) A person aggrieved by
(a) the refusal to grant a licence;
(b) any condition attached to a licence;
(c) any variation or cancellation of a condition;
(d) the refusal to approve the transfer of a licence;
(e) a direction under section 13(8)(c) or 16A(2) or any variation of such a direction;
(f) a zoo closure direction;
(g) the refusal to approve a plan prepared under section 16E(2);
(h) a direction under section 16E(6) or any variation of such a direction; or
(i) any arrangements under section 16E(7) or (8),
may appeal to a magistrates’ court acting for the petty sessions area in which the zoo is situated.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From Dave Gill:

"I just wish to place on record that the views of the management and staff of Safari Zoo are their own. I did not attend council meetings with the authority and I had already fully delegated the responsibilities to management."
Click to expand...

His wife was there and spoke on behalf of Dave and team, he is a director as is his wife.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kifaru Bwana said:
I remain no fan of David Gill's antics, nor do I relate much to his autobio. But having said that he ... (in his defence - let me be the Devil's advocate here ...) does have somethings going for him too.

Aside, SLWAP is not just David Gill. There is a management team and senior curatorial staff on site that do know their business and duties and constraints within which they have to work to fullfill the judicial requirements of operating a zoo on site within the county.

Further, I cannot help but agree that there are more than real elements of truth in what has now been posted on the SLWAP website regarding the Council's relationship with SLWAP. It is a very political agenda on the part of Council and one which is I am sad to say also based around egos that are willing and deem themselves able to drive thru their own version / will / vision over any other. In that, they do not serve the local community at large, nor do they do the local zoo, the animal collection and their staff full justice.

For what it is worth: to me Barrow County Council constitutes one of those renegade lots that are damn well hard trying to change management at SLWAP into their favor while only paying lipservice to improve management and acknowledge there is a zoo on site that has a more than regional importance and value. Whatever their antics ... this wildlife park is an active and accepted member of both EAZA and BIAZA and thus seems to fullfill their minimum criteria in zoo management, animal husbandry and zoo association and judicial requirements. It also does its fair bit to support in situ field conservation activitities (something certainly not all zoos are prone to do).

Effectively, by stepping down from a directorial seat David Gill has already opened the way forward to the current management to do what should be done.

It would be a real baddo if the zoo were to close and in no way does that justice to SLWAP and the fact that BCC cannot and should not mess with that at all.

So for what it is worth, let Barrow County Council do whatever they need to do (by Law and by that only .....) and let the zoo operate (as per the Law and by that only ...), while respecting each other's area of operation and judicial and formal responsibilities and acknowledging both are there to stay and remain.
Click to expand...


Read my post regarding the local council worries regarding ownership and directorship.

Mrs Frieda Rivera-Schreiber
Director (Open)
04 Aug 2015 ‐ Present

Mr David Stanley Gill
Director (Open)
01 Dec 2015 ‐ Present

Ms Christina Fischer
Director (Retired), Curator
24 Aug 2015 ‐ 23 Nov 2015

Ms Alison Penny Wall
Company Secretary (Retired), Nurse
11 May 1998 ‐ 03 Aug 2009

Director (Retired)
11 May 1998 ‐ 11 May 1998

Company Secretary (Retired)
11 May 1998 ‐ 11 May 1998

https://www.duedil.com/company/03561692/south-lakes-safari-zoo-limited/financials
 
Can I please remind people that if they are going to copy and paste long statements from elsewhere online, they should place them within a quotation box - both to make it clear what is being quoted and what is original commentary, and to make it easier to read?

I have just spent some time putting the posts from the last 12 hours or so into quotation boxes to this end, and editing certain parts for clarity.
 
TeaLovingDave said:
Can I please remind people that if they are going to copy and paste long statements from elsewhere online, they should place them within a quotation box - both to make it clear what is being quoted and what is original commentary, and to make it easier to read?

I have just spent some time putting the posts from the last 12 hours or so into quotation boxes to this end, and editing certain parts for clarity.
Click to expand...


I make my apology as this is my fault for not using quote boxes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top