A bird sanctuary has been forced to close after council bosses said it needed a ZOO licence.
Three Owls Bird Sanctuary in Norden, Rochdale, opened in 1962 but after complaints from an animal rights organisation, council officers found it was breaching zoo licensing legislation.
Last week Rochdale council wrote to the charity, which rescues and cares for about 2,000 wild birds every year, giving them 28 days to come up to scratch.
But trustees have decided to close the sanctuary because they felt it would be impossible to meet the requirements of the legislation.
Sanctuary manager Nigel Fowler said: “It is with great sadness that we find ourselves having to close the doors on our hospital and aviary-work with the birds.
“It has become increasingly difficult in recent years to keep up with an ever increasing wall of red tape and legislation and we now find there is no way forward for Three Owls to continue in its present form.
“The sanctuary trustees have explored possible angles to try and meet the council's requirements for zoo licensing.
Implications
“However, as the charity has never been designed to be a zoo with all the implications that brings with it, then it is neither physically feasible nor financially viable to try and meet all the regulations or exemptions which Rochdale Council are insisting are met.”
Mr Fowler, who has worked at Three Owls for 32 years, says his team of volunteers will try to re-home the 156 birds at other sanctuaries.
Sheds, aviaries and hospital equipment could also be donated to other charities while a four acre nature reserve at the site will be tidied up and sealed off in the spring.
The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 defines a zoo as 'an establishment where wild animals are kept for exhibition to the public to which members of the public have access, with or without charge for admission, on more than seven days in any period of 12 consecutive months.'
The council found that Three Owls' current operating practices 'fall within the scope of the act', which requires the sanctuary to obtain a zoo licence.
It says Three Owls does keep 'wild animals' and some of the birds are 'kept for exhibition'.
The council accepts that the birds are kept for their welfare, but added 'it is clear that they are displayed to the public during guided tours'.
Three Owls is open to the public for guided tours every Sunday afternoon.
Devastated
Norden councillor Ann Metcalfe said: “I am devastated by this news.
“The lives of so many birds and people who have cared for them will be affected.
“I will be fighting to keep it open as hard as I can.”
Andy Glover, public protection manager at Rochdale council, said: “We're extremely sorry to hear that Three Owls has closed down.
“Our role is to ensure local facilities meet the relevant legislation, not to set the rules.
“We've had our legal teams review the legislation twice and have sought comparisons with other sanctuaries operating across the country and what positions their respective local authorities took.
“In all cases the premises required a zoo licence.”
“We were asked to examine the status of the centre by an animal rights organisation so we had a duty to look into it."
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
V M (08/02/2010 at 19:00)
Well done Rochdale Council! Well done mystery 'Animal Rights Organization'. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Harrysmate, Rochdale (08/02/2010 at 19:30)
Moscow Gold, Kremlin Vodka Bar (08/02/2010 at 19:40)
It's about time we voted this catastrophe of a Council out for good and got people with some REAL talent running the show rather than this Mafia of the Mediocre & Moronic !!
We deserve better than this - and we will get it
Loubee, Rochdale (08/02/2010 at 19:43)
It may be 34 yrs but it will never be 37yrs. (08/02/2010 at 20:14)
Dan H, Rochdale (08/02/2010 at 20:40)
At first glance it does seem perverse that Zoo legislation is being used to regulate this long-established local institution.
However, the 1981 Act is clear - but so are the exemptions and I am confused as to why Mr Fowler and the Trustees have not considered making very slight changes to their procedures to carry on doing the excellent work the Sanctuary does.
Being no fan of Rochdale council -an organisation that has form for grasping defeat from the jaws of victory - the empty town centre is a prime example- it is only fair that there be a full disclosure of all the documents, discussions and decisions that created this sorry end.
I have read some of the emails elsewhere on the internet - and I must say that I am shocked by what I read. It really does seem that Rochdale Council have tried to ensure they abide by their legal duty to comply with the Act (and not risk council taxpayers money on legal challenge) AND try to ensure Three Owls Bird Sanctuary could carry on.
Tiny changes to membership procedure and admittance together with a reduction (to 120) of the number of birds available for the public to view could have achived an exemption uner the Act.
I am all for holding Rochdale Council to account- especially after reading the damning views stated by Mr Fowler and published by the Rochdale Observer BUT in fairness, IF Rochdale Council have acted correctly (legally and morally) then we deserve to know just why this all really happened.
If the site is ever sold for housing then I sincerely hope that ALL the money is donated to ensure that birds are protected and rehabilitated. That is why those kind people gave their hard earned cash over the past 50 years.
thoughtful, East of Manchester (08/02/2010 at 21:17)
So why is it that the name of the animal rights groups isn't printed?
castleton resident, castleton (08/02/2010 at 21:53)
Alan (08/02/2010 at 22:10)
MPs gravy train, UK (08/02/2010 at 22:50)
The people of Rochdale have to start fighting back against this council. All 3 parties in the town have done nothing to help it and now it declines into a sorry state. We must fight back.
Bemused of Tameside., Dukinfield (08/02/2010 at 23:11)
Could they get an extension on the 28 days and try to raise funds?
This is so so sad, a worthwhile organisation being destroyed, for no just reason.
And un-named animal rights organisation ........ grow a spine, admit who you are and why you have destroyed this facility who does exactly what you believe in - HELP ANIMALS!!!!!
Acid, Chadderton (08/02/2010 at 23:27)
N Benn (08/02/2010 at 23:38)
2. Council ..why sit on their hands for the last 29 years - either abject failure in the imposition of the legislation or even worse for not even realising the place existed. Sack all those responsible for failing in their duty, guilty on both counts, no excuses. I'm afraid double standards will apply and they will walk away with their public funded pensions and perhaps even commendations for taking such actions at this stage.
3. Council preach community - yet singularly seek to destroy it. Yet more double standards. It is happening everywhere where "servants of the public" ( OK I am having a laugh) insist on their interpretation of badly written legislation to justify either their own position or jobs.
4. One man complains - the whole of the system comes out in force to protect that "individual". If 20000 working men walk down the street to complain and they are met with an injunction to prevent it. That is how twisted the system has become.
5. Returning to community, until those petty minded officials realise they are doing more to destroy community despite all their protestations of wanting it .. we will continue to see continued reductions in public spirited bodies and individuals giving time or effort for things that really make a difference, rather than the acres of paper pronouncing how much the council want it. Still yet they abjectly continue to destroy it, in the face of badly written and then interpretation of dictats. None of them have a breadth of view or vision beyond their own desk or worries about being "responsible" .
Yet another sad reflection and example on the destruction of our society. I can only imagine with the loss of this charity and facility for injured birds in Rochdale they will be heading in one direction. Hope they have enough cages and someone caring enough to look after them- that I doubt as well.
Good luck to all those who care so much, shame on those where-ever they be, for taking such action.
An Observer.
Graham D. Hurst, Tameside (09/02/2010 at 01:21)
I URGE EVERYONE WHO CARES ABOUT OUR FEATHERED WILDLIFE TO GIVE WHATEVER THEY CAN TO THIS CAUSE !! PLEASE !!!
LETS KEEP THIS PLACE OPEN, MYSELF AND MY WIFE HAVE TAKEN MANY SICK AND INJURED BIRDS HERE OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS AND HAVE DONATED MONEY EVERY TIME, TO HAVE THEM TREATED AND IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES, BROUGHT BACK TO FULL HEALTH DUE TO THE STERLING WORK OF THIS SANCTUARY !!!!
IF WE LET THIS GO .... WE ARE CONDEMNING THE FEATHERED WILDLIFE OF THE AREA TO EVEN MORE SUFFERING !!!! AND WE, IF WE CLASS OURSELVES AS DECENT HUMAN BEINGS, SHOULD NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN !!!!
it saddens me greatly that we could lose such a valuable service to our wildlife ..... I just hope that the so called "animal rights group" that brought this about are pleased with their result ..... they for one should realise what this establishment stands for !!!
Rochdale Council are clearly hiding something from everyone here ... they have been asked to provide a copy of the original letter of complaint under the Freedom of information act, but the best they offered to do was for Mr Rowlinson to say he would ask the 3rd party for permission to release this ... which is actaully against the law of the Freedom of information act ... how did they get away with this I wonder ??, the RSPB are supporting the keeping of the Sanctuary (they often sing the praises of the 3 Owls and recognise the valuable work it does, is that not endorsement enough to keep it open ??) why not the Council ???, in case anyone wonders if this information is correct ... it can be verified by obtaining a copy of the 3 Owls Newsletter Winter 2009 edition.
I suggest that it would very much suit Rochdale Council and some nearby residents to have the land cleared and sold off for high end residential development (think of all that lovely council tax income !!!)
LETS START SOMETHING OFF HERE TO SAVE THE 3 OWLS !!!, DO NOT LET THE COUNCIL DESTROY YET ANOTHER VALUABLE ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY !!!!
Stickman, Bury (09/02/2010 at 02:28)
jordy, Middleton (09/02/2010 at 08:30)
Wera Hobhouse (09/02/2010 at 08:53)
Mick Martin (09/02/2010 at 09:09)
I am sure Nigel wanted to close the sanctuary and not seek a solution as you imply. Get real.
Incidentally, I assume the Council took legal advice not advise.
Wera Hobhouse (09/02/2010 at 09:22)
G Inglish (09/02/2010 at 09:45)
You did not need to force this legislation on that wonderful place.
Of course there were birds to see when visiting the sanctuary - it's a bit obvious ain't it! Bur remember it was a HOSPITAL where birds went to get better and ultimately be released.
There were always going to be some birds which could not recover from their injuries, or were no longer able to look after themselves - if the birds could live a reasonable quality of life.
It seems that these birds should have been locked away out of sight...then the animal "welfare" (don't make me laugh!) would have got involved again!
This is a sad sad situation. Devastating. Just wait until the next election...there will be chance for the residents of Rochdale to show their disgust.
N Benn (09/02/2010 at 09:52)
Answer specifics
1. Why has the council delayed taking action for 27 years under the legislation ? Ignoring the legislation as you say, may have left you open to legal action. Delaying action for 27 years surely pronounces you guilty as charged, or am I missing the obvious unwritten law that gives councils unlimited time to comply?
2. Has this issue been brought to the attention of the parliament. Surely you have responsibility as a local representative of democracy to draw to the attention of those that make the decisions the errors of their ways. Hiding behind the barrier of central legislation is just a flimsy weak wristed response from many in local government offices.... "rules is rules" they say with no discretion and no thought about the consequences as they cannot think further than their pensions or desk or whether organisations and charities do good or harm.
You may be doing a good personal job for your community - now do something for them, escalate the issue. Challenge the rules in place rather than accept them like some subservient poodle.Manage your "managers" if you really want your community to prosper.
3. Ask yourself, was this of community value?. If so why are you not fighting to protect it, otherwise any talk from council of community based projects will be greeted with the scorn it deserves. You set the mood - you reap what you sow.
4. Reveal the complainant - surely the trustees and general public need to know as a matter of public information who seeks to destroy "good" community spirit.
Finally Wera.... ask yourself why the sanctuary made the decision to close .... did they do that of free will ? or as a result of pressure. Don't abdicate responsibility for the closure , the reason was clearly shared local authority, legislature , complainant and lawyers - but as the local representatives the local authority take a significant share of that blame.
MarkDubya, Somewhere in Salford (09/02/2010 at 09:52)
As for the council's involvement, they have duties to perform on both sides - they need to respond to the complaint and uphold the laws that bind then and us, and at the same time they need to try to preserve such a valuable community and environmental resource. If they've taken suitable and relevant advice and tried to put workarounds in place with the sanctuary which are still unacceptable, what more can they do?
If organising a membership scheme or restricting the number of birds 'on display' is really what this is about, surely there's no shortage of volunteers who would offer their help at no cost to the sanctuary?
People are too quick to point the finger at councils sometimes - there's more than one side to this.
tiggerluc, somewhere in shaw (09/02/2010 at 10:03)
A very sad day in Rochdale. And shame on the organisation that reported it - i know who it is that did it - and I am ashamed that you call your selfs what you do.
tiggerluc, somewhere in shaw (09/02/2010 at 10:07)
I am now waitng for the obligatory housing planning permission to be requested/passed. And that wil be the death kneel for the Council come May.
I am ashamed of Rochdale.
tiggerluc, somewhere in shaw (09/02/2010 at 10:09)