Three Owls Bird Sanctuary Update

The trustees of Three Owls Bird Sanctuary "failed to turn up" at the Norden Area Forum to answer questions about the sudden closure of the Sanctuary, instead a voluntary worker at the Sanctuary, John Thorpe, attended. Mr Thorpe said he would answer questions on behalf trusteee Nigel Fowler. Head of Planning at Rochdale Borough Council, Peter Rawlinson, and the head of Public Protection, Andy Glover attended from the Council, along with the three Norden ward councillors, Jim Gartside, Ann Metcalfe and Wera Hobhouse.

Mr Thorpe spoke to explain the trustees’ decision to suddenly, and critics say prematurely, close the Sanctuary. He reiterated the well publicised accusation that the Council was responsible for the closure of the Sanctuary saying that though a letter from the Council giving the trustees 28 days to respond to various options was not a closure notice, as the trustees did not consider any of the options workable, they considered the letter was imposing the Zoo Licensing Act (ZLA), the legislation at centre of the closure controversy, and hence defacto a closure notice.

Mr Rawlinson for the Council said the letter was quite categorically not imposing the ZLA, and in fact, the "Council did not, and still has not, declared Three Owls a zoo" under the scope of the Act. He said the Council was in discussion with Mr Fowler and awaiting a response to the letter outlining the council’s position, and were very shocked when, two weeks before the 28 day response period suggested in the letter, the Council heard from a ward councillor that the Sanctuary had closed.

Pressed for evidence to back up his undoubtedly emotional appeal, Mr Thorpe could not provide any and continued with his hyperbolic choice of language, accusing the Council of a “McCarthy like zeal”, of “misleading the public”, and claiming the trustees “cried blood” over the decision to close.

Mr Thorpe revealed "the final straw" was a phone call from ‘Animal Health’ in Bristol, a department of DeFRA, to Nigel Fowler in which Mr Fowler was informed that the Sanctuary would require a commercial licence, with a consequent significant increase in running costs for the Sanctuary. Further, Mr Thorpe claimed that the commercial licence condition was to be imposed regardless of whether the Council classed the Sanctuary as a zoo under the ZLA legislation. As the Sanctuary could not afford the consequences of a commercial licence the trustees took the decision to close.

Asked if the Sanctuary had written confirmation of this Mr Thorpe said it did not.

Asked why the Sanctuary had not requested written confirmation before taking the decision to close, Mr Thorpe said he could not answer for Mr Fowler.

Ward councillors Ann Metcalfe and Wera Hobhouse both explained they had attended meetings with Mr Fowler and council officers, and as far as they were concerned discussions were ongoing when the trustees suddenly closed the sanctuary.

The councillors further pointed out that the Council was duty bound to investigate following the enquiry from the Animal Welfare organisation about the Sanctuary’s status under the ZLA. Mr Thorpe agreed the Council did have to investigate but he felt the council did not understand that the primary purpose of the sanctuary was not the exhibition of birds to the public, though such exhibition formed an important part of the Sanctuary’s ability to attract donations from the public, and was necessary to comply with their charitable status.

Much debate followed but the crux comes down to the content and interpretation of a letter sent by the Council in January to Mr Fowler, the letter claimed by the trustees and some supporters to be a defacto closure notice, an accusation refuted by Mr Rawlinson and Mr Glover.

A vote was held to gauge the feeling of those present at the Fourm meeting to see if they would like to see the letter published, all 28 present were in favour.

Having been asked specifically if the letter could be published, Mr Thorpe again said he could not speak for Mr Fowler but when pressed for his personal opinion he said: “I can see no reason why it should not be.”

Rochdale Online has asked both the Council and Mr Fowler for permission to publish the letter, the Council has agreed but Mr Fowler has persistently avoided answering the request in his replies, until this morning when by email he said he would not give his permission but went on to say he did not consider his permission was needed anyway, but gave no reason for this assertion.

When asked why the Sanctuary could not be re-opened given the willingness of the Council and councillors to find a workable solution, and the huge groundswell of support from the public, Mr Thorpe would only say that it is “clutching at straws to think the Sanctuary could be re-opened.”

Expensive equipment at the Sanctuary is in the process of being dismantled and given to sanctuarys in other town’s, this is allowed under the Sanctuary’s Deed of Trust, though critics argue this should not have started without adequate notice to the public who have supported the Sanctuary with their donations.

Mr Rawlinson said the Council would still like to continue discussions with the trustees of Three Owls to find a solution and had made several attempts to contact Mr Fowler but Mr Fowler had proved elusive.

The Council is now looking at ways the work previously carried out at Three Owls can be carried on in the town: 

www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/38418/council-recruiting-new-trustees-to-see-three-owls-work-continue