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

I think this situation could be solved quite easily I know some people will take offence but this is what to do.

Now Mr Gill has closed or going to close the zoo the council should appeal to the courts and get a compulsory purchase order on the collection this will solve everyone's problems simples!

 

This issue regarding Dave Gill closing the safari zoo or has closed it is all smoke and mirrors. He has not closed or attempted to close the park, albeit in a rant that he posted. The local council are not aware of any section 19 closure and there has been no paperwork or report making such a claim. All we have is the ramblings from a desperate man ranting on that he will close the park because he feels that the local council are always against him. As for this six month rant from Gill about rehousing animals, again just the mutterings from a desperate man. The safari zoo park are still advertising for a keeper and they have just filled a marketing mangers job. It is very unlikely that Dave Gill has employed new staff only to fire them within days or weeks of the new contract.

 

er, it doesn't work like that!

You can only CPO property (so you cannot CPO the collection).

You can only CPO property under certain circumstances (such as requiring the land to facilitate development, such as a road or town centre redevelopment).

It is a long process so even if it was an option, which it isn't, Gill could spend months (years?) arguing the toss.

 

It was just an idea but I take it this wouldn't work then it's a shame because I'm sick and tired of hearing the rubbish he comes out with any way happy new year everyone.

 

Point taken Stubeanz, I didn't know the owner was still keeping animals privately. I can understand about the money situation,though I did think it was a rather an odd choice to start a zoo in that corner of Kent, given some of the very local and well known competition.

 

Well yes it is rather, but as you point out the council has a duty to fulfill it's roll in the licensing of anything, or face the consequences it's self. at least some lower level person will.

When I worked in an Northern Parks department every time we won the Britain in bloom competition it was management, every time we lost it was the gardeners..............

 

May be so TLD, but they did produce a leaflet this year I picked some up while in Kent, I had some older ones as well once over, but they only ever seemed to be of quite local distribution.

 

Safari Zoo / Dave Gill has said the following:

 

Oh to be a fly on the wall!

But I suspect it will end in tears.

 

Interesting to note how few members of South Lakes actually attended (14 apologies for absence!) compared to that of the council, it speaks for itself I think.

 

Doesn't this refer to e.g. 'item 14- Apologies for absence' as it would appear on their agenda? It appears to involve just a few councillors only.

 

why post this on facebook,what points does gill hope to score
no solutions will be found as gill only has his own agenda to work to and any other point of view is irrelevant

 

There were three apologies for absence from councillors. And one had arranged for a substitute to attend in her place. So nothing out of the ordinary there.

 

The Councillor who arranged a substitute sat in the public seating, her substitute was a man called Lee Gill. Councillor Heath is employed by the zoo as their marketing manager and she also sits on the planning committee.

 

My understanding is that a councillor with a prejudicial interest should not remain in the room. I would assume (hope?) that the surname of the substitute member is merely coincidental. Cllr Heath would have a prejudicial interest in any zoo application which came before planning.

 

Just a small technical point (as I know you're keen on all the details on this place ), the council really does not have any authority or qualification to judge whether Gill's wife is qualified to be a director or not -that is the remit of the law and/or Companies House.

In actuality most adults can become a company director (you, me, Mark Felix, etc.) -the only exceptions tend to be those specifically barred (e.g. where the law has banned them being a director for X years) or for companies where specific technical qualifications may be needed to trade as a certain type of company(e.g. chartered/certified accountants). As far as I know, there are no specific qualifications to be a zoo director (as there are none to be a trustee) so any assertion by the council that Mrs Gill is unfit as a director would be wildly inappropriate and possibly defamatory.

The council are, of course, the judges of whether it's appropriate she hold a zoo licence.

Absolutely, the share ownership cuts through everything as he ultimately has the ability to appoint/un-appoint directors (who nominally control the business on behalf of the shareholders). The only way he'd "let's go" of the place would be if he transferred a majority of shares to an unconnected (non-crony) individual or transferred the zoo ownership to a trust (where he had no influence). Personally I think this unlikely, though not impossible, given the time/money he's invested in making this a valuable, profit-generating, asset -it would be hard, financially and psychologically, to walk away from that without getting something in return.

 

As far as I am aware, and please feel to correct me on this, is that a person who has been found guilty of an offence against animals can not hold any job or, post or, directorship or, own a zoo. Likewise, if a person who has been barred from being a director or owning a company via court and has been mentioned by Companies House, HMRC and the London Gazette. The council are within their legal right to define the interpretation of the law regarding who can or cannot hold a zoo licence, central government does allow for this to happen as the range is open to and per individual council or local government. What I think the council may be inferring to, again feel free to correct, is that Frieda Rivera-Schreiber, the wife of Dave Gill, has not held office and or owned a business or has had any such dealings with UK business practices, given that she is not from the UK.

 

Ahh someone who knows what theyre talking about!

 

Whilst I'm no legal expert, an offence against animals would not, in itself prevent someone from being a director anymore than (say) drink driving would. Perhaps paradoxically, many offences do not discount an individual from being fit and proper enough to be a company director. I wouldn't assume to know whether such a charge would necessarily prevent someone from holding a job in a zoo (though one would hope, very extenuating circumstances discounted, that they would do) and doubt whether such an offence would necessarily prevent someone owning shares in a zoo though I can only imagine they'd be problems with the zoo licence in such a situation.

Are you suggesting someone from South Lakes is guilty of such an offence?

Is that the case pertaining to this situation? If so I'm unaware. Note that disqualifications only, generally last a finite time (though can be up to twenty years).

So, basically you're suggesting the council have concerns that she may not have the experience to be director (specifically of the zoo) rather than being (legally) able to be a director, in general? I can see it's within their remit to state their opinion on the matter but surely if she's been David Gill's wife for a while she'll have picked up a reasonable level of knowledge to be a director of a zoo* (more so, I'd imagine than many people who appoint themselves directors of any newly opened zoos)? The fact that she's not from the UK or has not previously been involved in business really has little bearing on the matter (everyone's a beginner once and how many "UK directors" do you think are fully conversant in UK company law?).

To be honest, I think we're (over) sweating the small stuff here. I'm happy to see opinion on Gill/South Lakes but if he's going to be crucified I want it to be on hard facts not implication, or conjecture and I think it's important to weed out (possibly) incorrect facts/inferences -basically, everyone should be entitled to a "fair trial" (by internet).

*not a cue for cheap quips everybody