Agenda item - Zoo Licensing

Report of the Head of Planning and Public Protection (copy  attached)

26.1    The Committee considered a report of the Head of Planning and Public Protection outlining the process for Zoo Licensing and requesting that the Committee note the licensing determination and renewal inspection process that officers completed in order to renew the licence for the Sea Life Centre which fell within the requirements of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. As well as determining the current application for renewal the Committee were requested to consider whether they wished  a recommendation to be made to the Policy and Resources Committee that in reviewing the constitution Zoo Licensing Act determinations should in future be reserved to the Licensing Committee and whether in future the Committee considered it desirable for the proper conduct  of the Sea Life Centre that an elected Member be engaged in the zoo’s ethical review process by joining its Ethics Committee in line with the recommendations set out in the DEFRA Zoos Expert Committee handbook.

26.2    It was explained that the licensing and inspection of zoos was a matter for local authorities under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. This Act set out how zoos in Great Britain were inspected and licensed in order to ensure that they were safe for the public to visit, that high standards of welfare were maintained and that zoos made a contribution to the conservation of wildlife. It also implemented the European Council Directive 1999/22/EC in the UK.

26.3    The Sea Life Centre was Brighton and Hove’s only zoo and was currently licensed under the Zoo Licensing Act 981. The zoos current licence was due for renewal during March 2013. Such licenses were issued for a six year period.

26.4    Mr Levison, General Manager of the Sea Life Centre stated that whilst he was aware of the views of some action groups regarding zoos and also in respect of the Sea Life Centre, they would have to agree to disagree. He considered it was very important to stress the active role that the Sea Life Centre played in wildlife conservation, it was actively involved in the care and preservation of several endangered species. The centre took an active role in education and took its responsibilities in looking after the animals in its care very seriously. It went well beyond the minimum standards set as evidenced by the current DEFRA report which had been circulated as an appendix to the report. It should be noted that there had been no problems arising from the manner in which the Sea Life Centre was run. The zoos Ethics Committee was well balanced body of impartial experts and he did not therefore feel that if a Councillor was to sit on this body that it would add anything to the current arrangements.

26.5    Councillor Hawtree stated that he was rather perturbed by Mr Levison’s apparent  reticence regarding involvement of Councillors on the Ethics Committee as he considered that to have “lay” representation on this body could be very helpful .

26.6    Councillor Wakefield concurred with Councillor Hawtree stating that involvement on this body could be valuable in assisting members in answering questions received from residents (these were received periodically), relating to the manner in which the Sea Life Centre was run.

26.7    Ms Thornton, (the vet who carried out inspections for the Sea Life Centre) was also in attendance and explained that to appoint a Councillor appointed by the local authority to the Sea Life Ethics Committee would run counter to Government guidance regarding appointments to that body.

26.8    Councillor Simson stated that the report and its accompanying appendices, particularly the latest DEFRA report (Appendix 2) served to reinforce what a wonderful resource the centre provided for the city and how it had improved its offering year on year. Whilst happy to note the work carried out by the centre which was excellent and went far beyond the standards required, she would not wish to be associated with recommendations that the future grant of licences should fall to the Committee or that the local authority should appoint a councillor to sit on the zoo Ethics Committee. The establishment was clearly well run no problems had been reported and it was not appropriate for there to be any political interference in its management.

26.9    Councillor Lepper stated that she concurred wholeheartedly with Councillor Simson. There were no other instances where local authorities were directly involved in the running of a zoo in the manner suggested. She considered that it was appropriate for decisions regarding the licence to be delegated to those who were professionally qualified to do so and did not consider that the involvement of lay people could add anything to the arrangements which were already in place. This was a matter for consideration by the Committee, there was no necessity for political involvement in the decision making process.

26.10  Councillor Cobb stated that the report showed all the hard work that went on behind the scenes, and thought that the centre ought to do more to publicise its work, she did not however see why it had been considered necessary for a report to be put to the Committee.

26.11  Councillor Hyde concurred stating that she had every confidence in the ability of the staff to run the Sea Life Centre properly and agreed that there was no reason for a report to come forward to the Committee. She enquired why and who had taken the decision for a report to come forward.

26.12  The Chair, Councillor Duncan explained that that periodically he received comments and questions from residents regarding operation of the Sea Life Centre. It was a unique facility in Brighton and Hove and in the interests of democracy and transparency he had considered it was appropriate for a report to be brought forward to Committee. He also considered that it was appropriate for a Councillor to sit on the Ethics Committee as they would then be better placed to answer those questions received from residents.

26.13  Councillor C Theobald stated that the DEFRA report was glowing in its praise, the centre had built up a high reputation over a number of years, and she would not be supporting recommendations 2 and 3 as she considered them to be unnecessary.

26.14  Councillor Gilbey stated that as regular inspections were carried out by professionally qualified inspectors she did not consider that any action was necessary.

26.15  A Vote was then taken on each of the individual recommendations. Recommendation 1 as set out below was agreed on a vote of 12 to 0 .

Recommendation 2 was lost on a vote of 10 to 4 with 1 abstention.

Recommendation 3 was also lost on a vote of 10 to 4 with 1 abstention.

26.16  RESOLVED – That the Committee notes the licensing determination and renewal inspection process that officers have completed to renew the licence for the Sea Life Centre, Marine  Parade, Brighton.