NEW WRANGLE IN CLOSURE OF THE ZOO was the headline in the Wandsworth borough guardian newspaper. The headline refered to the admission by Martin Stratton, assistant director of amenity services, that the council had never produced an official report on how the zoo measures up to EU demands and that expensive upgrading was necessary only in the council's oppinion. This information was recieved by Dr Tanya Bowyer-Bower, a battersea resident and part of the campaign group trying to prevent the closure. This added weight to her previous assumption that the council's arguments for closure had been deliberatly misleading. The part of the letter which confirms Dr Bower's mistrust of the council's arguments reveals the following - There has not been a report undertaken by the council on the shortfalls of the zoo set against EU standards. However, we have determined that if we are to retain an ecceptable (to the council's) high standard of service in the zoo, there must be an educational facility, disability facilities, toilets and good washing facilities...and a cafe. In addition we must make improvements to the animal enclosures.
Where are the EU regulations that the council has based their arguments on. As we know, the argument is all about making a saving and also in the bargain, earning a quarter of a million pounds per year from leasing public land.
SOUND-BITES:
Zoo staff have been threatened with disciplinary action regarding anti-closure comments. The council have provided a pro-closure statement at the zoo entrance. Zoo staff are not allowed to hold a petition to allow the public to show their disaproval.
The council have sounded out the need for a good cafe. The curent snack bar is farmed to an outside contractor. If the council's argument is that the zoo does not make enough money, why can the cafe not be part of the zoo income? As we know, there is great profit in the selling of food.
The zoo has no ability to search for competative tendering regarding, food supplies and maintainance contractors. All Contractors and suppliers have to be approved by the council.
Some councilors have issued staements relaying to the fact that they could not vote for closure of the zoo unless it was absolutely assured that the new proposal would go ahead. They do not want the borough to be without an attraction like this. Why?, if that is the case, would they be voting to close the zoo in the first place. We have an attraction in place that needs a little investment. Perhaps the fact that it does not make them vast amounts of money which allows them to prop-up some of the failings that has arisen due to the many years of low council tax.
The low council tax is an illusion which has seen hundreds of services, now known as non-core services axed and swept under the carpet. It is only when you view the increasing list of casualties that it becomes apparant.
