What needs to happen now is when these liberal democrats are out of the way, the next local government should return the sanctuary back to life and spend some money on rebuilding this complete mess. In theory, every sanctuary and wildlife centre in the country should also close as if the rules apply to Three Owls then it should apply to everyone. One local politician I was speaking to said it was very frightening what the Lib Dems were doing. A total lack of faith in them, unless of course you want to destroy the town. Lets fill in Hollingworth Lake next. That would be a good idea. Demolish the Town Hall and all the parks and cemetaries whilst we are at it.

   Perhaps what happens within the next 6 months could shed more light on this very sad to close the sanctuary so quickly. If there is a planning application to convert the sanctuary buildings into fancy new houses then I will be utterly disgusted. Over the years, millions of pounds have been given through kind generosity, will gifts, sponsorship and bequests. Every last penny should go to help the welfare of birds.

   Here is an email I received from the BORN FREE FOUNDATION

Dear Sir, The Born Free Foundation has received a number of communications following the closure of Three Owls Bird Sanctuary in Norden, Rochdale . Given the understandable level of concern regarding what has happened, and some of the inaccurate media reports surrounding this issue, the Born Free Foundation wish to set the record straight.

The Born Free Foundation has never called for the closure of Three Owls, nor commented on the wildlife rehabilitation work at this facility. Further, the Born Free Foundation has not submitted a “complaint” to Rochdale Council about Three Owls.

As part of the Born Free Foundation’s ongoing work over many years to ensure that all wild animal facilities in the UK are correctly licensed and inspected (designed to safeguard the interests of the public and the animals), a standard enquiry was sent to Rochdale Council asking whether or not the Council’s records showed Three Owls (as a facility apparently displaying wild animals to the public) was licensed as a zoo. No comment was made at any time about the conditions at the facility, nor were questions raised concerning the wildlife rehabilitation work at Three Owls.

Following that enquiry, it would appear that Rochdale Council visited Three Owls and, in consultation with their legal department, reached the opinion that the Zoo Licensing Act applied.

The Council has since stated that a number of options were presented to Three Owls that would, if implemented, have avoided the requirements of full licensing as a zoo. We are, therefore, surprised and disappointed to hear that Three Owls and Rochdale Council could not come to some sort of agreement on this issue, and that the wildlife rehabilitation work at Three Owls has ended.

In Great Britain , the responsibility for licensing zoos lies with the facility and with the Local Authority. A more proactive Local Authority might have reminded Three Owls of the terms of the Zoo Licensing Act and its requirements many years before this situation arose.

We are deeply concerned that representatives of Rochdale Council seem to blame the simple enquiry from the Born Free Foundation for what has subsequently occurred. Born Free objects in the strongest possible terms to being implicated in any way of causing the closure of Three Owls. The Rochdale Observer’s description of Born Free as the “group that shut down bird sanctuary” is completely inaccurate, unwarranted and misleading.

For the record, statements by Mr. Peter Rowlinson from Rochdale Council reported in the Rochdale Observer on 13th Feb 2010 seem to suggest or imply the involvement of the Born Free Foundation in attempts to close other sanctuaries in the UK – this is wholly erroneous.

Born Free greatly values the efforts of wildlife rehabilitators and recognises the vital role that genuine sanctuaries can play in caring for animals in need. As a result, we urge any facilities that keep wild animals and are open to the public to contact their Local Authority to ensure that they are operating within the law. Local Authorities need to be fully aware of their roles and responsibilities under the Zoo Licensing Act as they relate to premises with wild animals within their jurisdiction.

Note: For further information about the Zoo Licensing Act, the EC Zoos Directive and what they cover, please see: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/zoos/index.htm Yours truly Zoo Check Team Born Free Foundation

   The Trustees of the Three Owls have been trying to find out from Rochdale Council who had made the original complaint that they were operating As an unlicensed zoo. Even the Freedom of Information Act was not enough to identify the complainants.

The RSPB were never the front runners as the culprits in this. The RSPCA were suspected and there were suspicions that the Born Free Foundation might be responsible as they have been known to be the cause of shutting down other wild life hospitals and sanctuaries.

I suspect that Rochdale Council's reluctance to divulge this information was swayed when they realised that the public were laying the blame for the closure on their doorstep. Somehow a newspaper was able to publish the information.

The Council should have investigated and ruled that the Three Owls was not a zoo and stood by it. They should have known that in order to pursue this through the courts the Foundation would have had to reveal itself.

The Council is spineless and if they cannot protect a well loved and respected 48-year old wild life hospital from the bully boys what hope have the constituents got?

   Very interesting this .... it has been revealed that the complaint was brought by a charity called "Born Free Foundation based at Horsham .....

How can it be that one charity can"kill off" another ????, I certainly know where my donations will NOT be going to ...... and I urge others to do the same !!!!, absolutely disgraceful practice !!!!!!!, they should be thouroughly ashamed of their tactics !!!!!

   So the latest issue of Rochdale Observer names the Born Free Foundation as the culprit. This came as a shock especially after I was told from a very solid source that it was the RSPB. I must apologise for that. In fact, I sent a letter to the RSPB today so I await a response but I also emailed the Born Free Foundation urging them to make a public statement. They need to explain themselves.

   What seems to be the case is some kind of organisation put in a complaint, the council/politicians followed it up, and being as there were no exemptions to the rule, they have laid down the law and consequently Three Owls has had to close down. It is not the fault of the organisation as such – the problem is the council/politicians who are merely following procedure, which in this case is completely stupid. If there were exemptions, then all this business could have been settled without any fuss. No doubt it is far more complicated than this but this is my simplistic view of the matter.

   Shy talk...please expand on your suspicions.

It is important that all thoughts are considered. So far it is the council and councillors actions (or inactions!!!) that are unfathomable, so if there is something I'm missing - especially if it could be considered underhand by TOBS - then I'd be very interested in hearing it.

   Concerning the RSPB, I will send them a letter this weekend and demand an explanation although I cannot see them admitting to anything. I am a member of the RSPB but I will not be a member for long if it comes to pass that they initially put in a complaint. It is very odd that since all this madness started they have not offered any support for Three Owls. Far too quiet, me thinks. empress of britain

   I am very concerned that Rochdale is to lose a wonderful asset for the rehabilitation of birds if TOBS closes.

After taking the time and trouble to read all these messeages and the public correspondence from council officers and then Mr Fowler's views on the TOBS website, I still remain very concerned.

There seem to be loads of unfounded allegations and conspiracies flying around about council officers- from what I have read these passionate and emotive aggressive views simply don't stack up with the FACTS that have currently been presented.

Has anyone used the Freedom of Information Act to view Rochdale Council's TWO legal opinions they have relied upon on this matter? Have TOBS Trustees ever sought their own professional legal opnion on this matter?

We all have a right to see the facts.

Something stinks about all of this - I'm sorry to say that I am becoming ever more uncomfortable with the speed of the closure of the Sanctuary and the proposals that could be being formulated by the TOBS trust to develop the sanctary buildings and land beside Wolstenholme Rd.

No amount of insults and insinuations about Rochdale Council will make this concern go away. I would love to be proven wrong and see the sanctuary continue but I cannot help but be suspicious of those how are making the most noise about this.

   I see Wera has come out of her shell on the rochdaleonline forum.

Seems like she thinks TOBS wanted to close down.

I think she's been on the same "beverages" as Andy Glover...

   Peter Dignan - you seem to be mixing people up! It's the council who've been trying to close it with over regulation, not Nigel Fowler - whose been in the paper regularly battling to keep it going. It doesn't seem that long since the Council were trying to fine it £20,000 because of some noisy seagulls? Hmmm, I see on my latest visit that the complainants have their house for sale - do they gain if the charity goes?? It's Andy Glover - the councils 'public protection officer' who'se killing off the sanctuary to save us being attacked by a flock of sparrows

   I personally do not believe that their was a mystery complaint, I believe this statement is being turned out to deflect some of the blame for this abnorrent action, by the council. I think it is lies, and the fact no-one can see this so called complaint i belive belies the truth. I believe the council were out, or are out to make a fast buck, and Mr Fowler I believe is trying to further his own career by speaking on behalf of the council that his slippery little hands were tied.... what a load of TOSH.... he obviously has no grasp of the law when he cannot understand it is up to mr I will kill those birds Fowler to assist in interpreting that law. As for Hobhouse, we all understand whats meant by " we worked for several months to find a way round the situation". what is usually meant is "We spent several months telling them to do it our way, instructing them that there was no way round it, to pay more or we would have to relook at the law" Once again it is soft static targets that these cowardly, self serving, vile people target. Do they chase after people or things that cause real misery......no .... why ??? I think the main people involved in the three owls should stand for election, they should be supported to do so, and lets kick these onbnoxious councellers out of the seats their fat lazy backsides have kept warm for too long. Next time a counceller comes to your door to seek votes, just shout Three Owls at them, close the door and plan to vote for someone else... Once again I say I personally believe NO ANIMAL WELFARE GROUP MADE ANY COMPLAINT, YOU WILL NEVER FIND A COMPLAINT.. I do believe the closest to a complaint from a welfare org you will find, is a council member joining the RSPCA os such, and writing in as a member......

   This is the first time that I have heard that the RSPB might be at the bottom of this.

Nigel Fowler received a letter from the Head Office of the RSPB. The letter said:

'We have always known your centre to be one of the leading centres for rehabilitation of injured or orphaned wild birds. We certainly would not associate your facility with being a zoo...'

The rest of the details may be found on the Three Owls website under the heading of Zoo Licensing.

   As for as I am aware, it was the RSPB. I heard this on the grapevine. I did not mean the RSPCA who have already stated that they have never put in any complaints against Three Owls. empress of britain

   As far as I am aware the RSPB has always and still does support Three Owls. I believe John Wantling meant to write RSPCA and not RSPB.

   has a mistake been made, re RSPCA or, RSPB? just curious.

   On rochdaleonline, Eagle stated that Rochdale will have no unique selling points left apart from Hollingworth Lake, but don’t assume that, the council will close that if they have enough red tape. Streetshack stated there is no sense of history or any vision for the future, and that is clear to see.

I sponsor a hooded crow at Three Owls and I feel that it is criminal what our local politicians and the RSPB have done to close it down. The politicians should be supporting Three Owls as opposed to systematically destroying it. If the red tape is a farce, then there should be an exemption, and it is that simple. If there was an exemption, then this madness would not be happening.

On this site, VM states that a fish tank in a restaurant should not be treated as a zoo or required to apply for an exemption. Rather, it was intended that good sense should be applied by local authorities and that borderline decisions should be based on the individual facts and circumstances of the case. This Three Owls issue is more of a reflection of the state of politics than anything else. It is easy to form the general impression that the politicians are digging their own graves, in the process destroying the town. As for the RSPB, they should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves. empress of britain

   Sorry Leanne at the RSPCA, but I just can't rest easy even with your denial. I don't mean to be unkind but would think as Press Officer it comes under your remit to have just this kind of stock-in-trade statement ready to ship out for publication should the need arise. Of course it would definitively put the matter ‘to bed’ for a great many more people that the RSPCA have had no detrimental involvement if Rochdale Council were to stop stalling, get their fingers out and release the original letter of 'complaint' or 'concern' to those who've asked to see it, quite properly and legally, under the auspices of the FOI. As far as I can see the ball rests firmly in their court again now, particularly so after reading VM’s post below reproducing interesting and very relevant parts of the ZLA that clearly demonstrates the Council could and SHOULD have exercised a lot more discretion (and maybe an ounce or two of good old commonsense) when formulating their decision. It beggars belief that their “Legal Team” were actually looking at the same document, unless of course they’ve had to bow to outside pressures from whatever source and make sure this ‘cock & bull’ decision stuck…

For my own part and in an effort to get to the bottom of this from another direction, I have today sent both an email with hard copy follow-up to RSPCA’s HQ at Horsham for the attention of the current Chief Executive Officer, Mark Watts. I’ve included a link to this press page and basically requested very politely for either confirmation or denial of his organisation’s involvement. IF I receive anything back I shall let the relevant and interested parties know through the various forums and message boards out there relating to this topic - there’s enough of them out there - and I just hope this in itself sends out a message about the support that 3 Owls and all who’ve ever ‘sailed’ with her has and will always enjoy, despite the damage some are hell-bent on causing to it.

   To Peter Rochdale, Rochdale (!)

I hope you've not got children as you're hardly fit parenting material if your 'skills' would include passing on such a dismissive view of animals & birds. Its bad enough that you have such a harsh and skewed opinion of those who see fit to campaign for them when needed - because its called compassion. G. Inglish's reply to you is spot on, and as for those issues you speak about, whilst everyone in their right mind is concerned about the heinous crimes that are committed all too often it shouldn't preclude us from focussing on other areas of concern too. It is an unfortunate fact of life that creatures of the animal kingdom are usually more at our mercy than those of our own species and your kind of comment is at best unhelpful.

   Peter Rochdale

Looks like a debate to me. Whats to debate if some one is raped and murdered. Usually people dont have words for something so horrific.

Seems like you need the reality check not the posters.

   "Peter Rochdale"

I find your comment far more offensive than I think the majority of comments on here are to you!

This discussion is about TOBS and NOT about children dying, being attacked or raped. I suggest that if everyone who has posted on here feels like they do about "dumb animals", then their feelings towards offences against children will be very much magnified.

Think first and don't be a plonker.

   Well I've seen and heard it all now. The majority of you who have written on this should be ashamed!! 70 Comments so far! But when a child dies or someone is attacked or raped where are your comments then??!! We all have to remember here that these are just dumb animals. Time for you all to get a grip on reality!

   I found this info on the internet regarding the Zoo Legislation Act which makes interesting reading:-

A further section attached to the ZLA gives guidance on various terms used within the Act.

With regard to …‘kept for exhibition to the public…’ the guidance states that Defra’s guidance circular (02/2003) refers to the original intentions of the legislators as to what types of establishment should be considered to be zoos and is paraphrased below. In drafting the ZLA, it was found impossible to arrive at a definition which was sufficiently embracing to cover all types of what common sense tells us are zoos and yet to exclude very minor cases which are obviously not zoos. It was never intended that local authorities should apply the ZLA so officiously as to cover every possible circumstance which could theoretically fall within the Act’s definition. For example, a fish tank in a restaurant should not be treated as a zoo or required to apply for an exemption. Rather, it was intended that good sense should be applied by local authorities and that borderline decisions should be based on the individual facts and circumstances of the case. This provides important context for interpretation of the legislation.

It goes on to say:

Why are the animals kept? If the purpose, or one of the purposes, of keeping the animals is that people (other than the owner or keeper) should see them then presumably they are “kept for exhibition”. The ZLA does not refer to an establishment where animals merely can be seen by the public, but to an establishment where it is (part of) the purpose that they should be seen by the public. It is worth noting that although this interpretation has not been tested in court, a number of legal officers of local authorities have already interpreted it this way. They have recommended no zoo licensing because of the belief that the owner could demonstrate that exhibition to the public was not the reason, or one of his reasons, for keeping the animals.

I like the part that says 'good sense should be applied by local authorities'. The legislators obviously thought that they were dealing with intelligent people!

It is obvious in the second section that Rochdale Council are at liberty to exclude Three Owls from the ZLA if they wish to.

Leanne, I am very pleased that someone from the RSPCA has finally confirmed that the RSPCA is not responsible for this situation. I have very strong views on pedigree dogs (and cats) being bred in some instances to accentuate certain characteristics. Some of these characteristics cause an enormous amount of pain and distress to these sad animals. The RSPCA has turned a blind eye to this for years.

The resident birds at Three Owls live contented lives with no cruelty involved. For the sake of a difference in opinion the RSPCA refuse to pass on injured & orphaned birds because of Three Owls policy to refuse to perform euthanasia on a very small number of individuals.

So what does the RSPCA do when an injured or orphaned wild bird is reported to them?

   In an attempt to help to save the 3 Owls my wife and I are trying to involve the RSPCA in this matter and send them an urgent email with a link to the MEN's story but despite searching long and hard on the RSPCA website, we are unable to find an email address to which to post it Yes I am aware that their name keeps coming up in relation to this matter, I wonder, with their obvious want to remain unobtainable do they really have something to hide in this matter as a number of the posters here are suggesting with reference to the FOI disclosure act that Rochdale MBC is VERY reluctant to reveal the FULL details as requested by Law ?