Edinburgh Zoo: 'There is still time to reach a compromise'

Published on Friday 10 July 2009 09:43

THERE will understandably be mixed emotions over the recommendation by Scottish Government Reporters that Edinburgh Zoo not be allowed to sell off land for development to fund its ambitious expansion plans.

Naturally there is disappointment from the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and jubilation from the Friends of Corstorphine Hill.

To many this might appear to be a typical neighbourhood planning issue. Local residents objecting to the building of more homes in the vicinity of their own. Although some might accuse them of simple Nimbysm they will no doubt have a whole range of reasons to justify their opposition.

But this is far from a local spat between them and their zoo neighbours and as we discover today – and the Evening News warned more than two years ago – the implications of their victory are far greater and the ramifications of possible great detriment to the city.

The RZSS is a charity. Apart from donations and gate takings it has practically no other source of income. It cannot be blamed for trying to capitalise on its only asset – its land bank – to try and fund its expansion plans. If it can be accused of anything it is over-ambition. An application to allow a developer to build seven-storey flats in land surplus to its requirements in such an area could be described by some as ill-advised.

But as zoo officials lick their wounds there are at least encouraging signs that they will not as some have suggested consider pulling out of the city altogether

Certainly it is inevitable the zoo will now shrink rather than expand and its animal collection will be reduced in size. And with the exception of improving the infrastructure on the smaller site, money that the RZSS has is now likely to be channelled into its other site and a proposed new animal attraction in Glasgow.

What effect this will have in subsequent years on a facility which is one of the country's leading visitor attractions and pumps millions each year into the city's economy remains to be seen.

But there is still time to reach a compromise that may suit both sides. The Reporters' recommendations are not binding. The zoo owners need to talk to the city council. They changed their minds once and although it is unlikely that they will do so again with regards to the original application they should be prepared to at least consider an amended scheme.

On a more general note, it is perhaps time to look at how such major non-profit-making public attractions are funded by the likes of the government. The once-popular Glasgow Zoo died a slow lingering death due to lack of investment. It would be a shame if Edinburgh were allowed to travel down the same road.