Bristol Zoo Gardens (Part 2) - Why?

Bristol Zoological Society has so far sold this decision to the people of Bristol as unavoidable; “safeguarding the Zoo’s future” and helping to further their mission of conservation and “saving wildlife together” following the pandemic. This is smoke and mirrors. BZS did lose money during the pandemic - £1.8m – unquestionably a large sum of money but nowhere near enough to vindicate their decision to sell Bristol Zoo Gardens.

Up until the pandemic hit in March 2020, Bristol Zoological Society’s intention was to invest £25m in both Bristol Zoo and the Wild Place Project, as stated in their 2019 financial accounts. By Autumn of 2020 they announced they were to close Bristol Zoo. What changed? At that stage, despite temporarily running into trouble with an insurance policy – later resolved - they hadn’t even lost £1.8m, unquestionably a large amount of money but not enough to justify selling Bristol Zoological Gardens.

But according to inside sources, the CEO, Chair and Vice-Chair of Trustees made the previously unthinkable, thinkable, by suggesting having the Clifton site valued with a view to selling. The management and trustees were subsequently advised by their estate agents that if they can sell the Clifton site, with planning permission to build residential homes, they can achieve a largely increased sale value than without planning permission for homes. Whatever else they might claim publicly, it is nakedly transparent that the Zoo’s motivations are being singularly driven by achieving the maximum sale value for their Clifton site.

The Zoo would probably counter that they’ve made an operating loss for four out of the last six years. They would also say they face inherent limitations by not being able to expand beyond the 12 acres of their Clifton site and that they’ve been suffering declining visitor number for several years now.

None of these points stand up to serious scrutiny.

- A charitable visitor attraction attracting well over half a million visitors a year and still making an operating loss is not being especially well run meaning this could be turned around under new leadership.

- It is true that they can’t expand beyond their existing footprint but that hasn’t stopped them from thriving for the past 186 years. Of course there has been much progress over the years about how to keep animals in captivity but that has developed over the years and they have the Wild Place to expand to for larger animals in the future.

- When you analyse the visitor numbers from the past 10 years of both BZG’s and the WPP, there are many fluctuations based on a variety of factors and there is nothing to suggest that visitor numbers cannot increase again in the future under the right leadership and a different strategy.

- You will notice that the attendance figures for BZ went down in 2014 but then went up again in 2015 and 2016. They then stabilised in 2018+19.

- It should be noted that (notwithstanding Covid), Bristol Zoo’s attendance figures for every year were substantially higher than the Wild Place.

- It should also be noted that broadly speaking (again, notwithstanding Covid) overall attendance figures for the Society have been going up year on year since 2013.

From talking to sources at the Zoo, I believe there are certain members of the Zoo’s senior management who are eager to ‘make their mark’ by creating a “new zoo, fit for the 21st Century” that has more to do with personal ambition than it does to do with conservation or what is best for Bristol Zoological Society.

Weighing up all the evidence, it is very hard not to draw the conclusion that Bristol Zoological Society’s management saw an opportunity to use the pandemic as a smokescreen to justify selling Bristol Zoo in Clifton in order to raise the money they so desperately wanted to invest in the Wild Place. By making the strategic choice to sell Bristol Zoo Gardens, they are taking a significant shortcut to raising £25-50m they had previously hoped to raise in a more sustainable and gradual way. But at what cost?

For the Zoo’s senior management, it would appear that the prospect of having £40-50m swelling the Zoo’s bank account to fast-track their grand plan was clearly too hard to resist.

The Zoo’s starting point for this decision was clearly, “we have an incredibly valuable asset which we can sell if needed,” so it’s therefore no surprise they have ended up in this place. If the Zoo had closed off that option from the start, it seems very likely they would have ended up in a different place which would not have involved the sale of the Zoo.

An immediate sale of Bristol Zoo is not critical and with time available, if the will and desire were there from the senior management and trustees to find another strategy and if their starting point was; “we must keep both sites open”, this undoubtedly could be possible.

Why can the Wild Place not be developed more slowly as a trade-off for keeping BZG’s open? There is no deadline about the rate of development needed at the Wild Place.

Selling Bristol Zoo Gardens is not an imminent necessity for the society. It is a strategic choice. But the true cost to the city of Bristol cannot be measured in ‘£’s. It will not be felt by the Zoo’s senior management or trustees. It will be felt by hundreds of thousands of the Zoo’s loyal members and visitors. People – young and old who live in Bristol and whose mental health and quality of life is greatly enhanced by Bristol Zoo Garden’s presence in the city. It will be felt by all those who love experiencing exotic wildlife in the heart of their own city.