Zoo's future 'secure' despite rejecting pounds 35m deal: Both sides say decision was 'amicable' after six months of negotiations to build walk-through aquarium and cinema
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.LONDON ZOO insisted that its financial future was secure yesterday, despite its decision to reject a pounds 35m joint venture with a consortium of
investors.
The zoo denied reports that its rejection of the plans would plunge it into a new crisis and said projections for 1992-93 suggested it would break even for the first time in 15 years.
City investors, known collectively as New Zoo Developments (NZD) and led by the entertainment entrepreneur, David Laing, a member of the building family, intended to construct a walk-through aquarium and a wildlife cinema at the 36-acre site in Regent's Park, central London. They had been negotiating with the Zoological Society of London for more than six months but talks broke down over Easter weekend. Both sides said the decision was amicable, but NZD immediately said that it would make an announcement about 'exciting new plans' at another site in London within seven to ten days, fuelling speculation that it could set up in direct competition with the zoo.
Sir John Chapple, chairman of the Zoological Society, said the zoo was still open to the idea of outside investment or partnership, but he added: 'Despite constructive talks . . . we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we will not be able to proceed with the NZD proposals.'
He praised the work put into the talks by Mr Laing, but analyses by the Council of the Zoological Society indicated that the plans would not provide 'sufficient financial benefit for London Zoo'.
Privately, it is understood some members of the council and senior staff members were concerned that Mr Laing's aquarium would not be fully integrated into the zoo. 'It was to have had its own separate admission charge and would have been built ahead of the improvements planned for the rest of the zoo,' one said. 'It would have been a case of paying admission X for one spangly new bit of the zoo and admission Y for another. There was also concern because NZD said they would move in with their own public relations, marketing and promotions people.'
Ronel Lehmann, spokesman for NZD, confirmed there was no 'malice' on either side but conceded that the Zoological Society had been concerned about sovereignty. 'We will be announcing our new plans in seven to ten days because we want to put this episode behind us,' he said.
One official close to the talks said the potential investors were surprised their offer had been rejected. 'These were blue-chip investors - David Laing, Samuel Montagu (the merchant bankers), and Daiwa (the investment bankers),' he said. 'The City is a small place. You turn people like that down, and other people decide not to get involved with you.'
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments