Zoos and safari parks
This publication is intended for Valuation Officers. It may contain links to internal resources that are not available through this version.
This section applies to all zoo and safari park premises.
List Description: Zoo and Premises or Safari Park and Premises Primary Description Code: LX SCAT code: 304, suffix S
This is a specialist class of property, to be valued by Specialists in each Business Unit.
The Class Co-ordination Team has overall responsibility for the co-ordination of this class. Contact details are in VP and CCT Members. The team is responsible for the approach, accuracy and consistency of valuations. The team will deliver Practice Notes describing the valuation basis for revaluation and provide advice as necessary during the life of the rating lists. Caseworkers have a responsibility to:
-
follow the advice given at all times
-
not depart from the guidance given on appeals or maintenance work, without approval from the co-ordination team
-
seek advice from the co-ordination team before starting any new work
Zoos and Safari Parks are licensed under the UK Zoo Licensing Act (1981), and the Secretary of State’s Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (2004), and are subject to meeting specified requirements as regards public education, conservation and animal welfare.
Zoos and Safari Parks should be measured to net internal area (NIA) or gross external area (GEA), depending upon the use of the building, in accordance with the Valuation Office Code of Measuring Practice for Rating Purposes.
The survey should include the following information:
-
a site plan showing the full extent of the property, location of all buildings together with their use and any other information
-
details of access and parking
-
entry charges including details of any concessionary rates, yearly rates, free admissions policy
-
times and days of opening including details of any seasonal closures
-
details of any other facilities provided such as use for conferences, research facilities, head/regional offices and conservation activities
-
if the occupation is by a charity details should be obtained of any trading company operating all or part of the property, e.g. shops and restaurants
-
a brochure for the property
In all cases plans and surveys should be stored in the property folder of the Electronic Document Records Management (EDRM) system.
8.1 Method of valuation
It is unlikely that such occupations will be under an arm’s length lease and, in any event, passing rents are unlikely to reflect the tenant’s improvements involved in creating the hereditament. Much of the value will be inherent in, for a Safari Park, the open pens and for a Zoo in the cages and pens. As many operators of this class are commercially orientated, the main approach to valuation should be on the basis of receipts and expenditure (R&E) - for guidance see RM Section 4 Part 2.
The only post-war rating case concerned the valuation of Chessington Zoo — Surrey County Valuation Committee v Chessington Zoo Ltd KBD 1950 RIT Vol 43. Judicial approval was given to the valuation of the zoo on a full receipts and expenditure basis in preference to a valuation estimating the rent which would be given for the premises if used for domestic or institutional purposes, plus a percentage on the capital cost of erecting buildings and some addition for the primarily favourable transport facilities. It was also held that profits were not necessarily the sole element in arriving at the value of the premises. Other issues concerned the adjustment of the relevant accounts to derive the bid of the hypothetical tenant.
8.2 Accounts information
Given the method of valuation, a valuation based on the accounts will be the best starting point. It is essential that the accounts information is provided for at least three years prior to the Antecedent Valuation Date; full copies of audited accounts should be requested.
Where available this will give a comprehensive guide as to past trading achievements, identify any trend and enable the fair maintainable receipts to be estimated. The rental bid of the hypothetical tenant at the antecedent valuation date (AVD) can then be derived and will reflect likely future levels of receipts and expenditure.
Care needs to be exercised to identify abnormalities in the accounts. These can vary from such things as two Easter holiday periods in one accounting year to unseasonal poor weather and specific unusual trading circumstances.
Where the Zoo or Safari Park is in receipt of any grants, subsidies or subscriptions these should be added to the gross receipts where it can reasonably be assumed that they would be received by the hypothetical tenant on a continuing basis. However where the organisation either runs off-site activities, i.e. conservation or off-site research projects, then the funds spent solely on the off-site activity should be excluded, but care needs to be taken to ensure that such elements as shared staff and premises facilities are correctly accounted for.
It is not unusual with these types of hereditaments to find concession occupations. Checks must be made to ensure that any such occupations are identified, terms of the concession understood and the appropriate income identified and valued correctly.
Valuations arrived at using a full R&E valuation should be analysed as a percentage of gross receipts to facilitate comparison with other properties where full accounts are not available — see 8.3.
8.3. Comparative approach
In the absence of full accounts information the RV should be arrived at using a comparative valuation method applying a rental percentage to the estimated Fair Maintainable Trade (FMT) as at the AVD having regard to the actual gross receipts (excluding VAT).
See the relevant Practice Note for further guidance on percentages to be applied.
All valuations should be entered onto the Non-Bulk Server (NBS) under the relevant Scat Code.
Additional support is available through:
- Survaid
- Class Co-ordination Team for Leisure Attractions
1. Market appraisal
1.1 Properties will range from the large nationally known Zoos and Safari Parks to the small local Zoo or Safari Park which house only a few animals or species. Many of these are commercial concerns where the desire exists to trade profitably. However, there are also many sites which are operated by a scientific society, preservation body or other charitable organisation whose aims may not be purely commercial.
1.2 The primary function of these types of hereditaments is the exhibition of wild animals, although over the last few years, there has been a move for sites to become increasingly linked with wildlife and conservation projects in the UK and abroad.
1.3 Following their establishment in the 19th century, Zoos have traditionally consisted of a series of buildings and enclosures that afforded the animals limited movement; their sole object being the display of species. This concept has seen substantial change with the introduction of Safari Parks and latterly an increasing emphasis on conservation and protection.
1.4 Following the success of the Safari Parks and changing public attitudes towards wild animals, Zoos became much more conscious of the necessity to provide more space for their animals as well as exhibiting them in habitats more closely aligned to their natural setting.
1.5 As with all wildlife enterprises there is pressure from animal welfare organisations and welfare concerns put zoos’ visitor numbers at risk, with certain elements of the public being concerned that the practice of keeping animals out of their natural environment is unethical. As a result, these venues are under more pressure than ever to prove that their animals are well cared for. Social media, used as advertising by many leisure operators, is also an effective tool in promoting animal welfare. This has resulted in transparency becoming increasingly important, with a significant number of sites outlining their ethical and conservation standards on their websites.
1.6 With this increased scrutiny, far more attention is now given to the design of the buildings and enclosures providing the setting for animals in Zoos.
1.7 Although receipts have generally increased over the years, largely driven by higher admission charges, operational costs have significantly risen too, and properties of this type have continued to find it difficult to maintain profitability.
1.8 Those sites with sufficient space have sought to maintain profitability through diversification, generally involving more amusement orientated activity and a greater focus on grant income through conservation and research. Some of the smaller Zoos and Safari Parks have been forced to close and some of the remaining occupiers look to support from the local authority, educational societies, or other benefactors to remain financially viable.
1.9 Zoos remain a popular leisure activity for families, with the majority of visits to zoos being made by families with children. Operators cater for this by offering activities such as Junior Zoo Keeper experiences, baby sensory sessions and various play areas to keep children entertained.
2. Changes from the last practice note
2.1 There are no changes from the broad principles followed for the 2023 Rating Lists and the approach therefore is the same.
3. Ratepayer discussions
3.1 No ratepayer discussions have taken place.
4. Valuation scheme
4.1 Limited reliable rental evidence will be available, and any rents will need to be scrutinised in detail to establish the precise basis of payment.
4.2 Where rents are present, they are unlikely to reflect the tenant’s improvements involved in creating the hereditament.
4.3 In the absence of reliable rental information, the RV should be arrived at using a comparative valuation method by applying a rental percentage to the estimated Fair Maintainable Trade (FMT) as at the AVD having regard to the actual gross receipts (excluding VAT).
4.4 It may be necessary in some instances to carry out a full receipts and expenditure valuation.
4.5 The only post-war rating case in this class of property - Surrey County Valuation Committee v Chessington Zoo Ltd KBD 1950 RIT Vol 43 — concerned the valuation of Chessington Zoo. It was also held that profits were not necessarily the sole element in arriving at the value of the premises. Other issues concerned the adjustment of the relevant accounts to derive the bid of the hypothetical tenant, and the treatment of income earned through the letting of animals to other concerns It was held that income from animals let out to other concerns outside the hereditament was included in revenue attributable to the zoo, since normally the animals had to be kept in cages at Chessington Zoo. Effectively, income from all sources should be reflected, providing it arises directly from the occupation of the hereditament.
4.6 Where the Zoo or Safari Park is in receipt of any grants, subsidies or subscriptions these should be added to the gross receipts where it can reasonably be assumed that they would be received by the hypothetical tenant on a continuing basis.
4.7 However where the organisation either runs off-site activities such as conservation or off-site research projects, then the funds spent solely on the off-site activity should be excluded. In these circumstances, care needs to be taken to ensure that such elements as shared staff and premises facilities are correctly accounted for.
4.8 Care should be taken to identify any concessionary income, and instances where trading companies and subsidiaries are used to operate catering and retail operations.
4.9 Valuations arrived at using a full R&E valuation should be analysed as a percentage of gross receipts to facilitate comparison with other properties where full accounts are not available.
1. Market appraisal
Properties will range from the large nationally known Zoos and Safari Parks to the small local Zoo or Safari Park which house only a few animals or species. The primary function of these types of hereditaments is the exhibition of wild animals, although there has, over the last few years, been a move for sites to become increasingly linked with wildlife and conservation projects in the UK and abroad.
Many of these are commercial concerns where the desire exists to trade profitably, though many are operated by a scientific society, preservation body or other charitable organisation whose aims may not be purely commercial.
Since their establishment in the 19th century, Zoos have traditionally consisted of a series of buildings and enclosures that afforded the animals limited movement; their sole object being the display of species. This concept has seen substantial change with initially the introduction of Safari Parks and latterly an increasing emphasis on conservation and protection.
Following the success of the Safari Parks and changing public attitudes towards wild animals, Zoos became much more conscious of the necessity to provide more space for their animals as well as exhibiting them in habitats more closely aligned to their natural setting. Consequently far more attention is now given to the design of the buildings and enclosures providing the setting for animals in Zoos.
Safari Parks are no longer the novelty they were at their inception in the early 1970s and the public are less keen to view wild and dangerous animals at close proximity. This fall in popularity, coupled with increased competition from other leisure activities, has resulted in a decline from the 1980s in the number of visitors with a commensurate squeeze on profitability.
Since the turn of the century operators have sought either to present their attractions in a much more exciting manner and or to diversify by providing other sources of amusement, e.g. rides. Some of the smaller Zoos and Safari Parks have been forced to close and some of the remaining occupiers look to support from the local authority, educational society or some other benefactor to remain financially viable.
Although receipts have generally increased over the years (through higher admission charges), properties of this type have continued to find it difficult to maintain profitability. That said, the better sites have secured their status through diversification — involving more amusement orientated activity and a greater focus on conservation and research, which in themselves attract grant income.
As with all Wildlife enterprises there is pressure from animal welfare organisations. Social media, used as advertising by many leisure operators, is also an effective tool in promoting animal welfare.
2. Changes from the last practice note
There are no changes from the broad principles followed for the 2017 Rating Lists and the approach therefore is the same.
3. Ratepayer discussions
None at present.
4. Valuation scheme
Valuation guidance on this class for 2023 is contained within Practice Note 1: 2023 of Rating Manual section 5a — Leisure attractions.
5. The impact of COVID 19
The COVID-19 pandemic impacted Zoos and Safari Parks in the period leading up to the AVD (1 April 2021). Details of the various restrictions implemented by statute in response to the pandemic, and of the vaccination rollout, can be found online. In February 2021 the UK Government published its Roadmap out of lockdown for England which set out four steps to relax restrictions. Step 1, easing restrictions on outdoor gatherings, had already taken place by the AVD.
The later three stages of the Roadmap for England included
- the opening of outdoor hospitality, and non-essential retail which included Zoos (Step 2, no earlier than 12 April)
- most legal restrictions on meeting others outdoors to be lifted, opening of indoor entertainment venues such as cinemas, casinos and bingo halls (Step 3, no earlier than 17 May 2021)
- the removal of remaining restrictions on social contact (Step 4, no earlier than 21 June)
Subsequent to 1 April 2021 steps 2 and 3 took place as planned, but Step 4 was delayed four weeks to 19 July.
The situation in Wales, both leading up to and after the AVD, was similar although not identical.
When considering the proposed values, the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak need to be taken into account as they would have been anticipated by the parties at the AVD.
In May of 2020 the UK Government “Zoo Animals Fund” made grants available to “provide funding for zoos and aquariums which need additional support in caring for their animals following a drop in income caused by the coronavirus pandemic.”
1. Market appraisal
Properties will range from the large nationally known Zoos and Safari Parks, such as London and Bristol Zoos, to the small local Zoo or Safari Park which house only a few animals or species. The primary function of these types of hereditaments is the exhibition of wild animals, although there has, over the last few years, been a move for sites to become increasingly linked with wildlife and conservation projects in the UK and abroad.
Many of these are commercial concerns where the desire exists to trade profitably, though many are operated by a scientific society, preservation body or other charitable organisation whose aims may not be purely commercial e.g. London Zoo which is operated by The Zoological Society who were granted a Royal Charter in 1829. The Zoological Society objectives are stated as: “the advancement of zoology and animal physiology and the introduction of new and curious subjects of the animal kingdom”.
Since their establishment in the 19th century, Zoos have traditionally consisted of a series of buildings and enclosures that afforded the animals limited movement — their sole object being the display of species. This concept has seen substantial change with initially the introduction of Safari Parks and latterly an increasing emphasis on conservation and protection. The “Lions of Longleat Safari Park” located between Bath and Salisbury was the first of the drive-through Wildlife Parks and opened in 1966. Here the object was to exhibit wild animals by allowing them to behave as naturally as possible in the relative freedom of spacious reserves. By the early 1970s many more Safari Parks were established and had become popular attractions.
Following the success of the Safari Parks and changing public attitudes towards wild animals, Zoos became much more conscious of the necessity to provide more space for their animals as well as exhibiting them in habitats more closely aligned to their natural setting. Consequently far more attention is now given to the design of the buildings and enclosures providing the setting for animals in Zoos.
Safari Parks are no longer the novelty they were at their inception in the early 1970s and the public are less keen to view wild and dangerous animals at close proximity. This fall in popularity, coupled with increased competition from other leisure activities, has resulted in a decline from the 1980s in the number of visitors with a commensurate squeeze on profitability. By 1983 most of the Safari Parks and many Zoos were operating only on marginal levels of profitability, or indeed were making a loss.
To try and stem this flow, operators have sought either to present their attractions in a much more exciting manner and or to diversify by providing other sources of amusement, e.g. rides. Some of the smaller Zoos and Safari Parks have been forced to close and some of the remaining occupiers look to support from the local authority, educational society or some other benefactor to remain financially viable.
Although receipts have generally increased over the years (through higher admission charges), properties of this type have continued to find it difficult to maintain profitability. That said, the better sites have secured their status through diversification — involving more amusement orientated activity and a greater focus on conservation and research, which in themselves attract grant income.
2. Changes from the last practice note
There are no changes from the broad principles followed for the 2010 Rating Lists and the approach therefore is the same.
3. Ratepayer discussions
None at present.
4. Valuation scheme
Valuation guidance on this class for 2017 is contained within Practice Note 1: 2017 of Rating Manual section 5a — Leisure attractions.