Animal sanctuary wins court fight with council to keep lemurs

The high-profile founder of Fripps Farm Animal Rescue has won her appeal against Uttlesford District Council’s decision to refuse her application for a Dangerous Wild Animals licence. Jodie Marsh, a former model and media personality, applied for permission to keep eight ring-tailed lemurs at her private animal sanctuary in Lindsell, Essex.

Uttlesford District Council had rejected Marsh’s application at a licensing and environmental health committee meeting in July, citing concerns over her approach to the “control and management” of the proposed animals. The authority argued that her management methods raised questions about the safety and welfare of the animals in her care.

Appealing the decision at Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court, Marsh maintained that she has a genuine passion for animal welfare. District Judge Christopher Williams ruled in her favour, stating that Marsh is “someone who very much cares for animals” and that the evidence supported her suitability to keep the exotic primates. The judge also questioned why the council had raised noise concerns regarding the lemurs – a claim he noted was “impossible to measure” – and criticized the authority for offering “completely contradictory” views that clashed with independent reports affirming Marsh’s competence as a keeper.

In his judgment, Judge Williams ordered Uttlesford District Council to pay Marsh £19,641 in legal costs, underscoring that the decision to bar her from keeping the animals was unjustified on the balance of probabilities.

Marsh’s sanctuary, Fripps Farm Animal Rescue, is home to over 250 animals, ranging from cows and horses to llamas and reptiles. The ruling is seen as a significant win for the sanctuary and for Marsh herself, who has long been a passionate advocate for animal rescue and welfare.

A spokesperson for Uttlesford District Council is reported to have said:

“The decision by councillors to not grant the Dangerous Wild Animals licence was made following careful consideration of both the supporting and opposing evidence in a public process. Whilst we are disappointed with the ruling today, the Court has taken a fresh look at it and reached a different conclusion, which we fully respect.”