Resident Alisa Cole said a council investigation, subsequent report and an order to remove the rooster because of its level of noise have made her feel vulnerable, misrepresented and targeted to the point of being bullied.
A hearing will take place this morning to decide the bird’s fate.
The Cole family moved into the property in late 2012 and brought with them a flock of hens which they raised for eggs.
They added roosters to their flock around Christmas that year for breeding and to act as a deterrent against predators following several attacks by neighbourhood cats.
Before the current complaint, Mrs Cole said she had occasionally spoken with neighbours over the fence regarding the roosters but had not had to deal with the council previously.
A resident in the same street as Mrs Cole appealed to the council to have the rooster removed, saying it crowed most mornings from 5.30am-6am in close proximity to their bedroom.
In compiling the report for the council, a further neighbour was contacted by the council’s environmental compliance officer to contribute a witness statement.
"Reading that report, I was shocked to find out that they emailed a neighbour directly about my address before they contacted me ... They emailed that neighbour and said there was a complaint against my property, and then emailed me to inquire about a rooster in the neighbourhood," Mrs Cole said.
The report was initially published in the council’s agenda without the names and addresses of those involved redacted, although it was updated with the redactions in place on Friday.
She said the issue was less about the sentimental value of the rooster, and rather the invasive actions of the council.
In compiling the report, a noise control officer verified the noise from the rooster in March, giving a total score of nine — which is one of the highest and considered excessive.
"The whole thing is weird ... I’d be so interested to see where [the noise control officer] stood for a rooster to sound like heavy bass."
The location of where the noise was recorded was not included in the report.
Mrs Cole caged and covered the rooster and agreed to keep it inside at night.
The council report said the original complainant was satisfied with this arrangement — although Mrs Cole said this was not communicated to her.
One month ago, the complainant contacted the council again to say the noise had returned to previous levels.
A fortnight on, Mrs Cole requested a hearing to appeal the council’s interim group manager consents and compliance’s decision to order the removal of the rooster.
The council did not respond with comment by deadline last night.
