How about cock-a-doodle-don’t?
A crowing rooster has an Invercargill resident crying foul and the fate of the early rising bird is to be decided at an Invercargill City Council hearing next week.
A resident has appealed to the council for the removal of the nuisance fowl from a neighbouring property, saying it crows most mornings from 5.30am to 6am in close proximity to his bedroom.
His statement said there were two roosters across different properties that tended to have "battles" in the mornings.
"From talking to another neighbour it appears the owners of the roosters are related," he said.
The second rooster is not an issue in the complaint because of its distance from his property.
Rooster owner Alisa Maree Cole is appealing the complaint, saying there are several other rooster owners in the neighbourhood.
"We got our rooster approximately 18 months ago following a serious cat issue. We had cats ... who were taking chickens and chicks. We did approach the owner regarding this, who told us the cat was ‘naughty like that’ and they no longer let it inside their house.
"The rooster protects the chickens and we have had no ongoing problems since introducing him. With the rising cost of living, egg shortage and benefits the chickens provide to our garden and reducing waste ... As the majority of the neighbourhood does not have a problem with this I would not expect it to go any further."
A witness statement made by a fellow resident of the street stated they were going to complain themselves, and it appeared there were two roosters crowing, although they were unsure which properties they belonged to.
A noise control contractor verified the noise from the rooster in March, giving a total score of nine - which is one of the highest and considered excessive.
Under council bylaw, the customer and environment group manager may order the removal of a rooster where the council has received a complaint about the rooster; and the group manager was satisfied keeping the rooster on that property has resulted in a nuisance being caused on any neighbouring property.
Environmental compliance officer Victoria Naboka, who investigated the issue, has provided two options for the hearing: to order the removal of the rooster under section 11.1 of the bylaw as a result of the nuisance caused to the neighbouring property; or option 2, maintaining the status quo.
"My recommendation is option one: order the removal of the rooster, as the location of the rooster has created a nuisance for neighbouring properties."
