The rooster was allowed to remain at the property, albeit inside a sound-proof box at night, and its owner must have separate monthly meetings with Invercargill City Council staff and the complainant.
The decision was reached last Thursday after a hearing panel the previous week.
Rooster owner Alisa Cole requested the hearing following months of back and forth with council staff after a neighbour complained about the level of noise produced by the rooster, which had resulted in Mrs Cole building a box to keep the rooster inside a hutch during the hours it crowed.
Mrs Cole never received communication from the council and thought the issue was resolved, so she let the rooster out of the box.
The complainant complained again, and Mrs Cole was ordered to remove the rooster.
The hearing was chaired earlier this month by Cr Darren Ludlow, who was supported by Crs Lesley Soper and Trish Boyle.
Mrs Cole said she was happy a decision had been reached, but felt there had been a lot of fluffing around in the process — as well as a requirement to have monthly meetings with the complainant.
"We have the box, he’ll be in that — it’s an upgrade to what he’s in now."
"I’d rather do that than not have him, at this point."
Mrs Cole took umbrage with how the process was undertaken, last week telling the Southland Express she felt bullied by the council.
The investigation, subsequent report, and order to remove the rooster made her feel vulnerable, misrepresented and targeted.
"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 later updated with the redactions in place.
In the council determination, council acknowledged procedural aspects had been raised by Mrs Cole.
"It is fair to say that we accept there are and were a number of procedural issues that council staff will need to address, including around the Hearing and its papers."
"However, in our view none of these issues relate to the issue of whether we allow the appeal or not... This appeal is about the nuisance caused by the rooster, and whether the mitigations proposed by the appellant are enough to allow the appeal."
The final decision included Mrs Cole to keep the rooster in the noise-proof box every night and ensure the box was inside the shed.
Within two months of the decision, the shed was to receive polystyrene panels on the two front walls and ceiling.
"There shall be separate monthly individual meetings between council staff and the appellant and complainant for a period of six months."
If there were no further issues within these six months, council would consider the matter closed.
