A disability pensioner in the Adelaide Plains Council region has been mandated by a court to remove his three roosters due to their incessant crowing, which was deemed disruptive to the local community.
Previously, the individual claimed in court that the roosters served as “therapeutic animals,” aiding him in coping with complex post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the court determined that their continuous noise was “likely intolerable” for his neighbors.
The Environment, Resources and Development Court issued a ruling last month requiring the removal of the roosters from the man’s property, situated in a quiet residential area characterized by minimal traffic noise.
The council testified that the birds were a source of “noise nuisance,” citing numerous complaints from residents regarding the roosters’ crowing.
In an earlier attempt to contest the case, the pensioner argued that taking away his roosters would violate anti-discrimination laws and international human rights agreements, as they were essential for his well-being. However, in the most recent judgment, Commissioner Claire Ryan dismissed this argument, stating that removing the roosters did not equate to discrimination against a person with a disability.
She clarified that the man was not being treated differently from others in the area who might also choose to keep roosters. The council did not dispute the legitimacy of his disability, which included complex post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety, as presented in court.
The judgment revealed that the council had consulted an acoustic engineer, who conducted assessments and found that noise levels in the surrounding environment were generally very low. Commissioner Ryan noted, “The independent objective evidence suggests that the noise from the roosters is clearly audible and dominates the environment when they are allowed outside their coop.”
The judgment also indicated that a council representative had visited the man’s property multiple times and reported hearing loud crowing from the roosters on each occasion. One neighbor even reported being disturbed by the noise as early as 3:40 AM, while another noted that the crowing could be heard despite having closed doors and windows.
Although the man had made efforts to minimize the noise by keeping the roosters in a dark coop overnight, they continued to crow throughout the day.
Commissioner Ryan characterized the noise from the roosters as a “local nuisance” under the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act 2016 (SA), stating that their persistent crowing affected the overall atmosphere of the area. “A reasonable person would find the noise generated by three roosters crowing for up to 12 hours during the day to be unacceptable and likely intolerable,” she noted in her ruling.
She concluded that such noise would detract from the enjoyment of the area for those living in or visiting the vicinity. The man did not attend the hearing and had previously requested adjournments via email to the court registry.
The court ordered that the roosters be removed within 14 days, prohibiting the man from keeping any roosters on the property in the future, though this restriction did not extend to other birds, such as hens. He was also instructed to cover the council’s legal expenses.
