Murray Powell's noisy birds...

For those of you who have been following the toing and froing over Murray Powell's birds near Hamilton Zoo and the noise complaints, have a read of this:

www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10450000

Pity Waikato DC couldn't have been so sensible.

Whatever happened with that guy & his birds????

Still ongoing. Last I heard he had built the acoustic wall as per council requirements and the neighbour was still not happy...

MM may know some more on the ongoing saga

She's never going to be happy I reckon.

I've haven't had an update lately, but our friend and neighbour is coming for tea tonight so I'll ask her for an update, they are good friends of Murrays.

As bad as that silly plonker who didn't like the church bells.

Part of the reason we decided to move to the country was a neighbour phoned noise control to complain about the birds singing in our trees. The sad thing is noise control came out to check. When he got no joy there he went to the council and tried to get the trees cut down, fortunately he got no joy there either. I hear he tried the same with the new owners and when he didn't win again he has sold up and moved.

Unbeleivable, KP . The only birds I don't like to hear are those 'orrible spur winged plovers, all the others are great as far as I am concerned!

I feel for the noise control folks though, having been in that role many years ago I know that you pretty much have to investigate every complaint no matter how petty or you can be accused of dereliction of duty ('I pay my rates!' etc etc etc) [V].

But if Christchurch City Council can get away with pleading existing use rights, that will be interesting...I don't know of any other cases where that has been considered a defence against failing to comply with district plan provisions...although there are plenty of cases where it would be common sense to do so, as the district plans are so unachievable in a real world situation (see: Murray's case for a case in point!!)

Having said that, good on CCC!

Tigger, Section 10 is often used when there is non-compliance with the current rules, however the onus is on the consent holder to prove that the use was lawfully established, the EnvCt does declarations under Section 10, which is really the only way to ensure that you do have EUR, although under the recent amendment to the RMA Councils can now issue COC's for EUR.... Still up for challenge in the High Court though, if someone has the time and $$$.