WRITTEN BY Alan Bradbury
The recent Land and Environment Court of New South Wales decision in Tanious v Georges River Council NSWLEC 1330 is a timely reminder of the utility of a local orders policy for NSW councils in relation to controlling the number of animals at a residential property.
Mr Tanious kept 3 roosters, 30 chickens, 1 turkey rooster, 1 female turkey and between 130 and 150 Japanese quail at his residential premises. Georges River Council (formerly Hurstville City Council) considered that the keeping of this number of birds was excessive for the site and had the potential to cause unhealthy conditions.
On 18 January 2016 the Council issued an order to Mr Tanious under section 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 which required him to remove all poultry from the property with the exception of 10 birds (including all roosters but excluding offspring to three months of age), and required the remaining birds to be kept in a paved poultry house 15.2 metres from a dwelling. Mr Tanious appealed the Council’s order and sought to set it aside or alternatively, to increase the number of birds that may be kept at his premises.
The Council relied upon its Local Orders Policy – Keeping Animals (Policy) for the purposes of assessing the number of, and manner in which, birds could be kept at the premises. In the case of domestic poultry and guinea fowl, the Policy permitted a maximum number of 10 birds with poultry houses to be 4.5 metres from buildings. In the case of other poultry (including ducks, geese, turkeys, peafowl and other pheasants), the maximum number of birds permitted was 5 and the poultry housing was required to be at least 30 metres from a dwelling. The Policy also noted that a greater separation distance may be required in particular cases; hard paving must be provided under roosts if within 15.2 metres of a dwelling and roosters were prohibited where crowing will cause offensive noise.
The Court was guided by the Policy in coming to its decision. It noted that the Policy sought to regulate an appropriate number of animals that can be kept in a residential property within the community, had been the subject of public consultation and had recently been reviewed.
Unsurprisingly, the Court considered that the number of birds kept by Mr Tanious at his premises needed to be reduced. However, it found that the Policy permitted up to 15 poultry birds (including the Japanese quail, but excluding offspring to 3 months of age) to be kept and that it only required a separation distance of 4.5 metres between a paved poultry house and the dwelling house. It therefore applied the Policy and varied the terms of Council’s order so it was consistent with these requirements.
The Court supported the Council’s position in relation to the keeping of the roosters. It found that, having regard to the proximity of nearby residential properties and the manner in which the birds were housed, the keeping of a rooster was likely to result in offensive noise (as defined in the Protection of Environment Operations Act 1997) and required them all to be removed.
The Court’s reliance upon the publicly exhibited policy as a guiding factor to determine the number of birds and the manner in which they are kept demonstrates the value of a clearly stated local orders policy for the keeping of animals.
The decision also illustrates that the Court will hold a Council accountable to the terms of its orders policy unless there are clear reasons not to do so.