News

Henry Purvey slammed the “ridiculous waste of public money” after he was taken to court and fined over the noise caused by his two cockerels
advertisement

Cockerel owner blasts 'waste of public money'

By Victoria Smith
March 01, 2012

A 77-year-old man has slammed the “ridiculous waste of public money” after he was taken to court and fined over the noise caused by his two cockerels.

The birds landed Henry Purvey of Wellington Road in Sandhurst, in trouble for failing to adhere to warnings from Bracknell Forest Council that they were disturbing the peace.

Henry, who has lived in the road for 47 years and always kept birds, said this is the first time he had had any complaints.

He was fined £150 and ordered to pay £500 costs, plus a £15 victim surcharge, at Reading Magistrates Court on Thursday, February 23.

He had initially denied charges of failing to comply with a noise abatement notice given by the council after neighbours complained.

In court, he changed his plea and admitted three charges.

Henry believes it was one neighbour in particular who waged a campaign against him and said other people living nearby did not have any problems with the birds.

The complaints about regular and repeated crowing were received in April 2010 and in the July, Henry was served with a noise abatement notice, telling him to keep the birds quiet between 10pm and 7am.

He says there is no way of keeping them quiet and neighbours continued to complain about the cockerels crowing through the night.

An inspector visited and recorded 83 separate crows between 6am and 7am on Tuesday, June 7, last year, and 97 crows during the ‘silent’ hours over the next two days.

Henry said: “It’s a ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money – what do we pay for? This?

“I’ve lived here for 47 years and no-one has ever complained. Then someone takes against them and I end up in court.”

Henry said he would pay the fine, but would not give up his birds.

He added: “It’s totally pathetic that money is wasted like this and that people complain about these things.

“But I’ll pay the fine and get on with it.”

David Steeds, Bracknell Forest Council’s head of environmental health said: “Residents have every right to a peaceful night’s sleep.

“Noise, whether it’s from a cockerel crowing at dawn or a very loud party late into the night, can be very distressing and we will make every effort to ensure people who break the law are prosecuted.”

| View Comments (11)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 11 of 11

At last! A neighbourhood perspective which would have been useful in the original reporting and puts some flesh on the bones of this matter. Well, if what is being suggested by CookieRaider is true then I am certainly more sympathetic towards Mr Purvey's position.

I don't envy any person who has someone of a 'civic' persuasion as a neighbour. You wouldn't be able to breath for fear of committing some crime or other.

Winstanley, Bracknell
05/03/2012 at 21:36

So, if what you say is correct CookieRaider (and I'm inclined to believe it is), the former Mayor of Sandhurst, Peter North, has wasted taxpayer's money and council time over a dispute to try to get one up on Mr Purvey.

How ridiculous and petty of him.

CMA
05/03/2012 at 12:59

My own property is only a stone’s throw away from Mr Purveys and I can faintly hear the cockerels with the windows open, it’s certainly not loud enough to wake anyone in the house. I actually find their crows very pleasant and give the neighbourhood that country feel, a view that is shared by many down the street.

CookieRaider, Berkshire
02/03/2012 at 22:51

Cockerels restrict most of their crowing to the mating season. During the summer months they rarely crow.

PoneRana, Wokingham
02/03/2012 at 12:24

Who mentioned the mating season? Wellington Road is an established, admittedly leafy, heavily residential area. Being woken by cockerels is one thing - on the occasions I've lived near them I too have enjoyed waking to their crowing. But 97 times between 10pm and 7am? Come on and live in the real world, that's hardly waking to them - that's being kept up all night! A lot changes in 35 years.

The bottom line is this - as has been reiterated already - by dint of age or length of residence does not permit anyone to carry on activities to the detriment of quality of life for their neighbours.

I'm planning on keeping chickens this summer - not cockerels - but if they become a nuisance to my neighbours I would expect to be approached about it and would find it reasonable to undertake a course of action to remedy the situation. Not carry on in my own sweet way regardless of the discomfort it causes others.

What's not reported here is whether the complainants approached Mr Purvey first and made attempts to reach agreement before going to BFC. If the first Mr Purvey heard of it was when he was visited by BFC then I have a degree of sympathy as I strongly believe dispute resolution in an adult manner is always the best way forward. But we don't know. He may have been approached and said stuff you. He may have attempted to resolve the matter but the neighbours were not to be placated no matter what effort he made.

We just don't know. I do know that you can't go around in a civilized society and do as you please without being expected to exercise a bit of responsibility.

Winstanley, Bracknell
01/03/2012 at 15:06

I was brought up in a town the size or Reading. When I was a child one family in three had a cockerel. I would welcome being woken up by such sounds today rather than by the sound of lorries collecting waste and blaring out their reversing signals at four in the morning. I enjoy this when I go to my daughter's house in St Austell

When I moved into the area 35 years ago the whole of Sandhurst was very much in the countryside and if I remember correctly at least half of Wellington Road was bordered by fields You only have to look on Google Street View to see how many of the houses are fairly recent new builds.

The point is that no-one should have the right to move into an area where poultry have been kept for many years and then complain that the cockerels crow in the mating season.

PoneRana, Wokingham
01/03/2012 at 14:31

Did they “campaign against him” or is this actually about the birds and their noise? Sorry he cannot do what he wants, but it is clearly a problem for neighbours, and I presume they all pay their taxes too. But then he isn’t thinking about them, is he, in his determination to continue the problem? And I do feel sorry for the problems this must cause him, but not as sorry as I am for the neighbours.

Nowtas, West Berkshire
01/03/2012 at 14:21

PoneRana - I can't help feeling you've made some large assumptions about this case. If the details have been reported accurately then Wellington Road is not in the countryside, and where does it mention anyone building a dwelling next door to him? We have no way of knowing how long any neighbours have put up with the noise. Where does it say they were 'new' residents?

The length of time he's lived there, or his age, are irrelevant. He has no greater right to behave how he wants than anyone else.

He's been penalised because he failed to abide by an earlier order - he had the chance to comply prior to any court action.

I think most people would be put out if they had to put up with nearly 100 separate incidents of crowing between 10pm and 7am - would you welcome it?

It comes down to rights and responsibilities as citizens - you can't have one without the other.

But I still think this matter could have been dealt with in a far better way than recourse to court action leading to the chap being fined a substantial amount of money.

Winstanley, Bracknell
01/03/2012 at 13:17

I don't see how anyone can serve a noise abatement order for cockerels - it's hardly something you can control. He should be given help, not a fine, or maybe they could order him to buy ear plugs for the neighbours?

CMA
01/03/2012 at 12:47

If someone lives in the country and keeps birds for 47 years he surely has the right to continue to do so. If during that time someone else builds a house near his or moves into an existing one then it is up to them to check whether they are likely to be disturbed by the birds particularly during the first few months of the year.

It is disgusting that he should be penalized because someone moves in close to him that doesn't like his birds. It is these new residents who are impinging on his rights and they should be subject to a court order to leave him and his birds alone.

PoneRana, Wokingham
01/03/2012 at 12:06

This matter comes down to rights and responsibilities in my opinion - just because the chap had been living in his road for 47 years and 'always' kept birds doesn't give him the right to disturb the lives of his neighbours, or feel justified in doing as he pleases. However, it would have been nice to report opinions from the neighbourhood.

Once served with an abatement order he had a responsibility to adhere to it. As it is a civil matter the only recourse BFC had was to the courts. I also fail to see where the issue of cost comes into it, or how it was a waste of money - some of the cost will be clawed back through court costs and the fine. And what do his neighbours pay council tax for? The chance of good night's sleep I should think - money well spent I should imagine is their view.

However, issuing a notice ordering someone to keep cockerels quiet is a little like nailing jelly to a wall. How do you do that without maiming the birds?

BFC should have perhaps sought alternatives to assist both complainant and defendant. Perhaps a more sophisticated approach would have yielded better results for all concerned, rather than the use of the blunt instrument of court backed orders.

At the end of the day nobody likes being told what to do. In my opinion we all have the right to lead our lives as we see fit - UNTIL our actions impinge upon the rights of others.