McNeill’s Poultry Farm owner Nigel Hewitson had been waiting to hear from the Invercargill City Council about a compensation claim when he was told by the Otago Daily Times he would receive nothing for the distress and loss of income resulting from a nearby housing development.
Councillors made the decision not to compensate Mr Hewitson in the public-excluded part of its meeting on Tuesday.
"You would think they would let me know first," Mr Hewitson said.
He was expecting a call with the results of his claim from council chief executive Michael Day, as he had told him he would like to be informed, Mr Hewitson said.
He still had not heard by 5pm yesterday.
He had been advised during a meeting with Mr Day that he could ask for compensation, he said.
"He was involved with the Christchurch earthquake and understood about vibrations and the effects on animals, structures and humans."
After Tuesday’s meeting, the council issued an email statement to the Otago Daily Times outlining the decision.
It said the council acknowledged the impact the development had on Mr Hewitson’s business.
"As there has been no wrongdoing by council in the issuance of the resource consent, the consideration of compensation options for Mr Hewitson would be inappropriate and [the council] declined the request," the statement said.
A council spokeswoman said last night Mr Day did not attend the council meeting on Tuesday. He was at a meeting out of town and was unable to contact Mr Hewitson until yesterday afternoon.
During the public forum of the council’s community wellbeing and regulatory committee meeting in May, Mr Hewitson told councillors that since September last year the vibrations and noise from a nearby housing development had stressed the 5000 hens on his Tisbury poultry farm.
Mr Hewitson said he could not understand how the development had gained planning consent without him being identified as an affected party and he thought the council was at fault.
Council consenting and environment general manager Jonathan Shaw was asked to prepare a report.
The report was presented at last week’s community wellbeing and regulatory committee meeting.
In his report, Mr Shaw said council staff had followed the guidelines of the district plan and did not need to name Mr Hewitson as an affected party.
He also noted that when Mr Hewitson sought a High Court injunction to address his concerns about the adverse effects of the development, the council was not a party to the proceedings.
In his findings, High Court Justice Jonathan Eaton noted the work was being carried out according to the consent conditions but did not raise any concerns about the actions of the council, Mr Shaw said.
Mr Hewitson yesterday said he had requested another opportunity to address the committee because he had concerns about the accuracy of some of the information in Mr Shaw’s report. His request was declined.
A council spokeswoman said according to the council’s standing orders the committee chairperson decided whether someone could speak.
"It was felt that Mr Hewitson had been given ample opportunity to share his views and story with council.
"As council has made its decision, the matter has concluded from a council point of view."
