The Tauranga pensioner driving neighbours to consider selling-up because of his seagull feeding habit cannot be legally stopped by Tauranga City Council.

George Shaw's habit of hand feeding seagulls from his 14th Avenue residence drove his neighbours to complain to Tauranga City Council about the seagulls fouling their backyards, washing and vehicles.

George Shaw's feeds seagulls from his 14th Avenue residence.

The morning and afternoon feeding up to 50 seagulls a day for eight years pushed neighbours to seek council's help.

But after legal advice council informed the four petitioners there is nothing it can do.

Council won't release the opinion, but discussed the contents with the four petitioners in a closed session at Wednesday's Strategy and Policy Committee meeting.

The city council has no bylaw preventing people from feeding seagulls.

The staff report states city council staff have been negotiating with George over his seagull feeding fixation since 2009 and have been ignored.

'It seems Mr Shaw has little regard for the adverse effects his actions have on his neighbours, namely noise and excrement on laundry and property etc.” says the report.

Even if Tauranga City Council had a seagull feeding bylaw, there is no legal provision for a fine. George will have to be prosecuted, a long and expensive process with little chance of a win for the council.

The Health Act provision relates to adverse effects of keeping animals, and George is not 'keeping” the seagulls.

'We haven't got the legislation that we need,” says chairman David Stewart.

'We can't do any legal actions to speak of, but we can have further discussion to appeal to his goodwill.”

Councillor Bill Faulkner suggested a counselling service.

'To have people living in an environment where the only answer is to sell property and move is an intolerable situation,” says Terry Molly.

'We need to do everything we can to try and rectify the situation.”

Speaking afterwards petitioner Bill Humphrey says neighour's next move might be a legal challenge.

'I'm not quite sure how that works yet, I have got to find out,” says Bill.

'It seems from my point of view, to be a really simple thing that we are asking for, but apparently it's not.

'It's not that they can't, it's that they don't want to take the risk, as I see it. I don't see where the risk comes in.”

George's seagulls have already forced one of his neighbours to move, says Bill. A woman with a young child was concerned about tracking seagull droppings inside. The birds are carriers of E-coli, salmonella and botulism, says Bill.

George says his house is on the market and when it sells, he will stop feeding the gulls.

'When it sells and I move, the birds will have to make their own way in life,” say George. 'The guy harassing everybody about this knows that too, but he's being bloody minded about it.”

He's going to stop feeding them when he sells up because it will cost too much. His present house has a basement flat George rents out. That income subsidises the $30 a week George spends on seagull food.

'I haven't stopped feeding them, and I don't intend to stop until I move. I haven't really got it in me to have them come round and hover outside my window, see if I'm home and this sort of thing, and just not feed them. But out of sight out of mind.”

He could be there for a while yet. Houses with basement flats are not in big demand at present, says George.

Not all of his immediate neighbours are against the birds, says George. Out of the six two are neutral, and one quite likes the birds. Then there's Bill, who petitioned the council, his neighbour and her friend, the other neighbour.