Cotterill v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources

In this case, Noel RC and Betty J Cotterill appealed the valuation of their property located at 93 Warriewood Street, Chandler, as determined by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources. The key issues in the case were the nature of the land, comparison of sales, relativity, and noise from an adjoining property. The appellants claimed that the unimproved value of their property should be $150,000, while the Chief Executive maintained the valuation at $165,000. The court had to decide the appropriate unimproved value of the land, taking into account the various factors mentioned above.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court concluded that the unimproved value of the subject property should reflect a lower level than that of the adjoining property with kennels due to the noise, odours, and visual intrusion. The court also found that the comparison of sales provided by both valuers had some relevance, but the key to the difference in their understanding related to whether the costs of improvements on the access road, two culverts, and power supply down the easement access should be allowed for or not. The court found that the access to the lots in question were each provided by a long strip of land which was part of the parcels, and not by easement access only. As such, the improvements actually lay within the curtilage of each parcel, and they were therefore improvements upon the land.

In conclusion, the court found that Mr Wilson's value at $157,500 was a conservative figure, and the appeal was dismissed. The unimproved value of the property, as determined by the Chief Executive, was affirmed. The court also found that the respondent should pay the appellants' costs to the extent of $700 in this matter, only in respect of the unsuccessful application to dismiss the appeal.

Order: The appeal is dismissed, and the unimproved value of Lot 37 on RP 92862 as determined by the Chief Executive at $157,500 is affirmed. The respondent shall pay the appellants' costs to the extent of $700 in this matter, only in respect of the unsuccessful application to dismiss the appeal.