CITY LAND VALUES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1162, 24 June 1911, Page 6

CITY LAND VALUES.

.WIDENING WILLIS STREET, CLAIM.FOR COMPENSATION. HEARD BY THE COVET. The taking by the Wellington City Council of a piece of land fronting Willis Sheet, adjacent to the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel, was the prime cause of a claim which was heard yesterday by a Compensation Court. Mr. Justice Sim presided, and had with him as-assessors', Mr. Ct.-H. Scales (for the plaintiffs) and Mr. A. H. Miles for the City Corporation. The plaintiffs—Arthur Thomas Bate and John pike-claimed .£3703 18s. lOd. as compensation for all loss arising out of tho taking of the land. The sum of £12Y1 10s. was claimed for 20ft. Bin. of land, with- a depth of teii feet at .£75 per foot fronting Willis Street, having regard to its special value, use, and adaptability. Interest at 6 per cent, on ,£17,715 being the value of the whole section from May a 1310, to August 0, 1910, amounting to ,£1331 5=., was asked for. Further items in the claim wero .£ls to repay the cost of preparing plans and specifications for •A ljuililiiig 'Wlvith were rendered useless by the taking of the land, and the .£llO 3s 6d the costs of the previous claim, wliich'was rendered useless by the revocation of a proclamation taking tho land. Tho claim in regard to legal costs was subsequently reduced to 50 guineas, and was admitted by the defence. Plaintiffs were represented by Mr. M. Chapman, K.C,, and Mr. AY. J Ogan, and defendants by Mr H. p. Bell, K.C, and Mr. J. O'SUea, City Solicitor.

Land Taken and Given Back, Mr. Chapman explained that the whole ] of tlu subdivision was originally taken by tho corporation, and then the lawhaving been change.!, they restored the whole to tho unwilling owners, and now ■ ore taking only a strip 10 feet wick, which was the direct subject of the claim. The corporation did actually take the whole of the land, and had- possession of it for a period during which tho owners wero entirely deprived of the opportmiitj of gaining any revenuo from it. iney were thciefore entitled to interest on the value of the whole plot from the time of the original taking to some later date, which they suggested should be: at three months after the date of the second taking, the additional period being named as a reasonable time for the plaintiffs, to readjust their intentions as to utilising, the land. .A case was stated for tho Court of Appeal.to ascertain whether the Citv Corporation could abandon the land when it had once taken if. The Court decided that the corpi ation had that power, and the principb of compensation was laid down. . ',",■-, Arthur Thomas Bate, sharebroker, one of the owners of the land, said they bonght it from tho'Heath Estate early in 190G, ns it speculation. It was part of a. larger block, including the Duke ' oi Edinburgh Hotel, which they also bought, and thev had always refused to sell apportion 'of this block separately, because they believed the wliolo of it would be required eventually for erecting a larger hotel on the ground, or (should the hotel lose its license) a large commercial building. Tho old building next the hotel was destroyed bv fire after they bought.. the land. They then had plans prepared for a new building of such a diameter that it could bo used ns an extension of the hotel. He had never valued the.land at less than .£3OO a foot, taking the section at its original sij.e. The taking off of the 10ft. strip would depreciate the value of the sec'.im per foot' because any new; building would list be in line with the hotel,'and. would bo in a. recess, and, moreover, the shallowness- of. the section nreiudiciallv affected I lie class of building tlint could be erected there.' To Mr. Bell: In the purchase of the Heath Estate, the larger block, of which witness and his nr.rtii.er had one-third,' was bought for J.lW.nnO. Tie did not know what wa= the intention of the City Council in retard to widening Willis Street un to tb» corner.

Edward M'Callum Blake, architect, gave evidence as to.the cKss of miilriinir thot cnnhl be erected on tin section originally and as reduced.

Evidence as to Value. Alexander.L. 'Wilson, land valuer ?".i:V be valued the whoie of Lot G, adjoining the Duke of Edinburgh, with a trontagc of 23ft. fiin. to Willis Sticer. and a depth of 57ft. "in: on one side and b'Ot't. Gin. on the other side, at .£2Oll a font for market purposes. He considered that the. taking away of the 10ft. strio of .frontage rerinsed the value of the whole by onethird. . It was ono of the bost.sites avail Wellington. It. would always :ne a; tramway stjopins-piace. If -'the site had crofter depth it would be tho most v'alur able site in Willi- Street. William John Miller, land agent, estin aled thi value of the land unreduced in area, at .£2GS a fooP, and the 10ft. strip at .£72 n foot. The reduction TarKcly decreased lb • value of the lcnainniß area. Archibald Cameron. pearcc'land agenr. placed the value of the section undisturbed at «£250 a foot, ami thb shin at £S(l a foot. A. A. GellnHy. land neent, assessed the values at .£250 amU.fGO a foot respectively, hut thought the land would lie worth half as ninelinnnin to tho owners of the. T)uko of Edinburgh. C. C. Crump,, liuilder and valuer, considered that before the front strip was tnl-en the land.was woith .f.250 a. font .but th« taking of the strip reduced the value by a. third. 3'rlwin Moult, land, aprent. valued the originnl..proporty at j'AnO a foot- and the strin tnkpn at .P. 70 a .foot. .T).iniel Moore Brooks, property own n r, Wcllir.sto;i, said ho had V-er.n buyiu.g ond selling property here for So .vears. The land untoiielierl would have sold nt ,£270 Mit U- would, not liny it at .COO jinw,

Willi-im T,injjinl, bind agent, said (he land, before t lip a.r.m was reduced wis ■vo:fh..l!2Go a foot in the ocen morl-et. morn to the owner of the hotel. He vnl-, nod Use strjn at -/'BO a font.

WJlliaiH.C. Smith bind .-x-ent. SiM the '-•net would lie.-o fetel.ed :fTm if lltl!<i™r ed. hut it be hard to get .£2OO in tho open mai:.ot.

Mr. Hell, in opening for tho respondent, said the claim was based on a valuation of ;£'GO9 a foot, and that was what the claimants thought they had to inecl. It excluded all possibility of a settle-, nient. Yet most of tho witnesses for the plaintiffs set the value at less than half that rate. When the corporation returned the land to (lie plaintiffs there was nothing to prevent the latter erecting a building such as they had designed. Tho plans showed that what they first, intended to build was a two-story building, and the plans did not show that the walls could be broken through to use the building ns an addition to the Duke of Edinburgh. The difference in value was a mere trifle, having regard to the beneficial effect of widening the street. He submitted that the value of the laud taken should be computed at the same, rate as if it had been off the back. When the Government or the City Valuer valued land in any of the main streets of the citj-, h? valued it at per foot of frontage, and took no account of the depth, unless it was very shallow or very deep. The widening of "Willis Street, so far as it had been done, had increased the value of the land there, and he thought there would be similar enhancement if the widening was continued up to Manners Street. Ho thought the loss and gain to thcowncrs of the section in one'ticn would be about equal, but they 'should receive some compensation. The City Valuer, Jamo.s Ames. City Valuer and Government Valuer for the city of Wellington, said tho value of the land at its' full depth was -.C2OO a foot, and lie did not thing the taking of the 10ft. strip would depreciate it much, in view of the improvement effecfed by widening Ihc street. The owners would bo permitted to put up a higher building, and the lighting would bo improved. There would be more room for people to loiter, and the place would become a more valuable shop site. It would not be deep enough for largo business premises, but would suit tho kind of shops people would wish to build there. He instanced shops in Willis Street, 10 37, and 35ft. deep and 33ft. in Lnmbton Quay. Ho supported bis valuation by quoting sab's of land ill the vicinity. Leonard H B. Wilson, sharolnokci- and valuer, said he valued the laud unreduced ,

at .C 207 a font. The loss of value through Inking, off Ih« front..sirip would be. small. Fifty fret was ample depth for"n'shop, a.-id more than the average. He did not 'think extending tlic Itcdroom accommodriiinii of hotels was a good investment, judging by repent experiences of different people in Wellington. Matthew Murdoch, builder and valuer, thought Ihe properly in its original state was worth JHOO n' foot. Counsel having addressed the Court, his Honour stated ithat the decision would be announced at 10.-15 this morning.