VALUATION OF LAND

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2470, 25 May 1915, Page 9

VALUATION OF LAND

SITTING OF ASSESSMENT COURT A sitting of the Assessment Court was held before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. The cases were brought under Section 36 of the Valuation of Land Act, under which owners of property have the right to apply for revaluation at any time, md to call on the Department under Section 31 to take over the property if the Court sustains the valuation. Mr. F. N. Martin appeared for the Valuation Department, and the assessors were Messrs. T. Dwa'n and H. E. Leighton.

11. AY. Battersby, who' appeared for his son, objected to the valuation of a section at Wadestown set down at £125. The section was bought in August for £120, and witness submitted that certain improvements, valued at £o, were then on it. He did not object to the valuation of improvements now at £19. Mr. Martin, gave evidence that, many sections had sincc been sold in the Highland Park Estate at sums in excess of the Government valuation. He had no doubt the section in question could bo sold for more than it cost. The Court decided to reduce the capital valuation to £119; unimproved value £100, improvement £19. It. G. Hill, as trustee for the Foreman Estate, objected to the capital value, £2730 (unimproved £2380), for properties in Taranaki Street, almost opposite the Barracks. There w.ts no objection to the_ value of improvements, but an application was mads for a reduction to the old capital value of £2040. S. Harcourt gave evidence that he thought the valuation too high, _ and stated that properties in the vicinity had been sold for less than the Government valuation. Mr. Hill stated that the estate had once been offered to the Department at 10 per cent, less than the valuation. Questioned by Mr. Martin', 'Mr. Harcourt said that recently they had been selling properties under the Government valuation. A property in Adelaide Road valued at £2500 was sold for £2100. Mr. James Ames, City Valuer, was called by Mr. Martin. The property had a frontage of 68 feet, with two old cottages on it. He considered the property was a valuable one ; and was not property occupied. The site was a good factory one, but with the present buildings could produce nothing. He had valued property there at £35 per foot, and in some instances up to £40 per foot. Thero had been very few objections to the last valuations.' Ho had increased the valuation by £5 per foot at the last valuation.

Mr. Hill said that the property was contained in a small trust estate, with six years to run. They had not offered it for sale.

. The Court dccided to reduce tho capital valuations in all the sections, tho total amount being reduced from £2730 to £2550, the improvements remaining.

Mr. Bcnge replaced Mr. Dwan as assessor for Upper Hutt cases. H. G. Gibboiis objected to the valuation of two properties in Uppor Hutt. Insono caso the capital valuo was sot at £4650, unimproved £2885, and in the second capital valuo £580 and unimproved £540., The reason ho applied for a reduction was becauso of the excessive rates, which wero more than double what they were twelve months ago. Out of the £2 ss. per acre rental that ho was able to obtain, the rates came to £1 7s. Gd.

Applicant admitted making a sale of four acres at £140 per acre. He bought the property—47 acres—eight years ago at £90 per acre. That was in the boom time. He bought the land for strictly business purposes, but found the land quite unsuitable owing to the early and late frosts. He was employing twenty inert, and paying out £50 a week in wages, and lost £3500 in two years. He fixed the valui now at £65 per acre, Thos. Hill gave evidence that tho property had a road frontage all the way to the river. It was valued at £80 per acre. The valuation in 1908, he thought, was £100 nor acre. The Court decided to sustain the valuation, and tho owner still has the right to offer the property to the Department. Mr. Riddell said that it was unfortunate for the owner that the rates had been increased, but the Court could not interfere in that matter.

Robert Bould, assessed for £655 on a property at Ohariu, objected to tho valuation of the land, and to improvements set at £10.

After hearing evidence the Court increased the capital value to £085, leaving the unimproved value at £665, and increasing •improvements to £20.

Mr. Nielson appeared for Mrs. S. Drake, and objected to the valuation of two properties in Moore Street, Thorndon Quay. The Department's valuations were: Capital, £696; unimproved, £611; and £348 and £318. The sections have a frontage of 40 feet, and small buildings are erected on them. The Court reduced the values as follow:—First section, capital value £660, unimproved £575; second section, capital valuo £340, unimproved £310. Valuations were sustained, the owner retaining tho right under Section 31 to offer to the Department, in tho following cases:—J. W. Reay, Upper Hutt district; A. H. Gibson, Ngaio; G. T. Murray, Petone Borough; and G. R. N. Wright, Eastbourne Borough.