LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2589, 11 October 1915, Page 7

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

WELLINGTON CITY CORPORATION LEASES "ONLY A SCRAP OF. PAPER." (To tho Editor.) Sir, —It is impossible 4 o believe that members of Parliament 'would havo acceded to tho City Council's request for an alteration to the terms of the council's leases had they been fully informed of all the facts concerning recent assessments of rental and tlie negotiations that have been carried on with the council by its leaseholders who have been seeking for some time past for full consideration by. an independent body of the existing form of lease. If the council has been dissatisfied with the assessment of rentals made during the past tlireo years, so also hav,o been somo of its tenants. Tlie Temperance and General Life -Assurance Society preferred to forfeit ,a brick building worth £1500 rather than accept tho liability of a new. lease from the council at a rental of £5 10s. per foot frontage to Lambton Quay, I think the following facts are worth recording:— On April 22, 191.2, a case was stated ,in the Court of Appeal between the City Council and the D.1.C., and the court was asked to lay down the principles and tho method of procedure to be followed by the valuers in assessing rentals for renewal periods iinder these leases. It is to be presumed, therefore, that all assessments of rental have' been based upon the judgment then given by tlie Court. Most of the leases granted by the council are for terms of 21 years, with the right, of renewal for 14 yearly periods on a revaluation of the ground rental. No compensation is payable to the tenant for his improvements at the end of his lease, and if lie finds himself unable to accept the new lease at the revised rental he has to follow the course taken by the T. and G. Assurance Society and forfeit ' his building to tho. council'. These renewal rentals are assessjd by throe valuers, whose duty is to determine what will be "the fair annual ground rent_ of the land without any buildings or improvements' for each further renewal period of fourteen years." .Under the terms of the leases one valuer is appointed by the council and 1 ono by tho lessee. Theso two valuers, should they fail to agree, have then to appoint a. third valuer.

In most, if not all, cases recently heard, the valuer for the council' has taken up such ail attitudo that it has been impossible for the two valuers to agree upon a third, and it has ■ been necessary therefore to apply to tho Supreme Court to mako an appointment under tho Arbitration Court Act. i In one case' the Court appointed Mr. C. It. Fell, solicitor, Nelson, and in another case Mr. W. Ferguson, of Wellington; Among the. valuers who have sat to determine these now rentals have been Messrs. A. S. Biss, W. Ferguson, C. Y. Fell, G. Fitzgerald, W; M. Haivnav,' A. Macintosh, J. P. Maxwell, C. B. Morison, G." H. Scales, and H. F. von Haast, and the unanswerable arguments that havo leeu placed before these gentlemen as to tho risks tho tenant has to provide for under theso leases is reflected in tho rentals they have awarded.

At all these assessments the council lias been represented by the City Solicitor, and in eoi!)e cases by Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with the City Solicitor also in tendance.

Ou one occasion the City Council took legal proceedings to set aside the award of tho valuers, alleging sub-conscious bias, but tho Supreme Court declined to interfere, and the award was upheld, thus effectively disposing of the suggestion that the- council's claims had not received l adequate consideration at the hands of the valuers.

Tlie reflection cast upon tho integrity of tho valuers by this action of the corporation is thus thrown back upon tho council's advisors, who are consequently shown, both by the awards of tho valuers and by the judgment of the Court, to have been unduly straining after a higher rental than that to which tho council was entitled under its form of lease.'

it is common knowledge that many of tho lessees in the neighbourhood of Featherston and Brandon Streets have declined to apply for renewals, and vacant sections are now going begging, and one, at least, is now being obscured from public view by a high tin fence. It is more important, however, to iccord the fact that as far back as February 8, 1913, a letter was addressed to the City Council setting out tho disabilities of theso leases and making suggestions as to improvements. . Oil Juno 16, 1913, n proposal was nmdo to tho council to set up an independent commission to go - thoroughly into tho question of local bodies' leases, and further suggestions were made for improvement in tho form of-lease. On September 11, 1913, the attention of the council was drawn to these lettors, and inquiry made as to whether tho council had given the matter its consideration. ,

On March 23, 191-1, the council was again urged to set up tho commission previously referred to. On May 6, 1914, representatives of tho Wellington leaseholders met a special committee of tho City Council and discussed! with it in general terms the conditions contained in the council's lenses. As a result of that intorvicw tlje leaseholders wero requested to submit to ,the council suggestions for improving the present form of lease. Tho matter was again gono into exhaustively and proposals wero submitted to tho council by memorandum dated July,B, 1914. . No reply has as yet been received from tho council.

It must bs remembered that the council has mado frequent changes in its form of leases, and' in each instance has obtained a considerable increase m