ASSESSMENT COURT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 255, 22 July 1921, Page 7

ASSESSMENT COURT

PROPERTIES IN CUBA STREET SEVERAL VALUATIONS SUSTAINED Tho Assessment Court, consisting of Mr. V. G. Day, S.M. (president), and Messrs. E. Campbell (assessor for tho Government) and T. B. Dwan (assessor for the City Council), continued y tho hearing of objections to valuations assessment yesterday. Mr. P. S. K. Macassey appeared foe the Department, nnd Mr. J. Ames (city valuer) for the City Council. On behalf of his wife. Lady A. M. Edwards, Sir Bassett Edwards claimed that her property in Cuba Street had been over-rated. The valuation on one property had been fixed at -£3225. although the property had been In the market for over fifteen months, the owner having signified her intention to sell for .£275(1. No bids had been received. Sir Bassett Edwards made an offer to tho Valuer-General that tho lower sum should lie accepted by the Government, the seller being willing to accept Government ten-year debentures at 6 per cent. That offer would remain open' for seven days. Tho Court sustained the valuation. Sir Bassett Edwards indicated that if tho offer did not prove acceptable, the property would be offered under section 31 of the Act. Tho capital value on another Cuba Street property owned by Lady Edwards was reduced from £1.090 to -£lOlB, tho unimproved value from .£B4O to £768, owing to the vainer not having nllowed for 23 feet taken off the back of the property. A protest made by Esther Alary Baber (Mr. G. G. G. Watson) against tho valuations placed on three sections on Fitzherhert Terrace was not sustained by the Court.

Mr. Watson also appeared for Leonard Tripp, who objected to the unimproved valuation of .£1895 placed on a leasehold section in Molesworth Street. It was stated by Mr. Watson that tho area of the section vm 23.9 perches, nnd tho valuation placed on it was equal to -C14,(IOO an acre, as compared with tho city valuer’s estimate of -C6OOO for a church aero in Hobson Street. Giving evidence the city valuer said the land was valued at -£l6 a foot. Tho valuation was reduced by -£lOO. Tho unimproved valuation of .£950, placed on what was described as a. "pro. cipitious” section in Aurora Terraco, owned by Isabella Thompson, was reduced by £5O. The unimproved value of £555 on a section belonging to Mrs. Edith A. Powell, Ohiro Road, was by tho consent of the city valuer reduced to £420

In the'eaxe of Ellen Young (Air. G. G. G. Watson), who complained of the valuations on her three sections in Salamanca Road, the unimproved values of Which were estimated at £845, £llO5, and £2260, the Court reduced the first valuation to £770 and the second to £lOl3. The third valuation was sustained. Question of Improvements.

For A. W. Blair, Mr. G. G. G. Watson complained of tho capital value of £3750 placed on a property in Woolcombo Street, on which there was an elevenroomed house, a motor garago, and a Bpecially-built conservatory. He asked that £lO6O bo allowed for improvements. Tho house had been purchased three months ago for £3600, and the section was 123 ft. x 190 ft.

Mr. Arnes: The house is 40 years old and was valued at £5OO in 1914, and at £7OO this time. “It is insured for £1400,” said Afr. Watson.

The Court decided to allow £7OO for improvements, making the capital value £3400. and the unimproved value £2700.

Robert Hannah (Air. Perry), whose house and land in Boulcott Street carried d'capital valuation of £9700, an unimproved valuation of £3700, and a house valuation of £6OOO, asked for a reduction in the valuation of the building. If was seven years old, Mr. Perry sold, and the unimproved valuation was not in dispute. The Court allowed a reduction of £lOOO. making the capital value £B7OO, vitliie of house £5OOO, and unimproved value as before. Afr. Perry also submitted that the value of the improvements on his client’s properties on Lambton Quay had risen from £10,500 in 1914 to £13,125 on the present valuation. He asked for a reduction, as no improvements or alterations other than necessary business re. quirements had been made for five years. The valuation was sustained. James A. Hannah, tho owner of a brick building on Hamilton Quay, had his improvement valuation reduced from £3200 to £3OOO.

E. M. Hannah, owner of a property a few doors away (a wooden building), had her improvement valuation -reduced from £920 to £B2O, making the capital value £19,300.

George London complained of the Improvements valuation of a. property off Ghuznee Street. The capital value wad £1290, unimproved value £740, and improvements £550. Mr. Perry, for the appellant, contended that the Department should “split tho difference.” The Court decided to amend the improvements a» follow:—Capital value £l2lO. unimproved value £7lO, improvements £5OO. Railway Reserve Land.

Tho Fletcher Construction Company, represented by Mr. A. Fletcher, asked for a reduction in ite valuation on a vacant property situated in Wakefield Street. The capital value was £6300. The appel. lant said the property was part of tho Te Aro railway reserve. He contended the capital value should be £2700. A reduction of £450 was granted by tho Court. Subsequently the company complained of having been rated on the scale of £5O a foot on lands leased from tho Harbour Board, near the previous property. The objection was not sustained. F. W. London (Mr. W. Perry) raised objections on the valuations on several of his Cuba Street properties, stating he was satisfied with the capital value in each case, but wished a different allocation of unimproved values. Ho contended the values were "full of anomalies." One mon in Cuba Street was paying more per foot than th/: owner of the most valuable property in the street. The capital value of the appellant’s pro. perty was £12,060, tho unimproved valuo £7600, and improvements £5OOO. He thought the unimproved value should be £5BOO, and the improvements £6200. The city valuer said he thought the best portion of Cuba Street was tho Te Aro House corner. Property there sold at £230 a foot, and a racent salo totalled £19,000.

Mr. Perry: That is just the sale of one man’s property. It is not general. To Mr. Perry, Mr. Ames said ho did not remember that ho ever said tho Royal Oak corner was the best in Wellington. People only went there when they "wanted a drink,” ho said.

Giving evidence, C. C. Crump valued the property in question at £2lO a foot. He did not think the RoyaL Oak corner was as valuable a business site as the To Aro House corner. A Point of View.

"Aren’t you taking the view that tho Royal Oak only ee])« liquor and Te Aro House something bettor?” asked counsel. "No,” answered wrtnewi. "For twenty years I have considered the other site tho better."

Tho Court sustained the valuation. When tho appellant’s next case was cal], cd ho advanced and said "I don’t think I am getting justice in this Court.” "If statements like that are made,” said Mr. Day, "the Court will refuse to hear you. I have had occasion to speak to others, and I certainly xvill not allow a witness to presume. I think your case had better bo adjourned until August 15." Tho adjournment was made inglyJohn Esau Milos, own-er of section 116 Vivian Street, requested an increase in tho valuation of the building on tho property. Tho capital value was £7BO, the

unimproved value -C686, and improvements £lOO. He objected to Mr. Macassey stating that "the reason for the Increase requested was that appellant wished to increase the Tent on the property.” The valuation was sustained. , "It doesn’t affect my tax," said the appellant, nnd when I die, it will be all tho less to pay in stamp duty, ins second complaint, on the same grounds, was in respect of a house and property in Austin Terrace, and the valuation was sustained. Tn his fitet case however, on tho application of tho city valuer, the valuo of the house was raised to £5OO, at tho conclusion of the last for tho reversal of the amounts compiled ns improvemonte and unimproved value, was made by Annie Cederholm, who was rejrt.esentwl by her son. The property, in Owen Street, carried a. total valuation of £16.55, unimproved valuation of £lOO5, and improvements .0650. The Court decided to reduce the unimproved value by £lO./, md to increase tho improvements by Suburban appeals will be dealt with today ftt 10 a.m.