CITY VALUATIONS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 277, 17 August 1921, Page 6

CITY VALUATIONS

LAMBTON QUAY FRONTAGES SALES AT £2OO TO £528 PER FOOT SITTING OF ASSESSMENT COURT The Assessment Court sat yesterday to hear further objections to the valuations placed on various city properties. Mr. V. G. Day, S.M., presided, and associated with him were Messrs. T. B. Dwan (City Council assessor) and Ewen Campbell (Government assessor). Mr. F. E. Ward represented the Valuation Department. Mr. T. W. Hislop appeared in support of his Objection to the valuation placed on property owned by him at the corner of Aurora Terrace and San Sebastian Road. The improved value was fixed at £4920, and the value of improvements at £5OOO. Mr. Hislop submitted that the new valuation was greatly in excess of the real value. The property had been sold in 1919 for £5500 after being in the market for about ten years. The property had a frontage of about 209 feet to Aurora Terrace. For a long time there had been a reserve of £BBOO on the property, but at this figure it had been absolutely unsaleable. James Ames, city valuer, stated in evidence that lie valued the land at £2/ per foot, the area being five-eighths of an acre. Twelve years ago property opposite had been sold at £25 per foot. In 1914 the land was valued at £22 per foot. C. C. Cramp, valuer, gave evidence in support of the valuation fixed 'by Mr Ames. The unimproved value was reduced to £4500 and the remaining valuation sustained. D.I.C, Property. Further consideration was given to tho objection raised by the D.I.C. to the valuations placed Km then* property fronting Lambton Quay. Called by Mr. G. G. Watson, counsel for the D.1.C., Charles J. S. Harcourt, a city valuer, gave his estimate of the valuations of the land occupied by the company’s premises. He valued one of the D.I.C. Lambton Quay sections at £240 ver foot and another at £225, where as the Government valuation was £260 in each instance. There was a boom in land during last year, but jt broke in November. It was very hard to say whether the land had receded in value, for it was not being sold. To Mr. O’Shea (city solicitor): In 19(16 the Bristol Piano Company’s property was sold under a compulsory purchasing clause for £6OOO. There were- 96 sections on the Lnmbton Quay valuation, and. not including the Post Office, there were twelve freeholds. It was very natural to conclude that any freehold coming into the market would be keenly sought after, and as a result very high prices would lie paid. Questioned 'by Mr. Campbell, witness maintained that freehold property was always in greater demand than leasehold. Mr. Campbell: On tho reclamation hero the City Council or Harbour Board gets the unearned increment in the shape ol increased’ rental. Witness: Then it is tho freeholder who gets it every time. To Mt. O’Shea: Business areas had shifted towards Willis Street, and land between Old Customhouse Street and the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel was worth £250 per foot. The Duko of Edinburgh was the best corner in Wellington. Mr. O’Shea: You discovered that when you had tho compensation claim. Witness rejoined that it had always been known. Ln answer to Mr. O’Shea, witness said that the Wellington Investment Company had sold a section on Lambton Quay to the Bank of New Zealand for £36,000, tending to show that in 15 years values had gone up 10 per cent. Losees continued to retain their leases year in and year out on account of improvements effected and the goodwill which might happen to lie in the site. It was not that they could not get such cheap land anywhere else. Value of Leasehold Security. To Mr. Watson: By private negotiation between Mr. Ames and tho New Zealand Insurance Company, the unimproved valuation placed on the company’s property on Lambton Quay had been reduced from £14,509 to £13,750. This was slightly below the 1914 level. Mr. Watson: Do you know whether it, Is ■ fact that no lending institution will accept a leasehold as security for a mortgage? Witness: That has previously been (brought out. The president: When? Mr. Watson: It was a finding by a Royal Commission in 1917. Mr. O’Shea: This is part of the agitation of the leaseholders to cry down these leaseholds. The president: How are tho firms on these leaseholds financed? You can’t expect me to believe that none of them are subject to mortgage. Mr. Watson explained that they could get finance from private individuals or from the City Sinking Fund Commissioners. Mr. O’Shea said that they could not get finance from the Sinking Fund Commissioners. Speaking generally, ho maintained that this was “a campaign of calumny against these leases.” He asked the witness whether it was not a Fact that the reason for tho New Zealand. ffisurance Company’s valuation being reduced was' that Mr. Ames had over-charged eight feet of frontage. Witness: I do not know the reason. All I know is that the Government valuation is less than it was in 1914. Mr. O’Shea: Well, it is a fact. Big Prices Paid. Addressing tho Court, Mr. O’Shea said that sales of leaseholds in tho neighbourhood of the D.I.C. had amply justified any valuations made by Mr. Ames. Right throughout the business portion of Wellington sales of leaseholds had always been on an ascending scale. In tho course of his evidence Mr. Ames stated that within recent years sales of land on the western side of Lambton Quay had realised from £2OO to over £5OO per foot, values generally advancing as tho heart of the city was reached. A section opposite the Bank of New Zealand had been sold for £4OO per foot and another near the Kelburn tramway entrance at £528 per foot. In 1907 as much as £450 per foot was paid for n property down the street from the “N.Z. Timas,” on which tho buildings were valued at only .£2OO. A Mr. Wilson had sold a lease on Lambton Quay, with twelve years to run, at a profit of £6OOO. Tho lease was for 21 years at annual rental of £260. Mr. O’Shoa: Supposing these city leaseholds were freeholds, would they sell at th© prices fixed in your valuation? IVitncss: Yes, they would sell at £3OO to £350 per foot. lam borne out by sales that have taken place. After deliberation, the Court sustained tho valuation of £11,270 (£9710 unimproved and £1560 improved) placed on a corner section and reduced the valuations on the remaining sections belonging to tho company by £5 per foot. Brandon and Panama Streets. The Couit proceeded to review the valuations placed on the D.I.C. property fronting Brandon Street, tho objection generally being regarded as a test case. Mr. Watson appeared for the company. The Government valuations on tho sections in question ranged from £l6O to £lBO per foot. Part of the land fronts Panama Street.

Mr. Watson said that the Government valuation on the land in Britfldon Street was £lBO and £2OO in the case of Panama Street. As showing the actual value of land in the immediate vicinity, counsel said that there was a section of land in Brandon Street which had been lying vacant for many years being unsaleable at £175 per foot. . Gerald Fitzgerald, a valuer, gave brief evidence in support of counsel’s conteutions. Gross-examined by Mr. O’Shea, witness said that outside firms wishing to establish themselves in business in the city were averse to building on leasehold 1& To Mr. Watson: None of the lending institutions with which he was connected advanced money on city leaseholds. This was a general rule with all such institutions. Since 1914 the Government valuations had risen from £l5O to £lBO in .the case of Brandon Street, and from £l6O to'£2oo in the case of Panama ° Alexander Gellatley, a member of the firm of Bethune and Co., put a price of £l5O on Brandon Street frontages and £l6O on Panama Street Iroutagos.. To Mr. O’Shea: Freehold land in Featherston Street had been sold in 1919 to thp Dominion Farmers Institute at £6BOO. This worked out at £1 16s. per square foot, whereas the valuation on the DLI.C. land worked out at £2 10s. per square foot for Panama St.eet, and £0 2s 3d. for Brandon Street. Sates affected in Stout Street worked out at about £1 16s. per square foot. lie admitted that a piece of land was acquired by the Public Trust at the corner of Stout and Ballance Streets at £l9O 1)0? foot. . Tho President: Is the corporation as bad as the old Irish -landlord? Mr. Watson: Just about. After hearing further evidence, tho Court sustained the valuations except m the case of one section, which, with the consent of the corporation, was reduced by tho sum of £BOO on account ol its ■hallow depth, compared with other secTho Court will "t again at 10.30 a.m. to-day.