TRANSMISSION LINES

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 183, 5 May 1925, Page 11

TRANSMISSION LINES

AN OTAKI CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FARMER AWARDED £l9 A Compensation Court, comprising Messrs. L J. Stout, S.M., R. C. Kirk, and J. Young, sac at Otaki on Wednesday last to determine the amount of compensation which a claimant was entitled to for damages suffered to his propertv through the construction of the Mangahao transmission line, ’which passes through the property from the front boundary to the back boundary, '[’here were several other claims filed in the Court, and bv arrangement with counsel engaged it had been agreed to take this case as a standard to ascertain what was a fair basis of compensation. Mr. Atmore, on behalf of the claimant. said that this was tile first occasion in New Zealand in which a Compensation Court had beet set up to deal with a claim of that nature, and it was, therefore, of considerable importance to farmers owning land crossed by the transmission line. Under the Public Works Act, IMS, the Minister had acquired the rights to enter on. to the land to erect a transmission line and maintain it there, the right of user, and also all necessary rights-of-way. These rights were in perpetuity. Claimant claimed for damages suffered bv the entry nnd erection of the hue, and also for depreciation in the value of the land bv reason of its construction and the rights-of-wav acquired. Counsel stated that no claim had been made for possible damages that might be suffered to stock through escape of electrical energy on account of the difficulty of assessing such damage, and he asked that as the Crown was willing to indemnify farmers from such loss in the future, that these rights to compensation should be preserved by agreement between the parties. Counsel stressed the serious inconvenience to farmers and loss tn fanning operations, particularly in cropping land by the erection of the fine and acquiring of the rights-of-wav. In addition to the erection of transmission poles and telephone poles, there was also a tower built to earn the wires across the Otaki River, and a telephone hut for the convenience of workmen, who could live there should occasion arise. The hut was some forty chains from the road boundarv and rights of access had been acquired. It was a serious disability to have outside prisons moving about over farmers* property, and was a serious interference with his rights of enjoyment and undisturbed possession. The Claimant’s Evidence. George Herbert Harper, the claimant, complained that a steel tower had been erected in the middle of one of his best paddocks, and would impede considerable his agricultural operations. All the land traversed by the transmission line was ploughable The steel tower occupied SO square yards or. land worth £lOO per acre. He claimed £IS for the erection of twelve poles on his land, £25 for the erection of the tower, £1 for right-of-way, £2O foi the telephone hut, and £lB for the erection, rights ot wav, etc., of nine telephone poles. Evidence as to depreciation of selling value of the land was given by A. J. I’odcvin and 11. B. Lethbridge. Mr. Currie (Crown Law Office), on behalf of the Minister of Public Works, addressed the Court as to the principle on which compensation should be assessed. He said that claimant was entitled to recover onlv such damages as could be proved, and evidence would be brought to show that much of the damage alleged bv the claimant was purely imaginary. Claims of this

been settled right throughout New Zealand on a basis rot exceeding £l. per pole. Alnnv owners of land crossed by the transmission lines in New Zealand had not made a claim. In the Lake Coleridge svsteni some of the landowners had accepted a nominal amount of ss. in settlement. Evidence would also be given to show that it was not anticipated by the Department that the lint would require any substantial repairs within a. period of ten years. Evidence was given for the defendant be Alessrs. " King, electrical engineer to the Public Works Department, and G. Halliday and Reed, land purchase officers of ‘lie Public Works Department. “£1 Per Pole a Pair Basis.’ Mr. Halliday stated in evidence that the Department had experienced little difficulty in settling these chiims and that it "was onlv the ones that were before the Court that had presented any difficulty. The Department had settled claims in connection with the Lake Colet i'.lge system lor purely nominal amou’its. He considered £1 per pole a fan basis. He said many claims in connection with the Alangabaq transmission line had been settled lor this ‘■uni. A considerable number of farmers had not made anv claims whatsoever. Alany of the farmers considered that the line was no detriment. Evidence of a similar nature was given by Air. Rec.l as to, settlements effected in tiie Hamilton district. The Court’s Finding. Aftv delibeiating, the Court awarded claimant £l9 damages on the following basts,Damages to property, £10; 19 poles, £l9; 1 telephone hut, £10; 1 tower, £lo. . , . ~ The Court stated that in fixing Hie amount it had not taken into consulnation anv possible damage to stock bv rhe escape of electrical energy, ami suggested that this liability should be preserved bv agreement between the parties as previously suggested by counsel.