Valuing the County

Ellesmere Guardian, Volume XXIV, Issue 426, 16 March 1921, Page 4

Valuing the County

A BIG BILL. The Ellesmere County Council recently received an account for £185 6s from the Valuation Department, being one-third of- the cost of re-valuing the county It was decided to apply to the Ministerial head of the Department, through Sir Heaton Rhodes, for particulars, and the following letter from Sir Heaton came before : tne^ Council on Monday .--^ ■ * , ''With reference to your letter oi February 8, regarding the Valu-! ation Department's charge for the ! valuation of the Ellesmere county, I now. quote for your information the reply I have received from the ' Hon. Mimster-in-Charge of the Valuation Department, namely:' With reference to your letter of 10th inst, I have the honour to in-! form you that the sum of £185 6d represents the one-third share of the cost and incidental-to the revision of. Ellesmere county, which is chargeable to the County Council in terms of the regulation made under Valuation of Land Act, 1908. The revision involved the preparation of field books , and" plans for valuers, the inspection and valuation of properties, the preparation of valuation rolls, typing of notes to owners and occupiers and consultations with objectors. As the Ellesmere Council considers that the Department's charge is excessive it is proper to point out that owing to the abnormal extent to which rural land values appreciated in value after the termination of the war it was found necessary to make a closer inspection of land and improvements in-the county than had ob T tamed hitherto, so as to ensure as far as possible a reasonable degree of accuracy in estimating values, and"in order to effect that purpose additional time was required to complete the field work. The additional time spent on revision, however, was not the only factor in increasing its cost, for it has to be borne in mind that the salaries of the valuers and clerks have been substantially increased sine*> the date of the previous revision of the county.'' The question of applying for a re-valuation of the county, in view of the unsatisfactory and unfair result of the recent valuation was discussed, but no definite decision was come to. ,