VALUATION OF LAND.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5007, 30 July 1926, Page 3

VALUATION OF LAND.

OBJECTIONS BY PLAINS SETTLERS TRIBUTE TO VALUERS. A sitting of the Asessment Court was held at Thames yesterday to hear objections of Hauraki Plains, settlers to the valuation of the lands, Mr J. C, L, Hewitt. S.M., presided, and with him were Messrs W. E. G, Willy and E, Allan, assessors appointed by the Hauraki Plains County Council and the Government respectively. Thirty-five objections had been lodged, but only eight settlers appeared before the Court. In the other cases the matter had been settled or the objectino withdrawn. Advantage was taken in spme instances of the claues in the Act that provides for an objector offering his land tc the Cro.wn at his valuation. If the Crown

does not accept the land at this price the settler’s valuation becomes the official valuation.

The fewness of the objections brought before the Court was' commented upon after’ the sitting by Mr H. J. C, Coutts, officer in charge, Valuation Department, who said that it amounted to a vote of confidence in the Government valuers, Messrs H. H. Dorr, of Te Aroha, and W, G; .Hayward, ot Ngatea, that from a district as large as the Plains County, which admittedly was wet country, the settlers were satisfied with their valuations. Of those applications that came bfeore the Court it appeared that a high capital valuation was desired as a security to borrow on and a low unimproved valuation was desired for rating purposes. AWAITI FLOODING.

The first objection heard was that of Mr T. Considine, tenant farmer, Awaiti, Netherton riding (Mr E. J, Clendon), who contended .that his valuation of £lOlO was too high on account of ,the wetness) of the land and the impossibility ot securing drainage. Blackberries and ox-eye daisies nifested the .land and could' not be eradicated until the stumps had been removed. The previous valuation was £750. On account of the “blocoage of outlet drains his and neighbouring sections, acted as a ponding area for the whole olf Wil" son’s and Hayward’s estates. If the dam was removed from the drain the section would get drainage, but thtf person who removed the dam would probably get gaol. The position had been explained to the Hon. A, D. McLeod, who had advised seeking a reduction in valuation as the Ohly way of securing relict. The objector was examined at length by Mr Coutts concerning the relative values of adjoining sections ■ and the cost of improvements, etc. The objector stated that when the ■block of land was cut up .the section he now leased could not be sold and it was made ah Education reserve. Evidence was given by the valuer, Mr.H..H.- Dorr, Te Aroha, He contended that the outlet drains were not blocked. He had given due allowance to the fact that the land was subject to flooding. His Worship intimated that the Court would inspect the section before giving a decision. Mr B. Halligan, farmer, Awaiti, objected on the same grounds. He produced photographs of his, section during the flood showing cows standing

:in two feet of water. He substantiated the evidence of. the previous objector to the effect that: the drains "had been blocked. He Had removed the da,ms and the water had got aWay, but the dams had been replaced and the settlers warned of the consequences of interfering with the Government and drainage board schemes'. Similar evidence was given by John Wakehajm, the next objector, who aslo objected to the £760 set down for the improvements! as being too low. Examined by Mr Coutts, he stated tha.t his improvements, .were wbirth £l9OO.

Mr Coutts stated that 1 if the value of the improvements .was added to the Government unimproved value it would be less than the objector’s value.

Giving evidence of ,the value cif the • improvements the Government valuer iassssed them at £760.

- Tn reply to the objector the valuer •said he would not take a contract to /stump land ,at the prtce at which he Ji ad assessed the improvements. Ih his opinion the stumps should not be blasted out, thereby spoiling the quality of the land, but should be left, and in a few years they would rbjt. The Court intimated that it realised both points of view and would inspect the section. An application on behalf of J. B, Whisker that the Court also inspect his land was granted. Objections by Vivian Young and A. F. Maude were withdrawn. DEEP PEAT FARM. <■ Mr W. G, Priest objected to the valuation of £2420 unimproved and £4BO improvements on his deep peat : section, Ngatea riding. He said that the. land would not take grass, and on '•account df the depth of peat alongiside it was useless attempting to • drain. He was prepared to offer the '•Government the land for £lBOO, and rthis the Court advised him to do. ■ OBJECTION BY MORTGAGOR. iMr Hallyburton Johnstone objected to the valuation of £3160 unimproved and £2250 for improevments, On the' land since sold by him. Through an oversight the land was still in his name.

The representative of the department intimated that the purchaser had agreed to the valuation. Mr Johnstone stated that he was affected .as unless a big reduction was made it was, unlikely that the present occupier could carry bln. The rates were a charge on the land, and thus it was possible that he would have to pay.

Mr Coutts agreed that the objection should be heard.

The objector contended that the assessment of the value b® the improvements was excessive.

The Court pointed out that the capital valuation whs of little moment as far as the rating was concerned. As the objector was of opinion that

a reduction In the capital valuation ' would cause a reduction in the unim-

proved valuation it was explained to him by the Court tha.t the unimproved valuation-'was set down as that sum which the land would bring in the market were it in its virgin State and without any improvements, but providing the rest of the land in the Dominion was in its present state. It wa,s agreed that the objector should offer the land to the Crown as provided by Statute. Mrs M. Markham, Turua, objected to the valuation on account of the ineffective drainage. She desired to object as a means of drawing attention to the drainage question. Mr Coutts pointed out that compared with adjoining lands, an allowance of £2 an acre had been made on account of the wetness of the sectiefa. As there .was only another £2 per acre between the Government and the objector’s valuations, and there w.as no doubt the land was wet, he offered that the difference be halved by reducing the Government valuation £1 per acre, bringing It to £605 unimproved a n d £5OO fcor improvements.

The Court proposed to inspect the. lands of the Awaiti objectors to-day and return to Thames to announce its; decision.