BOROUGH VALUATION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5166, 17 August 1927, Page 2

BOROUGH VALUATION.

REPLY FROM DEPARTMENT. COUNCIL NOT SATISFIED. At the last meeting of the Paeroa Borough Council a. letter was received from thei Valuer-General in reply to a request for a revaluation of the Gaiety Theatre property, in Wharf Street. The Valuer-General advised that before he could apply for the approval to take action under section 12 of the Valuation of Land Act, 1925, he would require to be convinced of the desirability of taking such a course. It was pointed out that supposing approval was obtained and the valuation raised, tlie o.wners would hitve the right of objection, and evan if the Court sustained a higher valuation than that now assessed the owner would have the right to require the Government to either reduce the valuation or acquire the property. In the latter event the Government would not likely acquire, the property at a figure above its officer’s valuation, hence the valuation would have to be lowered. In connection with tine valuation and the council’s remark as to the present rental value of the property, the writer pointed out that the property was not known to him, but if. as he assumed, the building was old and let as; a picture theatre, the rental value was a. very unreliable guide to the capital and unimproved value required to be assessed under the Act. If a new theatre was to be erected in the vicinity the rental value of the older property would be affected at once.

The concluding paragraph of the letter read : “I understand that the removal of the railway station has lessened the demand for land in this part of your tow.” Cr. F. E. Flatt moved that in the opinion of tlie. council the reply of the Valuer-General did not meet the real point raised, and that the council proceed to show that the course asked for was desirable.

Seconded by Cr. E. Edwards and carried.

The Minister in charge of the Valuation Department wrote as follows-: '‘Referring to our discussion of June 25 last, I have given some thought to your suggestion that local bodies should be given the right of objection to revaluations under section 50 of the Valuation of Land Act, 1925, but I cannot see that it would lead to any improvement. An objection of this kind would have to go to the Assessment Court, and if it was upheld and the valuation Increased the owner, knowing that the Government would not purchase at a price exceeding the valuation made by its own officer, would not hesitate to give the ValuerGeneral notice under section 4'5 of theAct. The result would be that utter incurring considerable expense we would be brought back to where we commenced.

“I am not altogether satisfied with section 5(1 as it stands, but, as stated above, I do not think the adoption of your suggestion would be effective. The Mayor (Mr W. Marshall) said that it was possible for officers of the department to err at times. He- moved that the Minister be thanked for his courteous consideration of the matter, and that intimation be given that the council was not yet satisfied and intended to make representation to the Minister. Seconded by Cr. Hare and carried.