BOROUGH VALUATIONS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 256, 26 September 1940, Page 5

BOROUGH VALUATIONS

OBJECTIONS HEARD

ASSESSMENT COURT

For the purpose of hearing objections lodged in respect of borough revaluations made recently, the Assessment Court is at present sitting at Feilding, proceedings having opened yesterday afternoon. The chairman is Mr A. McLachlan, of Wellington, and associated with him are Messrs H. E. Leighton, of Wellington, and G. JFitzpatrick, of Feilding. The Valuation Department is represented by Mr D. P. Varcoe, of Palmerston North, and Mr L. Pleasants, who made the revaluations in the borough. The list of objections originally contained some 70 files, but a number have been withdrawn, while others have been sustained. A considerable number of the objections concern premises in the business area, and two objections submitted by Mr C. E. Taylor on behalf of clients engaged the attention of the Court yesterday. Mr Taylor stated that the basis of argument centred round the unimproved value of properties in Ferguson Street and Manchesver Street, and lie submitted that in respect of the latter street the premises were unreasonably highly rated and had been so for some years past. He believed that an injustice haa been done to the ratepayers in that part of the business area. Presenting his case in regard to Messrs Carthew and Sons’ objection, Mr Taylor said that the capital value of the property was given at £3730 and the unimproved value at £I9BO, an amount which worked out at £6(3 per foot of frontage. As a result of the revaluation the rates on the property had increased by £l4 to £122 15s 2d. The opinion of Mr N. E. Gifford, a valuer, was that buyers of such properties required a 5 por cent, return on their investment, and Mr Taylor said that no oue would make a property investment unless it would show a return of that percentage, i Mr McLachlan said it could hardly be said that no one would make such an investment, although Mr Gilford might not feel disposed to do so. For purposes of comparison Mr Taylor cited the Bank of New Zealand corner in Fergusson Street, the unimproved value of which was at the rate of £36 per foot. He considered that the Carthew corner value was 25 per cent, above that of , the former, but on the new valuations Carthew’s value was two and a-half times as much as another property in Manchester Square. He submitted that the Manchester Street premises carried more than their share of the borough rate burden. Mr Gifford, who was competent to express an opinion on the relative values of properties in Manchester Street, had assessed the value of Messrs Carthew’s at £SO per f°°t. . . . , -Concerning the objection made relative do pro pi** ties in Manchester Street owned by the estate of the late Mr J. W. Br am well, Mr Taylor said that the Valuation Department had valued them at £8 per foot less than Messrs Carthew’s, whereas he considered the A.a —r,i-ir-ti,lu lia n-rpater than

£5 per foot. VALUER’S EVIDENCE. Mr Gifford, in evidence, said that he had been of the opinion that the Carthew property was overloaded as far as unimproved value was con-, cerned. For the purpose of arriving at the present-day capital value he had taken out the cost of replacing t'he building, and alter allowing for depre-| ciation over 35 years he assessed the capital value at £1990 which, plus the’ land at £SO per foot, gave him the grand total at £3409. He assessed the rental value at £338 per annum. Subtracting the outgoings and capitalising the balance at 5 per cent.,' the value arrived at was £3570. He considered that the property on his valuation should realise £3500. In answer to a question asked by Mr Varcoe, witness said he believed! the Cart'hew property to be 25 per, cent, greater in value than the prem-' ises occupied by the Bank of New Zealand. Regarding the premises au-'-j jacent to Messrs Carthew’s in Man-jj Chester Square, Mr Gifford was of the ' opinion that the difference in values of the two properties should not be ' more than £2O. A shop at the Carthew corner would ■ have a rental value of ’ from £4 to £4 10s, whereas a shop of ’ a similar size in Manchester Square would be worth approximately £2 to £2 10 s.

Mr Varcoe suggested that the rents mentioned by Mr Gifford indicated that there was a greater difference in the merits of the two sites than was indicated in witness’s estimate of the respective properties’ values. Mr Varcoe stated that an' agreement had been reached in respect of the Bramwell property valuation in 1939 when an adjustment had been made for death duty purposes, and he submitted that that was sufficient evidence to support the valuation fixed.

Mr Taylor stated that the unimproved value of the borough had been reduced by 35 per cent., but the reduction bad not been apparent in the values of the business area propertiesHe objected to reference being made to revaluations made solely for death duty purposes. He did not consider that a fair argument. Mr Pleasant said he could not agree with the values assessed by Mr Gifford, and pointed out that the rentals jraid in Fergusson Street as compared with those in Manchester Street, indicated that the busiest part of the town was in Manchester Street, particularly at the corner of Manchester Street and Manchester Square. The area had pride of place, he stated in reply to the chairman. Continuing, Mr Pleasants stated that people going to and from the Post Office corner cut across the road diagonally, and very few followed the footpath. Air Taylor maintained that the rents in Fergusson Street did not differentiate to the extent of warranting the much heavier rating which applied to Manchester Street premises. Mr Varcoo said that the values oi properties in Manchester Street were consistent with the rents paid, and 'lie refuted a suggestion made by Mr Taylor that the department had selected Carthew’s corner as a starting point in assessing the new valuations. At this stage the Court adjourned in order to inspect the premises concerned in the i/wo objections submitted bv Mr Taylor. ‘Mr McLachlan stated that the session would he completed to-day. TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. When the Court resumed to-day, Mr Varcoe referred to Mr Gifford’s valuations in respect of the Union Bank i property in Manchester Square. On iMr Gifford’s valuation the value of the Carthew property at £25 a foot was too 1 low as against the Union Bank valuation at £22 10s, taken on the Manchester Square frontages. Regarding the Bank of New Zealand and Carthew’s properties, an analysis had

shown that the valuations were consistent with the rentals paid. The chairman said that the Cartliew property had the advantage of two frontages. “You will always find that the inner part of a borough has to carry the heavier part of the rate burden,” said the chairman to Mr Taylor. “You have heard the story, however,. that the business premises are able to pass it on.” Mr Taylor made reference to the rents paid in respect of a large building in Kimbolton Road. He said that with twice the frontage that the Carthew property had the rents amounted to '2ss less than Carthew’s. The chairman commented that he was pleased to hear from Mr Taylor that Feilding was still as solid as ever. “The Court is unanimously decided on £63 per foot in respect of the Cartliew property.” said the chairman, who added that the Court was not empowered to increase the valuations in Fergusson Street. Mr Varcoe considered that the Court had such power, although he did not wish to press for the valuations to be increased. In respect of the Bramwell property, the valuation was reduced by £2 per foot, involving an amount of £65 . . . , r In regard to other premises in Manchester Street, Mr Varcoe said that, seeing that the previous objections settled had been adjusted on a comparative basis, he was prepared to agree to a reduction of £2 per foot. Mr J. Graham, representing Darragh and. Sons, said he was prepared to accept the £2 per foot reduction in respect of the Manchester Street frontage, but ho felt a reduction should be made in respect of the MacArthur Street frontage valued at £22 10s. _ Mr Varcoe said that, compared with the Union Bank premises, which were not on a corner Messrs Darragh’s McArthur Street frontage was not unduly loaded. The chairman said that the value for the corner influence was rather high at £370. He asked Mr Varcoe if lie would concede that and Mr Varcoe said ho would admit it was a shade high, although he thought the frontage should realise the value mentioned. The Court agreed - to reduce the value from £370 to £230. Amendments were accepted in respect of the following objections:— Union Bank of Australia, A. 'Williamson, Mrs E. L. Robertson, Mrs M. Sandilands, ’J. G. Cobbe. Reductions were made in respect of the following objectionsL. J. Jackson, Kimbolton Road, unimproved value reduced from £1220 to £IOOO, with improvements remaining at £1285. G. Hausmann, Ferguson Street, unimproved value reduced from £365 to £375. Hugh Burrell, reduced from £B7O to £770; capital value to remain at £1540, Feilding Bacon Company, 'unimproved value reduced from £9lO to £750; capital value to remain at £5750. Mrs I. Owen Trewin Street, unimproved value reduced from £6O to £45, with improvements remaining at £5. In respect of a second objection on behalf of the same ratepayer, the unimproved value, was reduced to £6O, with improvements remaining at £5. Mr Tnvlnr renresented L. T. Mc-

Lean in respect of a vacant section in Kimbolton Road, and stated that the rates were £SO. Mr A. J. Geary had valued the Macarthur Street frontage at £4 a loot, while the value assessed on the Kimbolton Road frontage was £l2 per foot. Witness considered the unimproved value at £640, but he was confident that £3OO could not be secured for the property. He considered that the value of properties on the opposite side of Kimbolton Road in comparison should be £lB per foot.