ASSESSMENT COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 257, 27 September 1940, Page 5

ASSESSMENT COURT

SESSION CONCLUDED

The business of the Assessment-Court in Feilding was completed yesterday afternoon, Mr A. A. McLauchlan presiding. Associated with him were Messrs Leighton and G. J. Eitzpatriclc.

Many of the new assessments concerning which. objections were lodged I were sustained by the Court, while, a I number of objections were withdrawn | and tho Court was mainly engaged in j deciding objections in the business area, and farm property in the borough which was stated to be overburdened on account of river erosion. A number of residential properties were dealt with, these in the main being areas which through special circumstances appeared to be too - heavily rated. In most instances the Court and tho Valuation Department (represented by Mr D. P. Varcoo. of Palmerstmi North) were able to arrange a satisfactory agreement, and’ after the relative values of properties in the business area (notably in Manchester Street and Fergusson Street) had been determined, the remaining objections were settled expeditiously. The principal case during tiie afternoon was that of John Higgins, owner of property on the Oroua .River, oft Symonds Street. Mr C. E. Taylor solicitor foi the the objector, said that river erosion had removed part of the property and it was difficult to define just what acreage remained. ' In evidence, Mr Higgins said that on cne section the erosion had taken place to the extent of an acre a year. He considered that he should be assessed only in respect of 51 acres, although he admitted that lie was farming some 26 acres of “no man’s land” which area liad come into being through accretion. Mr Taylor stated that the rates under tho new assessment for approximately 51 acres amounted to over £IOO, and the chairman remarked that the assessment appeared high in view of the susceptibility of the land to flooding and erosion. Asked what amount he would accept for the property, Mr Higgins said he would accept a little more than half the amount at which he had been assessed. Mr Varcoo contended that there were 97 acres involved and that an error had been made by the department in the acreage mentioned on the assessment.

Tlie chairman stated that the parties concerned were at variance as to tho acreage, and under those circumstances tho Court could not proceed. Was not tho case one in which the valuation should be sustained and the property offered to tlie Crown? he asked. The Court then adjourned to enable the parties to confer. When it resumed the chairman announced that an agreement had been-reached. The objeetpr had accepted a reduction of about onc-third in the unimproved value of the property.