COMPENSATION CLAIMED

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1000, 17 June 1930, Page 9

COMPENSATION CLAIMED

PROPERTY TAKEN AT PANMURE ACTION AGAINST P.W.D. Compensation totalling £3,820 for land taken at Panmure, and for injurious affecting of the balance. was claimed by James Donald, of Auckland, against the Public Works Department in an action heard by the Compensation Court today Mr. Justice Ostler presided, and with him were associated Mr. John Alexander and Mr. J. B. Paterson, as assessors for the Crown and the claimant respectively. The property involved contains ?ust over 50 ax:res, and overlooks the Tamaki River. The sum of £1.200 was claimed for 4 % acres taken ty the Public Works Department. £7lO for injurious affecting of the residue and £1,900 for diminution of the va ud of the residue of the land by the existence of the electric transmission line*. constructed. Mr. Leary appeared for the claimant and Mr. Meredith represented the department. A claim by the estate of John A. Endean, deceased, was also mentioned. Mr. Leary explained that Donald, who had been co-owner of the property with Endean. had acquired his partner’s interest in the land and the claim for compensation. Therefore, Donald had claimed the full amount of compensation instead of only a half-share. His Honour agreed that this was the correct procedure. The property had been entered upon by the claimant about the end cf 1926, Mr. Leary stated. At that time subdivisional schemes were active and sections were selling well. The Railway Department evidently considered the district was suitable for closer settlement because it had dotted stations throughout it. The property was bought with a view to resale on a subdivisional basis, and preparations were being made for the actual mark-ing-out of the subdivisions when the land was taken. The roading work was about to be commenced when a disquieting rumour was circulated that the Government proposed to erect a. power line across the property. This ended the subdivisional scheme so far as the portion of the property traversed by the transmission line was concerned. Thus the best sections were lost, and the central feature of the subdivisional scheme had to be sacrificed, involving 41 acres, reprfsenting 25 sections of one-fifth of an acre ' each. The whole property comprised ' 200 sections, added Mr. Leary. Counsel contended that the existence of the electric powc r lines had depreciated the value of the balance of the sections, because of the effect, of the presence of live lines on the public mind. He claimed the value of the sections had thus been reduced by £SO each. At this stage the court adjourned Ul inspect the property.