BOROUGH VALUATIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 287, 26 April 1913, Page 2

BOROUGH VALUATIONS.

THE ASSESSMENT COURT. The Assessment Court resumed its sittings yesterday morning before Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., Assessor. The first ease called was that of Mr. Newton King, property known as Brooklands, containing 90 acres, at Vogeltown, proposed valuation £550. Mr. A .H. Johnstone appeared for the objector. Francis Peacock Corkill deposed that he had inspected the property, having made two special visits within the last few weeks. On part 34, 45 acres, there were 29 acres more or less broken, and unsuitable for subdivision; of part 48, also 45 acres, 3 acres were broken, the rest being suitable for subdivision, but to do so a considerable area would have to be sacrificed for new cross roads and widening existing frontages to the statutory width 1 . As a whole, the land had frontages to Brooklands road and to a cross road connecting that with Avenue road. Two large portions of the Brooklands road frontage had been alienated to other buyors some years ago, so the available frontage was considerably restricted. Part of the property was occupied by residence, gardens and orchard, and another part was in native bush, which the owner had preserved, and the balance was ordinary farm land. The upkeep was costly aiid entirely out of proportion to the income produced from it. The entire property was occupied by Mr. King as a homestead and for some of his men save that the old colonial hospital used in the war time, was let at 10s per week. This had been bought by Mr. King on account of its antiquity and architectural "beauties. The residence had cost £IOOO some sixteen years ago. There were also two cottages, whicTi he valued at £4OO, itable and barn, £200; two green house's and two glass houses, £200; the old hospital £250, stable and iron shed £100; total buildings £2BIO. The homestead section he valued at £4O per acre over all, making £IBOO, as two-thirds were broken. The back section he valued at £SO per acre all over, or £2250. This total for the land, including fencing, orchard, garden and native bush was £4050, and with the buildings £(1860. The town drainage system, gas or electric light had yet to be extended to the property. He did not know the position regarding I the water supply.

To Mr. C. T. Mills: Had made tin's value for Mr. King. He based his value on some little knowledge of land values in this district. The property on the corner of Brooklands and Cross Road with an excellent two storey house and comprising five acres was sold five years ago at £llOO. The house would cost £BOO to build, which made the land £OO per acre. At the junction of the same road with .the Avenue Road, a property of 12 l / 2 ' acres, nicely, laid out, weil planted, good commodious house, etc., had been sold about 18 months ago, he believed, for £1250. x Mr. Walter Bewley, with nineteen years' experience as valuer, and 16 years as farmer, corroborated the previous witness as to the topography of the property. Two-thirds of the front section, about 30 acres, he valued at £25 per acre. Part of the Brooklands road frontage' was only worth about £l2 per acre. The fifteen acres remaining consisted of native bnsh land, and ornamental grounds. This ho valued at £55 per acre or £825, a total value for that section of £1575. In the back section ho estimated that there were about 41 acres of surburban grazing land. It would be ridiculous to say that it was suitable for cutting up at the present time, as there was no demand for suburban sections. He estimated this at £SO per acre, or £2050. The four acres of bush on this section he estimated at £25 per acre. The total value of the land he estimated at £3725, and of the buildings at £2BBO, the total valuation beins £0605. To Mr. C. T. Mills: The sales of the Borough leases on Avenue Road had no relation to this land. Distance did not constitute the only factor in deciding selling value He could not compare values in other localtics unless he also compared conditions. Mr. King's land was suburban grazing land. It could not be compared with Dartmoor, where there was water, gas, electric light, a 'bus service, if an inferior one, and which was on the proposed tram route. To Mr. Johnstone: A leasehold was much more readily taken up than freehold, because it involved much less cash outlav.

I Mr. F. P. Corkill, recalled, stated that I 1 the property on the comer of the Avenue and Cross Road, which he thought had heen sold for £1250, had not been sold. It was valued by Mr, Mills at £IO4O, and ] would cut up into biiildng- sites.

Mr. 0. T. Mills: The part of Mr. King's property under water consisted of ornamental ponds. . Mr. Newton King called by Mr. C. T. Mills, admitted that his'property was rated last year at £520 bv Mr. Hickman F. Russell. This he considered too high. Mr. Johnstone objected to this, stating that it was rated by the County last year on the capital value and not on the annual value. To Mr. C. T. Mills: He had disposed of five acres some 12 or 15 years ago at £75 per acre. He had never had the idea of cutting up the section, and had never placed a value upon it. He regarded it as a home. He did not think the land had risen in value since he sold the five acres mentioned. He had sold another five acres- with two frontages, about the same time for £SO per acre. To Mr. Johnstone: He had owned the land for over 25 years, and during that time only two portions had been sold. There has been no further subdivision. The portions sold were very much better than the average of the Whole that was left. To Mr. Crooke: Five per cent, on the capital value as estimated bv the County Council would be £441. Mr. O. T. Mills submitted the Borough roll showing rateable value £529 and water rate £l2 10s Sd. Mr. King explained that;, ho had put in the water at his own expense prior to merging with the Borough and was liable for the water rate. He had never paid Borough rates on the valuation of £520. which the assessor afterwards calculated to be 0 per cent, on the capital value. Mr. C. T. Mills, in bis evidence, submitted a plan of the district from the Henui River across Yogeltown, showing that Mr. King had not been treated un" fairly as regards his neighbors. There were only two objectors on the whole of that side of the country. Although nil had been raised on the capital value. He valued Mr. King's' property at £BO per acre for the land, i.e., £7200, and the buildings and improvements »enerallv at £4OOO.

To Mr. Johnstone: Ho was roughly three hours valuing Mr. King's property. He went on three occasions, hut, only once prior to the objection being lodged, when he was there about an hour and a half. The land, could he thought, be sold to-morrow for £BO or more. The land on the Avenue Road was of a higher value than that of Mr. Xewtnn King, and he had valued it higher, though he admitted that Mr. Richard's property was valued at a lower figure. He had'valued Mr. Newton King's property as a block. It was, he thought, capable of being cut up into five-acre sections throughout and in many eases into quarter acres. He had no idea how Mr. King would subdivide. Indeed. Mr. King, he thought, would have no need to subdivide, as a syndicate would give the price he valued it at as- an investment, not as a speculation'.

In reply to questions by the Magis- : trate as to the basis of valuation, Mr. Mills stated that it depended on the distance from the centre of the town, other things being taken into consideration. He had arrived at the £4OOO valuation for the buildings as follows:—Stable £SO, six-roomed house £290, six-roomed house £3OO, old hospital £403, wash house and shed £l2, four hot-houses £250. sheds £175, dwelling £2OOO, plantation, ponds, fencing and other improvements £4OO. He had not inquired from Mr. King the cost of the buildings. If he knew the house had cost £IOOO, he would i not have valued it at £2OOO. I The assessor interrupted the cross-ex-amination to ask how they could get below the Government valuation of £BB2I to which Mr. King had not objected. Mr. Johnston stated that while the County rates were reasonable and only reached about £3O per annum he did not object, but since he had come into the Borough and the rates were so heavy (they would amount to £80) he and others did object. Mr. C. T. Mills was cross-examined at length as to properties on the Avenue Road, which had been valued at a lesser rate than Mr. King's property. These he stated weie not so level. Mr. Bewley, recalled, stated that some of these properties on the Avenue Road were ideal for cutting up. He added though the adjoining property was valued at £IOO, it did not follow that Mr. King's was worth £BO. It was most unsuitable for cutting up. After hearing addresses by Mr. Mills and Mr. Johnstone the Assessor placed the value of the land at -£OOOO and of the buildings at £2OOO, a total value of £BOOO, equal to a rateable value of £4OO. The next case taken was that of Mrs. Elizabeth Shaw, property situate at the corner of the Belt and Devon Roads, containing 10 acres 1 rood 23 perches, and on which were Mrs. Shaw's residence and one cottage.—Proposed valuation £3lO. Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for the objector. Mr. W. Bewley deposed that he valued the dwelling at £9OO (its cost), the cottage at £250, stable and outbuildings £l7O. 'He valued half an acre fronting the Belt and Devon Roads at £2BO. This might be cut out, but would detract from the rest of the property. Five and a half acres planted on the hillside was not fit for cutting up and he valued it at £75 per acre—£4l2. The balance of 1014 acres, which might be cut up, he estimated at £2OO per acre as it stood. The value for the land would be £2742 10s.

To Mr. Mills: He based his values on what he knew were current in the town. Mr. F. P. Corkill deposed that he valued the property as a whole at £3005, about £550 more than the last Government valuation, which was £3440. The land he valued at £2OOO and the buildings at £1395. That was about £175 per acre, taken all round. To Mr. C. T. Mills: The nearest sale that he could quote was that of the Veale estate, the history of which lie gave, Mr. S. W. Shaw, called by Mr. C. T. Mills, deposed that his wife was the owner of the property. He stated that the approach to the cottage was below the level of the road. The cost of the house was £998, about 13 years ago. The stable cost £7B, and the bungalow £27 about 8 years ago. Mr. J. C. Davies stated that he had valued this property for Mr. Mills. He valued the land at' £3OO per acre and £1440 for the buildings. .Bonithon opposite had been sold for £SOOO. There was no comparison in the values between Mr. Shaw's and Lynmouth. th" former being much more valuable. To Mr. Johnstone: As it turned out the purchase of Bonithon was purely for the purposes of oil. Mr. A. H. Johnstone submitted that the valuation of his witnesses was exceedingly moderate.—Reduced to £232. The Court then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on Monday.