BOROUGH VAUATIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 May 1918, Page 7

BOROUGH VAUATIONS.

RATEPAYERS'OBJECTIONS, A further sitting of the Assessment Court was held at New Plymouth on Saturday. -Mr. A. Crooke, S.M., presided. Mr. J. H. Quilliam represented th e Borough Council, and was supported bv the- valuer (Mr. 11. F. Russell). 'The objections of the Govett Estate and the Melbourne Clothing Company were reported to have been settled. The case of the trustor. «f the estate of Mary Standish was then called, the objection being in respect of part sections 20 and 21, Fitzroy Survey District. Mr. A- H- Johnstone (with dim Mr. T. P. Anderson) appeared for the objectors. Mr. Johnstone said that the total area concerned was about 52 acres, divided into two sections —the first being 41 acres 25 perches, and the other 11 acres 5. perches. Tho land was situated on Standi* Hill, and was at present used as golf links by tho Witiora Club, Tn I<>l4 the capital value of the larger section was £4980 and the new valuation was £O3OO, or an increase equal to £32 5s per acre. The valuation of the smaller section was £-1925. and bad been increased to £2240, or equal to £29 per acre. There, was on the estate about '.U acres of s wam-p laud which was practically useless, and also a further quantity which, o u account (if its hilly condition, was quite unsuitable for subdivision. A subdivision plan had been prepared, but before the land could be cut up it would be necessary to spend a large amount of money in loading and improvements, which the borough would probably insist on, before the roads would-be taken over- It was assumed that the valuations made on the Bartmoor Estate, on the opposite side of the road, had had some bearing on the valuation of the property in dispute. That estate, however, bad been cut up before it was included in the borough, and, moreover, some of the sections there were not yet sold, altlrough it was about 15 years since they were placed on the market. The prospect of a tram service to that locality was a distinctly uncertain one, and it was not fair to take that into consideration in arriving at values. Mr. Johnstone submitted that there was nothing to warrant the increase in value undo by tho borough valuer.

Evidence was given by Francis P. Corkill, who said He had had 37 years' experience as a land valuer. He had valued the whole borough for the Properly Tax Department 18 years ago. Tie had made a minute inspection of the lanr" in question within the last, few days for a "refresher." He considered Hie last Government valuation, made three or four years ago, was High. Ho considered the value of the section to be £4385. The value of the smaller section was fairly stated in the Government figures at £1925.

In cross-examination by Mr- Quilliam, Mr. Corkill admitted being asked to make a valuation of the property by the owners, and, before doing sO , ho had been supplied with a, copy "of the valuation to which objection was taken. He did not think, at the present time, that a sale of the property could be effected at £l5O per acre. He would not try to sell at that figure. He did not think the other section would sell at £2(10 per acre under present conditions. He admitted that in the event of the tram service extending up Morley street the values of property there would be appreciably enhanced.

Felix T. Bellringer, town clerk of the Borough of New Plymouth, and formerly borough valuer, said he had made an inspection of the property and valued the 41-acre section at £(itS4s, or equal to £JU7 per acre. The other section was valued at £2750, or £250 per acre. If ho had been valuer at I lie present time those would be his valuations. In reply to Mr. Johnstone, witness said in subdivision within the borough, the council required roads to be formed and footpaths kerbed. channelled, and metalled. He could not say that the council required water pipes' to be put in. They had not been required in the most recent subdivision.

Hickman F. Russell, borough valuer, saiil he had had 17 years' experience as a valuer, and had been district valuer for 5i.:. years, and had been employed by the Government for about four years before that. He made a Government valuation of the borough in 1!»14. l[ 0 had known the property i n question for 27 years. He considered the valuations made placed a fair figure on the land, compared with surrounding properties. He gave details of sales of adjoining properties made over several years (both before and during the war period), in which the values were higher than those plated on the property in qucstoin He gave them to show the effect of subdivision on the valuations. Property of a similar kind, adjoining, had been subdivided and sold at prices up to the rate of £6OO per acre. He did not agree that the prices paid wore a true criterion of tbe values of the property. The S.M. decided that the valuation of the eleven-acre section must stand, and he would consider the question of the value of the larger section.