BOROUGH LAND VALUES.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 May 1922, Page 8

BOROUGH LAND VALUES.

SITTING OF ASSESSMENT COURT. TO HEAR OBJECTIONS. Appeals against valuations in the revised rolls for the Borough of New Plymouth were heard at the sitting of an Assessment <lgurt yesterday. Mr. V. G. Day, S.M., presided, the Government assessor was Air. John Hes-lop, and Mr. Frank E. Orbell represented the Borough Council. Mr. N. H. Mackie apppeared for the Valuation Department. An objection was lodged by Mrs. Watson, owner of a property on the main road, Westown, against the valuation of £ 150. Mr. »F. H. Watson, husband of the objector, gave evidence in support of the application for reduction, pointing out that the previous valuation was £75, and now it had been doubled. On these figures, the value of an acre in the locality would be £460, and he did not think this was justified. After hearing the evidence for the department, the Court upheld the valuation. As leasee of a section in the borough reserve, in Eliot Street, ■ David Hutchen urged that the valuation of this property at £360 was too high. He thought it should be £250. The leases were put up for auction in January, 1912, the area purchased by him being broken by a good deal of work in improvements. He was of opinion that the sections had not appreciated in value since the date of the original sale, and quoted other sales made since. The Court made a reduction of £5O in the valuation, setting down the capital value at £l6lO, improvements £l3OO, leaving the balance at £3lO. A WESTOWN PROPERTY. A property at Westown was the subject of an objection lodged by Ralph Wright. He considered the valuation of £2600 was excessive. The objector was represented by Mr. R. H. Quilliam, who said the property consisted of about 24 acres, and was used for farming purposes, only a small portion of it having a frontage to the road, tliat being about an acre, which was suitable for subdivision.

Augustus E. Watkins, land agent, gave his estimate of the unimproved value of the property at £2046. If it was cut up there would be at most one acre that could be used for building purposes, three acres would be required for roading, and the balance of 20 was farm land, of which four acres were swampy land which, he said, was practically *of no value. He valued the building sections at £ 100 per quarteracre. He compared the valuations of other properties in the vicinity, which were more on the basis of his valuation of Wright’s property than that of the department. Without a subdivision, and treating it as farm land, he estimated its value at £5O per acre. He knew of a quarter-acre section bought in the locality recently for £lOO. Mr. Mackie objected to the comparison of Wright’s land with other land. Properties mentioned, he said, were not within cue zone of what were termed residential values. It had 'been admitted that the property in this case was capable of subdivision, and if put to the best possible uses would easily reach the valuation. Sales far in excess of what had been estimated by the witness had been realised in the locality for other properties. The Government * valuer, George Wright, said his assessment was made with the idea that the property was a good one for subdivision. He quoted prices received in May, 19*20, for the Marutahi Estate, stating that these were considerably above the figure placed on to Wright’s place, and realised up to £250 for 3-2 feet. Sales of a property outside the borough, and about a mile further on from Wright’s, had also taken place, better prices being realised than those stated on behalf of the case for the objector. In reply to Mr. Quilliam, who urged that values were coming down, the witness said he thought he could show by the subdivisions that the value of sections was going tip all the time. A number of formal questions as regards the purchase of the property were put to the objector, after which Mr. Mackie pointed out that the price paid for the land was £4618. The estimated value of the improvements was £BB4, leaving the unimproved value, on Wright’s own figures, at £3734, while the department’s estimate was £2600. Mr. Quilliam said the question of the valuations was not objected to previously, owing to a mistake. The President: There is £llOO difference in what you value it now. Do you mean to say that it has gone down that much?

M.r Quilliam: Yes. The President said it was the first time he had heard that values in New Plymouth had gone down 25 per cent. Mr. Quilliam said he did not mean that there was such a decrease in all cases.

After conferring for a few minutes, the Ciurt announced the valuation would be sustained. FORESHORE LAND. The New Plymouth Harbour Board, for whom Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared, brought under the notice of the Court the cireumsatnces concerning portion of land at Ngamotu Beach, for which the valuation was set down at £2lOO. As the 1914 valuation was only £6O, the Board contended that the * assessment was altogether too high. According to Mr. Quilliam, the area of the land was 6 acres 2 roods 14 perches, and it was a harbour reserve, situated between Pioneer Street and Calvert Road. Enquiries had elicited that originally the land consisted of about eight acres, being a strip of 100 feet wide running right along the front. The Railway Department had taken part of this, and a considerable portion of it had disappeared through erosion, only about three acres being left. The kiosk, which was included in the valuation, was on the beach, and did not belong to the Board. The land in the vicinity was constantly changing. The President said that as the highwater mark extended out, so did the area of the Board’s land. Continuing, Mr. Quilliam said there were 30 cottages situated on the threeacre strip, and as about half of it had not been built on, the position really was that there were practically 30 buildings on one and a-half acres. It was very difficult, counsel thought, to fix any value for land of this class, and if it was not for the craze for weekend cottages, there would be no buildings on it at all. It had no value for residential purposes, but owing to the shortage of houses, the Harbour Board had allowed people to remain there all

the year round. If the land was to be looked on as capable of being subdivided, there were many considerations which would have to be taken into account. It would mean that a reclaiming wall would have to be built, and also the provision of a road for access.

Evidence as to the area of the land was given by Mr. C. Sladden. surveyor, who said some of the area had disappeared by erosion. The secretary to the Harbour. Board, C. S. Rennell, said the Board received a ground rent of £2 10s per annum for some of the cottages and £2 for others. Portion of this was paid to the Ngamotu committee, to be devoted to improvement purposes.

In reply to Air. Rennell, who stated that portion of the land was liable to be taken over by the Railway Department, Mr. Mackie contended that his department was not concerned with what might happen, but with the position as at March 31.

Mr. Quilliam urged that the circumstance mentioned must be taken into consideration in assessing the valuation. Evidence was given by J. S. S. Medley and E. R. Gilmour, both of whom assessed the land at about £2OO per acre. They were of opinion that if the land was to be subdivided considerable expenditure would be necessary in the building of a reclamation wall and in the laying out of a road.

Mr. Mackie said the department contended that the value was reasonable, inasmuch as the ground rentals had been capitalised at 5 per cent., and that value had been taken as the unimproved value. He did not think it was necessary for him .ot stress the suitability of land such as this, at a seaside resort. It might seem that the increase was very considerable, but this did not concern the department. They were looking after the value as it was at the present. It might be that the Harbour Board was in the unfortunate position of having to allow the Railway Department to resume possession, but until this took place the assessment should stand.

Mr. Quilliam reviewed the circumstances of the land, pointing out its general value, the fact that the cottages were merely held on license, and that the locality would be taken over by the Railway Department eventually. The Board submitted that the valuation was “wholly unreasonable.” The President intimated that the Court would capitalise the net amuont the Board received in licenses. This would make the value £BOOO, improvements £6700, leaving the unimproved value £l3OO, or a reduction of £BOO on the former figure. The above were the only objections heard. Quite a number of cases were called in which nb appearance was made by the parties.