PROPERTY VALUES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22166, 20 July 1935, Page 18

PROPERTY VALUES

CLAIMS 'AGAINST COUNCIL

LAND TAKEN FOR STREET TOTAL OF £22.745 ASKED The Assessment Court sat pgain yesterday to determine the value of properties taken by the City Council from the Harbour Board for tho purpose of making a continuation of Gore Street through to Quay Street. The Harbour Board claimed £ll,4'Jo and J. C. Spedding £11,250 from the City Council, making a total of £22,7-15. Mr. Justice Callan presided and had with him as assessors Mr. W. H. Lunn for the City Council, Mr. H. E. Vaile for the Harbour Board, and Mr. J. A. GentleS for J. Q. Spedding, as beneficial owner of the New Zealand Reed Loom Company's building. The City Council was represented by Mr. Stanton, the Harbour Board by Mr. Barrowclough, and J. C. Spedding by Mr. V. R. Meredith and Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Meredith outlined the claim of John Charles Spedding, merchant, and called him to give evidence. Spedding said he was the beneficial owner of the building in question in Quay Street, which was erected in 1907. He was the sole shareholder in Kretschmar, Limited, and ivas also really the sole owner of Langguth, Limited, and he had transferred these two firms into this building. Best Building Available Fetrol Imports, Limited, was also housed in the building, and it was the best one procurable in Auckland for the purposes of these firms. As soon as it was known that there) was a possibility of the property being taken over, his business was at once adversely affected. He had been unable to get other

premises in any way equal. He estimated the cost of removal from his present premises to a building which he owned in Customs Street at £l5O. In cross examination by Mr. Stanton, witness agreed that his Customs Street building had been improved, by being turned into a corner site. He did not admit that the value of the. building being taken was depreciating, even although the lease was running out. In Mav, 1929. it was bought by the New Zealand Reed Loom Company for £9500. Later in the year a partner of his took over assets and witness took over a liability of £IO.BOO to the bimkv 1 He had known when he first took over 1 the building that there was a high probability of its being required by the City Council. The last six months of his business had been disastrous, and half of it had gone. He thought £2OOO an extremely low figure to put on the loss occasioned to him by the change of premises. Return on Investment George Guthrie Gorri«>, accountant, eaid be did not think anyone would put his money into a business unless he was fairly confident he would get a return of at least 6 per cent. An examination of Spedding's ledger showed a rise in last January had dropped very much ' and were much lower than they had ever been over a similar period. Charles. Frederick Bennett, estate agent aHtt~Tafcer;- sanfiir -regarded the part of Quay Street in question as a farticuTarlv important part of the city, t held buildings of some pretensions housing old-established businesses. He had no hesitation in assessing the freehold value at £2OO a foot, giving a total of £6600. He assessed the value of the building roughlv at £6930. He was inclined to think there would be steady progress in that particular portion of the city. There had been improvement along the waterfront since 1930. An owner of city property would expect a return of 6 per cent to 8 per cent net in normal times on his iiiivestment. Business Rents Rise

In answer to-Mr. Barrowclough witness said he had noticed a rising tendency in rents for business places. In certain places such as Ellliott Street and Albert Street, warehouses were a glut, but Quay Street was essentially a stronghold for bonded stores. It was not a detriment to these properties to have the along the istreet m front of them. ' , . , G. B. Osmond, land miner, estimated the value of the property at £13,530, £6930 for the building and £6600 for the land. - v c _ , Details of the construction of Speclding's building were given by L. V. Moses, architect, who, said it would cost £9494 to erect to-day. He estimated the present value of the building at £7260. It should ha.ee at least 100 years of life. Obviously in the last three or four years the owner had not been doing any repairing., The hearing was adjourned until this moaning. J