VALUE OF QUEEN-STREET LAND-

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 141, 15 June 1892, Page 5

VALUE OF QUEEN-STREET LAND-

WHAT IS IT WORTH PER FOOT?

An interesting question regarding the value of land iv Queon-street was raised ab the sitting of the Board of Reviewers under • the Land .and Income Tax Act to-day.. The. case was that of the ' UNION BANK OF AUSTRALIA. . j Union Bank of Australia, corner of Vie- : toria and Queen-streets. The Government valuation was £22,500. Mr E. Hesketh appeared on behalf of the bank and objected to the assessment as excessive. The bank returned the actual value, including improvements, at £12,600, the improvements boing set down at £8,700, and the unimproved: value £3,900. The annual letting value was set down at £500.

Alex. Thompson, manager of the Union Bank, was sworn. He deposed that the land had a frontage Of 80 feeb and was 115 feeb deep. He valued, the land at about £110 per foot, and thought that the land was not worth more than £500 per annum to rent for general purposes. Witness made up hie returns from inquiries made. The annual value of the property, as rated by tho City Couucil, - was £800. Tho'building was used entirely as bank premises, and the present building was erected thirty years ago- '~.,.

In cross-examination by Mr Crombie, witness stated he could nob name a eeebion in 'Queen-street that could be boughb for £110 per. foot. He did nob think that land in Queen-street was more valuable now than in 1888. , . .....

Mr Crombie: Would you advise tbe bank to take £12,600 for the property ? Mr Thompson: If the bank wanted to sell the property, it is aboub the markeb price.

Mr Crombie: Is it not the best corner in Auckland ?

Mr Thompson : It is one of tho best. Wm. S. Cochrane deposed that ho valued the entire property ab £15,000, and put the value of the.land down at,£l2s per foot". He did nob think that the build ing. would return £_00 per year rental unless for bhe purposes of a bank. Land in Queenstreet was not worth more now than in 1888. The besb offer.ab auction for a carbain property near VYakefield-street was £80 per foot. Smith and Caughey's property in Queen-street was boughb at £150 per foot, but ib was not worth that price now.

Mr Crombie : Is it not strange thab no property has been sold in Queen-etreet during the depressed times, and does it not show that they are firmly held ? Mr Cochrane: Yes ; they are firmly held, or firmly mortgaged. Mr Crombie: Do you imply that all are firmly mortgaged ? Mr Cochrane : .Some of them. Mr F. G. Ewington deposed that he valued the land at £9,650. His figures wore made up as follows :r— 5311 ab the corner, £150 perfoot, and the other 47ft at £100 per foot. Re valued the land ai:d buildings in round figures at £16,350, bub it;would be impossible for him to get that amount for it. He valued the ;rerst at £600 per annum. In reply to Mr Crombie, Mr Ewinsfton stated that shope in the Victoria Arcade fronting Queenstreet were at present let for 30s. per week that three or four years ago broughb £7 Jte- ...

Edward Bartley, the assessor, deposed that the land was 80 x 115, and he valued it ab £175 per foot. Tbe building was worth £12,000 to £14,000. To Mr Hesket/hy": Ket^OHght^hel premises-were,worth £1,000 per year to tbe Union Bank. George Fraser deposed that he. thought £1.000 '^^oi,MaiWi^f-fdt^f^%W}^fo-perty. He valued the land at £175 per foot. Ordinary commercial men were not satisfied with 5 per cent., but the bank was satisfied with that sum.

To Mr Crombie : He thought', that there was a better demand'for premises now in Queen-street than in 1888.

'Mr F. Cherry also valued the land at £175 per foot.

Mr Crombie contended that there was no proof of land being obtainable in Queenstreet ab the prices stated by the bank's witnesses.

Mr Hesketh submitted that there was nothing to justify the actual value of the property being raised from £21,000 in 1888 to the present valuation. After a short consultation, the Board sustained the Government valuation.