EXPERTS DIFFER.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 70, 24 March 1931, Page 5

EXPERTS DIFFER.

QUEEN STREET VALUES.

EFFECT OF DEPRESSION ON PROPERTY. OBJECTION TO ASSESSMENT. Differences of opinion concerning the valuation of Queen Street properties were expressed at yesterday afternoon's session of the Auckland City Assessment Court. Supporting an application by C. H. Kingsford for a reduction in the ratable value of a shop and rooms at 164, Queen Street, from the a&seesment of £9CO a year, Mr. G. B. Osmomd, an estate agent and land valuer, declared that there was no doubt that Queen Street premises had decreased in value by 20 per cent in two years. "You cannot sell property in Queen Street," he said. Another estate agent and valuer, Mr. C. F. Bennett, however, did not think that Mr. Osmond's statement could be applied generally, and he could not subscribe to his statement. "It would not be agreed that generally speaking there has been a wholesale reduction in values in the centre of Queen Street," said Mr. Bennett. Surprise at Mr. Osmond's estimate was expressed by the president of the Court, Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M. "Twenty per cent?" he asked incredulously. Drop in Rentals.

Mr. Osmond said that in some cases the depreciation in value was 30 per cent. Landlords had had to reduce their rentals, and reputable firme had to go out of business, because of high rentals. Shops which were rented in 1930 for £17 and £15 were to-day making only £12 and £10 respectively. He considered that, in asking for a restoration of the rates on the Queen Street property in question to the level, when peak prices ruled, he wae taking a very liberal view. Mr. McKean: Can you offer me any evidence of this extraordinary reduction in the value of Queen Street properties? The City Valuer, Mr. P. F. Notley, said that if the Court started reducing the value of Queen Street properties it would mean that other property owners would want reductions.

Mr. McKean: If I have evidence warranting a reduction, of course I will reduce. The property he had under consideration at the moment, however, was Queen Street property, and he would like to hear evidence other than that of Mr. Osmond, who was the agent for the owner of the property. Mr. Osmond said it was difficult to secure evidence at a moment's notice. Mr. McKean: You should have come prepared. Mr Osmond thought that what he had stated to the Court as a valuer was sufficient to justify a reduction. Replying to questions bv Mr. Notley, he said he° considered that the depression had reduced the value of Queen Street properties by 20 per cent for years to

come. , . Mr. McKean: But can you bring evidence to support that statement? Mr. Osmond: I can produce evidence if you give me time. Mr Bennett then urged that the matter be adjourned, as Mr. Osmond had raised a very important point. Mr? McKean: It seems to be absurd. Mr! Bennett: We claim that the better parts of Queen Street are worth £1 per foot a week. If the question could be settled it would be to the benefit of all C Tv e e r ntually Mr. Oemond agreed to accept a" valuation of £900, and Mr. McKean observed that he was sorry he was not going to hear the evidence he desired. "No General Landslide." At a later stage of the proceedings, Mr. Bennett expressed regret that additional evidence had not been called, because the level of Queen Street values was of crrcat importance to the city, ana, indeed, the whole country. He was convinced that it could be shown that no general landslide had occurred. Ihe Assessment Court dealt more with rental than with capital values. Mr. McKean pointed out that the Court had to deal with capital values when the rental value fell below 5 per cent of the capital value, Mr. Bennett said that rentals in the best parts of the street still maintained the £1 a foot level, although some had gone as high as £2 or £2 10/ and had fallen again. The fact that the large drapery firms and the banks had not contested their assessments showed that there had been no general fall. Earlier in the session, Mr. Notley refuted a suggestion that the City Council had taken advantage of what was termed the Civic Square "boom." Mr. Bennett, who was concerned in a case of premises near the Town Hall, said that undoubtedly rentals in Queen Street, immediately above Welleslay Street, had been prejudiced by the City Council's long delay in dealing with the Civic Square. This neighbourhood had been a good bueinees section, but had declined and had not fully recovered.

In regard to a shop and restaurant at 101, Queen Street, a reduction from £870 to £800 was granted by consent to. B. J. M. Kemp.