COUNCIL SUED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 118, 21 May 1931, Page 8

COUNCIL SUED.

MILFORD BEACH CLAIM.

EFFECT OF SEWAGE WORKS.

SAND AND SHELL SUPPLIES.

The Takapuna Borough Council was the defendant in a claim for £2030 compensation in the Supreme Court to-day. It was one of eix claims filed against the council by property owners along Milford Beach.

To hear the claim Mr. Justice Herdman sat as chairman of a Compensation Court, with Mr. T. Mclndoe as assessor for the claimants and Mr. T. Hanna assessor for the council. Claimants were William John Smale and James Henry Smale, sand and shingle merchants (Mr. Stanton and Mr. Thomson). Mr. Finlay and Mr. Inder appeared for the council.

In making the claim, plaintiffs sought £30 for a strip of land taken by the council near the end of Tiri Road, £1700 for injurious affection, £270 for the loefi of riparian rights, and £30 because the drainage of the section was affected. The land taken was 16ft wide, which the council required for its sewage works.

Though the area taken was insignificant, being only 2.3 perches, Mr. Stanton said the serious feature was that access to the beach was now cut off. The loee of riparian rights made a difference of £266 in the value of the section. For many years the claimants had been removing sand and shell, which was continually replaced by the action of the wind and tides. That represented an asset of great value. The sewer was si barrier over which sand and shell could not advance. Over three years plaintiffs had taken 1256 yards of sand a year, which brought 4/6 a yard. They had now to pay an extra 2/3 a yard to get eand from Campbell's Bay. This money they could not recover, because of competitive conditions. On a capitalised basis the amount loet was £2400, but only £1700 was being claimed on this account.

Valuers' Estimates. An estimate that the section was worth £11 a foot when it had the beach frontage, was given by J. H. Jackeon, a valuer. He considered the wall was built too high and there was a danger to young children who climbed on it.

Beach frontages added 30 to 100 per cent to the value of sections, said Thomas B. Arthur, another valuer. The the beach frontage had depreciated the value of the section by £254, he said. He admitted that if a promenade or road were formed along the sewer the depreciation would be only a half or two-thirds of what it now was.

Extra Expenditure Caused. Evidence in support of the case was given by James H. Smalc, who said he and his brother bought the property in 1923 and began working the sand and shell two years later. There was always an even grade of sand, and during storms large deposits of shell were carried in. When it became necessary to go to Campbell's Bay for supplies the claimants were involved in a capital expenditure of £1400. The extra distance was three miles at a cartage cost of 9d .a mile. Since the sewer was built they had used everv endeavour to sell the Tiri Road section, but without success.

To Mr. Finlay, witness said he paid ' £750 for the section in 1923. He knew of only one remaining: section suitable for a sand dump at Milford, but the owner refused to sell. "Did the property owners on the beach petition the council consistently and protest against the removal of eand?" asked Mr. Finlay. Witness: There was no complaint about my working. Mr. Finlay: Didn't you know the property owners were getting very anxious about the beach? —Yes, at Milford. "A Public Outcry." You know, don't you, that there has always been a considerable public outcry about the removal of any sand from the vicinity of the beach? His Honor: There might be a public outcry, but that might not affect his land. Mr. Finlay (to witness): Do you know there was an outcry? Witness: There always has been that. How many vehicles did you use to work this section? —One team did the major part of the work. Was the Government valuation of the section £650 eome yeare ago? —Yes. Didn't you object to that and say it was too high?— Yes. And after some negotiation you got it down to £.30o?—Yes. His Honor: Was that after the land was taken? Mr. Stanton: After the date of the proclamation. Mr. Finlay: When the claim was first advanced you estimated the loss of the sand rights was £2.30? Witness did not answer the question directly, and the adjournment was taken. (Proceeding.)