URBAN FARMLAND.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 26, 31 January 1934, Page 8

URBAN FARMLAND.

VALUATIONS LOWERED

COURT AT ONEHUNGA.

MISUITOERSTANDING OF LAW,

■ An Assessment Court sat at Onehunga this morning to hear objections under the Urban Farms Rating Act. Mr. Wyverh Wilson, S.M., presided, and associated with him were Mr. W. Lee Martin, representing the Government and Mr. J. B. Wallis, the Onehunga Borough. Council.

Before hearing the objections the chairman said that in the compilation of the list under the Urban Farm Lands Act, there had been a misunderstanding bj the council regarding properties of area less than three acres. The Act said it only applied to farm properties of not less than three acres. An occupier of a property of less than three acres had the right to apply to the borough council for a reduction in the valuation. If that were refused, or not acceptable to the owner, he could apply to a magistrate sitting alone, who would decide whether the valuation should be reduced or not. .

A* there were several objections on the list from owners of section? under three acres, they were stood down, and Mr. Wilson agreed to hear them alone, if they were in order, after the other cases had been dealt with.

From £2302 to £1825. . The first objection was from Edith E. Grant (Mr. D. C. PurdieJ, who owne 18 acres of land aft Penrose, leased at £1 per acre. The owner pays the rates, amounting to £62 2/6 per annum. Mr. J. M. Rutherford, in support of the objection, said that he valued the land at £80 per acre, and £20 for improvements. The town clerk, Mr. H. A. Yockncy, who .appeared for the council, said the valuation had been reduced from £5475 in 1926 to £2302, which worked out at about £127 per acre. The land was suitable for building sections, and had two road frontages. The chairman said the rates were very high and in order to give some relief the valuation would be reduced from £2302 to £1825. The next objector, F. E. Nelson, was represented by Mr. J. B. Johnston, who told the Court that his client owned two lots,' one of 50 acres and one of 17 acres. They were both one property now, as the 17 acres had fallen back into Mr. Nelson's hands from the purchaser. The present valuation of the whole block was £14,000. The chairman said that valuation was made in boom times. These had passed, but the valuation remained. It was too high and it would be reduced to £5465.

The objection by Mrs. Emma Smith was to the valuation of £2500 on 10 acres near the Royal Oak. A reduction was made to £1500. Objection Struck Off. An objection by S. J. Brookfiekls (Mr. H. Smytheman) was struck off the list. The chairman said the Court was not unanimous, but a majority was of the opinion that the property —S acres, situated at the corner of Queen Street and Mount Smart Road —used by the applicant, did not come under the definition of farm land under the Act, as it was not used exclusively or principally for the keeping of live stock, and that the applicant did not derive his principle income from the keeping of live stock (Proceeding.)