ASSESSMENT COURT.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17247, 10 September 1921, Page 4

ASSESSMENT COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH SITTINGS. The Assessment Court sat again yesterday to hoar objections t-o valuations. LMr V. G. Day presided, and Messrs W. Cunningham (Canterbury Land Dietrictl and A. Freeman (Christchurch city) sat with him as assessors. Messrs H. L. \Yi ggins (officer iu charge). D. H. I'ullar (district valuer), and J. H. McCarthy (local valuer) represented tho Valuation ■Department. Elinor Jane Brown (Mr H. D. Acland) made application ior a revaluation of her propertv at the corner of High and Cashel streets. The capital valuation was £16,000, unimproved £II,OOO, and improved £4OOO. She- also objected to tho valuation of a property at 200 High street, capital valuation £3230, unimproved £2480, improved £800; of r tli-ird property at 203 and 204 High street-, capital ££345, unimproved £6343, improved £2(XX>, and of a fourth, also in High street, between Casual street and the Clock Tower, capita!) value £3BBO, unimproved £3C3O, improved £BOO. The Court pointed out thot the. objection was based on the amount of rental received, whereas the Act based valuation on the se.ling price. Ti:o valuation of the first property was amended as follows: Capital value £13,500, unimproved £9500, improved £4OOO. Tho valuations of the second, third, and fourth properties were sustained. On behalf of Alice Morrison, an objection was lodged with respect to tho valuation of a property at 54 ltolloston avenue, near Christ's College. The capital valuation was £1925, unimproved £lois, improved £2OO Tho unimproved valuation was reduced by £7o. The Christ-church G'aa Company, Ltd. (Mr Chns. Clark"), asked for a revaluation of the property at the corner of Worcester street and Oxford terrace, the Department's figures being £18,120, £11,620, and £OSOO. Mr R. C. Bishop, manager for the company, said that if the corner cf Hereford street and Oxford terrace was valued at £BO per foot, he considered that the corner on which tihe company's premises stood should be reducca to a valuation of £75 per foot. Mr Pullar claimed that AVorcester street at that portion on which tho Gas Co'mpanv's premises stood was more valuable than the pairt of Hereford street quoted by Mr Bishop. If the property on wthich the Federal Club stood was worth £l2O per foot, the Gas Company's property, which was oppo- j site the Municipal Buildings, was surely worth the present Government valuation, which was £IOO per foot fronting Worcester street, and £6O per foot fronting Oxford terrace. ■ ■' Mr Bishop submitted that the frontage to Oxford terrace should be reduced to £35 per foot, tlhe total unimproved valuation being considered by the company to be £7822 1&*. The Court reduced the unimproved valuation to £9060, assessing the Worcester street frontage at £BO per foot,"fend that to Oxford terrace at' £45 per foot. Application was made by Cowlishaw, Alpers, and Nicholls for a revaluation of their premises at 104 Gloucester street, the figures being £3820, £2170, and £1650 respectively. A revaluation was made as follows: Capital £3510, unimproved £IB6O, improved £1650, equal to £6O pet- foot. Mr H. Price applied, on behalf of the estate'of the la'te Andrew Swanston, for a revaluation of 91 Gloucester street. The Government valuation was: Capital .04470, unimproved £2870, improved £I6OO. . The unimproved valuation was reduced, to £'2655. With reference to the property of tho late, Mi* Chas. Clarlv, Mr C. R. Clark asked for a revaluation. The property, consists of two blocks 74ft by 82ft 6in : and Bft by 51ft, and is occupied by the Grand Picture Theatre. The Government valuatfon was: Capital £23,900, unimproved £16,400, improved £7500, equal to £2CO per foot. Mr Clark asked that the unimproved i valuation be altered to £10,640. The last was £7210. The now figure he considered to be absolutely ridiculous. Witness valued the property at £l3O ner foot. The net annual re-

turn from the property was £1057. A revaluation was made as follows: Capital value £19,150, unimproved £11,650, improved £7500. Mr Clark also appeared in support of an application to revalue the block in Cathedral square (55ft Gin by 50ft), occupied by the Government Life Insurance Office, the Department's rig urea being: Capital value £15,710, unimproved £9/10, improved £6OOO, equal to £175 per foot. A revaluation was made us follows: Capital £13,770, unimproved £7770. improved £6OOO. Mr Chas. Clark was granted a revaluation of the property of Edward Riddiford, Manchester street, opposite the new municipal buildings site, the improved valuation being* reduced from £2IOO to £llOO. Frederick Jotsiah- Murray asked for a reduction on the valuation of a number of properties, the first in Hereford street and Montreal street (£1930, £1250, £700), the second at 290 Montreal street *(£1450. £6OO. £8o0), the third at Montreal and Worcester' streets (£ISOO, £9OO, £600), the fourth at 56 Worcester street (£1650, £I3OO, £350), the fifth at 60 Worcester street (£2550, £I3OO, £1250). Amendments were made as follows: 1., unimproved £1100; 11.. unimproved £550, improved £750; 111., unimproved £750, improved £515; IV., unimproved £I2OO, improved £280; V., unimproved £I2OO. The D.I.C. objected to the Department's valuation of the company's property in Cashel street and Lichfield street—capital £57.000, unimproved £34,500, improved £ft2 500. Mr-M. J. Gresson, on behalf of company, Baid that the frontage to Cashel Btreet was assessed at £SOO a foot, and that in 'respect of Lichfield street at £l2O in one instance, and £154 in another. The .main, objection was being made to the valuation of the Cashel street ftontage. It .was submitted that no land in Christchurch was worth as much as £SOO a foot. The Department valued the frontage to the White Hart Hotel at £360 a foot, and the frontage in HigH street generally at £4OO a foot. A'a the D.I.C. property in Cashel street was not a stone's throw from the. White Hart Hotel, it .was contended that the Department's ;figures were much too high. He submitted that the.recent sale of the AI Hotel property site to Beath and Co. should not be taken as an indicat'on of value, as •tt was known that that company 'simply had to buy the site. They paid £36,000 for it, whereas it would be unsafo to judge the value at more than £3l,O<X). W; J. Hopkins, a land agent, said that £425 a foot would, in his opinion, be a fair assessment of the frontage to Cashel street; £l2O he'considered to be a fair valuation of the Lichfield street frontage. Of course, it would be admitted that, if put up to auction, a higher price might be obtained. In reply to a question, Mr McCarthy said that eight years ago the-valuation was at the rate of £4OO a foot.' / At this stage the case .was adjourned.' The Crown Brewery Co., Ltd., per Mr C. 11. Claris:, applied for a reduction of the Department's valuation of the property containing the Clarendon Hotel. The figures were: Capital £24,380, unimproved £II,BBO, improved £12,500. Thf valuation was amended as follows: Capital £24,330, unimproved £10,560, improved £13,820. Mr F. D. Sargent applied for a revaluation of the Royal Exchange Company's property in Cathedral square. The Department's figures were as follows : Capital £64,020, unimproved £31,020. improved £33;G00. The valuations were amended as follows: Capital £53,600, unimproved £25,600, improved £33,000. The estate of the late John Broughton (Mr W: Broughton, junr.). objected to the valuation- of two properties in Hereford street, the valuations being reduced as follows: Capital from £42,800 to £4O-755 unimproved from £30,000 to £28,755, improved from' £12.800 to' £12,000. \ With reference to the United Service' Hotel property, the objection of Arthur R. v..Morten, per H. Hobday, was heard, and the valuation reduced as follows:, Capital from £74-500 to £73,000. unimproved from £49,000 to £47,500, thp improved valuation being sustained. H. Matson and Co. submitted that the Government valuation of their property in Cashel and Hereford- streets was too high. The Department's figures were: Capital £29,400, unimproved £26,400, improved £3ooo.'' Leicester Matson stated that the Department's valuations of their property seemed to be baaed on the conditions that obtained in the old days, x when the district was a very busy centre. Nowadays, however, there weie practically only land and estate agents in the vicinity of the property: The new valuation wa9 25 per cent, above the old valuation. The Court reduced the unimproved valuation to £21,450, equal to £126 per foot on the Hereford street frontage, and £2OO per foot on the Cashel street frontage. The Court adjourned to 10 a.m. on the 26th inst.