CITY VALUATIONS.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19724, 14 September 1929, Page 13

CITY VALUATIONS.

OBJECTIONS HEARD. ASSESSMENT COURT OPENS SITTINGSThe Assessment Conrt opened its sessions in Christchurch in the Provmcal Chambers yesterday when objections to the revised valuations of city properties were dealt with. Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., presided and with him on the tench were Mr William Cunningham (Government Assessor) and Mr Albert Freeman (ratepayers' assessor). Mr R. J. Watson (District Valuer; represented the Department. Properties in Papanui, Spreydon East, and Spreydon West were dealt with yesterday- X * -, Alexander William Spence contested the valuation of £B7O on improvements on his property at 100 Somerneld street. The objector gave evidence, and after some argument, accepted the valuer's offer to reduce the valuation by £3O. Ernest Albert Grimwood and Ann Grimwood objected to the unimproved vaHie of £230 plnced on their property at 15 Eoseberry street- Mrs Grimwood, in evidence, contended that the valuation should not be more than £lB5. The Court upheld the valuation. Claiming that £240 was the true value of his property at 7 Harker street, and not £4BO. Thomas Henry Harker gave as reasons for his objection the depreciation his propertv had suffered at the bands of the Christchurch Drainage Board. The Court held that it was a question whether the valuer had made sufficient allowance on the drain, and the matter was held f>ver pending an inspection. Michael Mu'rphv contended that £I2OO was the value of his property at Lvttelton street, and not £1430, and after some discussion objector undertook to offer the property at his own valuation within .14 davs. ft Was pointed out to him that the Valuer-General would either accept the offer or reduce the valuation to that amount. "I think ho will be inclined to reduce the valuation," said the chairman. The valuation of £584 on the property of Kate Taylor, at 69 Rose street was upheld. The Government valuation of improvements was £285 and the objector's valuation was £BS. Mr Hewitt said that applicant had not brought the slightest evidence in support of her claim

The valuation of £335 on his propertv at Conway street was disputed by Joseph Tyson, who argued that £2BO was a faiier valuation. A compromise at £320 was reached after some discussion.

That £235 was a fairer unimproved valuation of his property at 48 Proctor street than £3OO was the claim of George Frederick Whiteside, who said in evidence that he purchased the land for £250. He was. orepared to sell it at that rate, after retaining a clear frontage at the southern end for a road' to his property at the rear.' The case was held over for consideration.

Niels Nielsen and Mary Hansine Nielsen, 15 Baretta street, agreed with the valuer's figure, £2OO, for the unimproved vaiue, but considered that £6QO waa too high" for the improvements. The house was an old one and would not bring that price. No improvements had been made since 1925. The Court decided to reduce the figure to £550.

Walter Allison, 57 St. Albans street, objected to the unimproved value of £195, giving the figure as £l5O and the value of improvements as £350, and not £415 Mr Hewitt said it was only the evidence of Allison against that of the valuer. The Court decided to view the site before giving an opinion, Allison refusing an offer of a reduction of £4O.

Bertie Augustus Ekensteen placed the value of improvements at £7OO, instead of £1175, and the unimproved value at £6OO, instead of £3OO. Mr Watson said that the complainant was a "chronic objector." Complainant said that the increases since last valuation were not justified. The valuer said he would like the Court to see the section. It was decided to inspect the area. Elisabeth Sarah Martin objected to the valuations on her section at 108 Office road. She placed the value at £760 against the valuer's figure of £835. She found it difficult to meet the already existing demands for rates and insurance. The house was a very old one. The Court decided to consider the application. Elizabeth Williams, 135 Aikman's road, estimated the unimproved value at £225 and the value of improvements at £575, compared with £4OO and £475 respectively. She considered the claims. out of all reason. The Court, decided to inspect the site. Owen Tibbot Evans, 61 Leinster road, objected to the capital value of £2365, stating that a fairer figure would be £2200. He placed the unimproved Value at £BOO as against £ll7O and the value of improvements at £I4OO, as against £1195. The section at the side of his. house was noi fit to build on. Part of the section was lower than the surrounding sections. He could not give any figures for sales round the district to compare with his section. The Court decided to inspect the.section. Percy William Miller appealed against the valuation on Block 135, 33 St. Andrew's square. His figure for the unimproved value was £3OO, against the valuer's £570. In his opinion "it was quite excessive. The Court agreed to consider the application. William James Boyce. 207 Metstone road, suggested that the unimproved value of his property was £315, and not £4OO.

Complainant asked for permission to make a statement, and, this granted, he said that the residents of Papanui were dissatisfied with the revaluations. He was president of the Papanui Progress League, and at a general meeting of ratepayers called to discuss the matter a resolution was passed asking for a revaluation of the whole district. He said that although there were very few Papanui residents in Court it did not mean they were satisfied generally They were too shy to come to an official place like that and face the legal formality of the. Court. How much legal have vou seen here to-day?" asked Mr Hewitt. " Mr Boyce said that even though some were willing to sell, many had reached a time of life when they would not like to break with the district for familv and sentimental reasons. The general feeling was that whereas the Governmnt valuations were going up the actual selling values were going The cast was held over for consideration. '