VALUATION OF BOROUGH

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27073, 23 June 1953, Page 6

VALUATION OF BOROUGH

OBJECTIONS HEARD AT LYTTELTON

REDUCTIONS ALLOWED TO 13 RATEPAYERS

Of nearly 400 objections to the 1439 valuations made in the new valuation of the Lyttelton Borough last year only 15 were pursued when the Lyttelton Assesment Court sat yesterday. Reductions in the valuations were made in all but two of the cases considered by the Court. The Court consisted of Messrs F. F. Reid S.M. (chairman), A. K. Dynes and F. E. Sutton. Senior-Sergeant J. L. Graham is registrar of the Court. Mr J. Ri, Woodward appeared for the Lyttelton Borough Council, but did not take any part in the proceedings. Most of the objections heard yesterday were presented by counsel, but a few objectors appeared in person. Defending his valuations, the valuer engaged by the council, .Mr O. F. Baker, said his valuations had apparently caused some concern and had let to considerable publicity. “I think you will agree that the number of withdrawals and non-appearances vindicates my avaluations,” Mr Baker told the Court.

It was quite within the power of the Court to increase valuations and he intended to apply for an increase in the case of one property which was the subject of an objection, Mr Baker said. The last valuation of the borough came into force in 1951, and must have been influenced by the Land Sales Court values. Very few sales had been made on the free market when the field work for the valuations was done, between June and December, 1950. An increase of about 50 per cent, on the 1951 valuations was reasonable for domestic properties, Mr Baker considered, quoting several sets of figures to justify this figure. The rents of the three State houses in the "borough which had fallen vacant since the last valuation had been increased by more than 40 per cent., 50 per cent, and more than 50 per cent, respectively. Increased costs of building materials and labour were also quoted. Mr Baker said the average cost of building, according to the figures of the New Zealand Institute of Valuers, had risen from 20s a foot under land sales legislation, to the present figure of 42s a foot. Property sales in Lyttelton since the beginning of 1952 showed increases in price over the 1951 valuations ranging from 26 per cent, to 127 per cent, according to a list of ’ more than 30 transactions he nad prepared, said Mr Baker. “I must take into account that the act requires the valuation to be at least 5 per cent, of the fee simple. The fee simple is defined in the Valuation of Land Act as the Government valuation at the date of the valuation, which Government valuation is the market price at time of valuation,” Mr Baker concluded. Reductions Assented to

F. H. Heal’s objection to the valuation of his property at £42 was presented by Mr C. G. Penlington. The property’s value, based on its rent under the Fair Rents Act, was £36 Bs, said Mr Penlington. Mr Baker assented to the reduction and the chairman gave the Court’s assent to the valuation of £36 Bs. Reductions on the same ground were granted J. W. Dawson (Mr E. M. Malley), from £7B to £44 in respect of a property at 45 Sumner road, and F. W. M. Cullimore (Mr H. R. Jacobson) from £42 to £36 8s in respect of a property at 771 Selwyn Mr W. F. Brown, for the objectors, told the Court that Mr Baker had agreed to reductions in the valuations of the properties of Harriet L. Bowden, at 160-161 Ripon street, and the Estate of Charles Bowden, 49 Ticehurst road. The Court approved the reductions from £62 to £59, and from £57 to £52 respectively. Objections Upheld The Estate of C. H. Agar objected to the valuation of a section in Hawkhurst road at an annual rental value of £9. Mr J. M. Johnston, a valuer, who was called by Mr Malley for the objector, said the property had been on the market for some time at £lOO but the trustees were now prepared, to accept £7s—-about the same as the Government valuation. The Town Clerk (Mr J. Thompson) when asked by the chairman whether the section, of 19.7 perches, could be built on, said the council would not allow building on sections of less than 20 perches. a The Court was satisfied that the section was unsaleable at the value placed on it and would reduce the value from £9 to £5, said the chairman after the Court had taken a reA reduction of £lO, instead of the £l7 sought by the objector, was granted J. T. W. Duffell (Mr Malley). Mr Johnston estimated the market value of the property, a dwelling at 305 Jacksons road, at £525. On this figure a rental of £56 a year was warranted, giving an annual rateable value of £45, cgmpared with the borough figure of £62. - , A t. Claiming that he had let his house for £2 5s a week three years ago “and would be lucky to get £2 a week today,” Wilfred I. Bradley objected to 1 the figure of £lO4 put on his property in Randolph terrace. The present Government valuation was £1770 and he would accept that price today. He held the property under a Glasgow lease. The amount he paid the council under the terms of this lease had recently been increased from £5 to £7 10s. The valuation was reduced by the Court from £lO4 to £93. The assessment of the Loyal City Norwich Lodge was reduced from £291 to £260 by the Court. Mr R. H. Duff, secretary of the lodge, said the hall was leased at £2OB a year, under a 10-year lease, to a shirt manufacturing company. A cottage on the property was occupied by the lodge’s caretaker rent-free. It would demand a rental of not more than £1 a week. This would make a' total of £260 a year, said Mr Duff. It might be that the lodge should have made provision for a revision of the rental charged to the company, but the Court was satisfied that a reduction was warranted, said the chairman. F. W. M. Cullimore sought a reduction to £62 8s in the annual rateable value of a property at Jacksons road, which was rented to two tenants. The valution was reduced from the council’s figure-of £7B to £65. Mrs M. E. M. Ede was granted a reduction from £6B a year to £52 on her property in Park terrace, Corsair Bay. Mr P. S. Ede, the owner’s husband, said in evidence that the house, unfinished at the time of the valuation, was still not finished.

Mr Baker, in reply to Mr W. F. Brown (for Mrs Ede) said that the increased valuation “might be a bit high” if the house was still unfinished.

A reduction from £B3 to £75 was made in the valuation of a property at 1162 Cunningham terrace, owned by E. J. and J. E. Olsen. “The. Court takes the view that this property should be brought into line with the neighbouring property,” said the chairman, announcing a reduction from £7B to £72 in the valuation of Mrs Edna Baton’s house at Diamond Harbour. Mrs Baron said in evidence that a neighbouring house, of comparable structure, was valued at £72 a year for rating purposes. When R. P. Miller said he thought the Government valuation of £1645 on his dwelling at 96 Oxford street was a fair price the chairman said: “You are the first appellant I have met who has not objected to the Government valuation.”

Mr Baker applied for an increase in the valuation of .Mr Miller’s property. The Court ordered the council’s valuation of £94 a year to stand. James S. Stanley’s objection to the valuation of his property at 11 Brittan terrace at £96 a year was.disallowed.