Urban Farm Valuations Contested Before Court

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28013, 6 July 1956, Page 16

Urban Farm Valuations Contested Before Court

"It is time that amendments were made to the Urban Farm Land Rating Act, 1932. if the time of the Court, counsel and all those concerned is not to be wasted," said Mr L. N. Ritchie. S.M., chairman of an Assessment Court in Christchurch yesterday. He adjourned the sitting until this morning because of the absence of one of the assessors (Mr C. A. Campion) through illness.

Three of the 25 cases set down for hearing had been taken before the luncheon adjournment. When the Court resumed, the chairman said that Mr Campion, one of the two assessors, would not be able to attend because of illness. After long legal argument, during which the chairman criticised the drafting of the act. it was decided that a quorum consisted of the chairman and two assessors. The other assessor is Mr J. M. G. Johnston.

Kenneth Stanley Hartnell (Mr E. C. Champion) objected to the rateable valuation of his dairy farm of 81 acres Mr Champion said that the property was divided into two blocks on. Dyers road and Linwood avenue. It was lowlying, and completely unsuitable for subdivision. It was formerly in the Heathcote county and was then valued at £4lOO. In January, 1955. it had been taken into Christchurch City, and the capital value was increased to £12.130 and the unimproved value to £lO 000.

In May of last year, the farm was placed on the City Council’s farm land list with a special rateable capital value of £10.530, an unimproved value of £B4OO. and improvements estimated at £2130. said Mr Champion. After objections to the Land Valuation Court, the capital value was reduced to £9OO. unimproved value to £7OOO, and the improvements to £2OOO.

No Reduction for Rating Although the property remained on the council’s farm land list, there had been no reduction far rating, Mr Champion said. Rates for the previous three years had been as follows: 1953-54, when the area was in the Heathcote county, £6l 8s 8d: 19541955, when the property came into the city, £l2l 4s 3d: and for 1954-1955 year, on the reduced value, £142 6s sd.

The property was leased for dairying at a rental of £486 a vear but after paying rates, land tax, and other incidentals, the owner received onlv £306, about 34 per cent, on £9OOO, Mr Champion said.

“Mr Hartnell suggests that the proper course would be to make a reduction in the special value in proportion to that made originally,’’ said Mr Champion.

In his submissions on behalf of the Christchurch City Council, Mr W. R. Lascelles said the reduction of the value to £9OOO had not really been decided by the Land Valuation Court, but it had been a comoromise between the two parties. The valuation was a low one. and had been reached on the basis of the rural quality of the land, and therefore there was no discount due for any other factors.

Mr A. Latter, a valuer for the City Council, said he considered £9003 a low valuation. The property had heavy loam soils, was low-lying, but was good dairying land. Asked by Mr Johnston whether he considered that 34 per cent, on the

money invested in the farm was a good return. Mr Latter said th"t. if ♦hat was the case, the rent should be raised. Decision was reserved. 60-Acre Property Albert Edward Lovett (Mr E. B. E. Taylor), whose dairy farm of 60 acres at 183 Dyers road, is close to that of the previous objector, applied to have the rateable value of his farm reduced.

The Land Valuation Court had agreed to reductions in capital value from £7450 to £6025. unimproved value of £5850 to £4600 and the improvements from £l6OO to £1425. said Mr Taylor.

‘The special rateable value should be reduced by the same percentage as the valuation was reduced in October, 1955. capital value to £5310. unimproved value to £3BBB. and improvements to £1425.’’ he said.

Mr Lascelles said the council could not agree to the percentage reduction, as it was a matter for the Court to decide.

Mr Lovett said that his farm near the Estuary was low-lying, and without the drier land on the other side of the road, where his house and cow bales were situated, it was an uneconomic unit. The pasture consisted mainly of clover and water twitch The ground was sodden even in summer. and last year he had paid £l2OO for feed for his cattle. He was milking 39 cows for the town milk supply. For eight to 14 weeks a year, the stock could not be kept on the area, because it was too wet.

On one bundary of the property was a sea wall which had been breached about seven times in the nine years he had occupied the property, said Mr Lovett. No local body was willing to accept responsibility for the wall, though on the last occasion he had some help from the City Council. At one time, when the sea wall had been breached, the water had come a th.rd of the way up his property, and destroyed a number of trees. His income from the property was about £BOO last year. Questioned by Mr Lascelles, Mr Lovett said he would not agree that land carrying one cow to the acre for town milk supply could be valued at about £l5O an acre. Under cross-examination, Mr Latter agreed that the farm could not be operated without a run-off area for stock, and that it was entirely unsuitable for subdivision.

The application was adjourned until today to allow another witness to give evidence.

Market Garden Land Percy Chew Lee, a market gardener, of Sydenham, who conducted his own case, objected to the unimproved value, but not the improved value, on his property of three acres at 82 St. Martins road. The property also runs through to Wilsons road. If land is used solely for market gardening, it must be rated accordingly. and not on its potential as a subdivision.” said Mr Lee. His property was valued far higher than it should te.

The property originally consisted of about U acres, and he later bought another two acres, said Mr Lee. This land had been sold by the previous owner because it was subject to flooding, and Mr Lee said he had endeavoured to build it up. The valuer

had inspected the land when it was looking its best. “The land has no greater productive value than it had 10 or 15 years ago; yet the rates have gone up more than 250 per cent.,” Mr Lee said. On the property was a fairly old dwelling which had been extensively modernised, said Mr Lee. There were also four glasshouses and some sheds. The special rateable values were as follows: capital, £4350; unimproved. £1580; and improvements, £2770. Mr Latter said he considered the valuation low. The soil was suitable for market gardening, and the property could be subdivided to give three sections, the rest being back land. Decision was reserved.