Protest At Increase In Farm Land Valuation

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31543, 4 December 1967, Page 10

Protest At Increase In Farm Land Valuation

The valuation of reserve land leased by the board for farming had been increased by 1000 per cent under the recentlycompleted revaluation of Paparua County by the Valuation Department, Mr H. E. Connor told a meeting of the North Canterbury Catchment Board on Friday.

Mr E. A. Witbrock said that .the land was 410 acres of board reserve, leased to Mr J. E. Rountree. Its valuation had been raised from $9950 to $95,000, the department’s reason being its location. The new valuation bore no relation to the land’s use, or its productive capacity. The reserves committee reported that it had asked its land classifier (Mr A. C. Norton) to get further details from the departinent, and report back, and the board asked its finance committee to go into the question.with a view to seeing if other local bodies would join the board in a protest to the Government at the method of valuation. “I am particularly concerned at the system of valuation," said Mr Witbrock, after referring to the department’s use of the “location valuation” yardstick. He said he had just received Valuation Department notices for Crown land which he leased which showed, for the first time,. the market value of the land. “Are we concerned, as we do not have to pay the rates on the land we lease?” he asked. “Are we concerned

that our tenants have to pay the rates? “The valuation on Mr Bountree’s leasehold has increased from $9950 to $95,000. all because of its location. We have 2000 acres nearby which might be used for recreation, and would be subject to rates at the mercy of the local body concerned. “This land has been described as useless for farm production, and much of it is stones and sand. But it is eight miles from the city. What is the valuation going to be?” The question of valuations bad been so well argued by farmers throughout the country that he doubted whether the board could do anything, said Mr J. M. Pickering. The fault lay not with the Valuation Department, but with Parliament “It’s certainly an indictment of the valuation system,” said Mr Witbrock. Mr A. T. Bell asked if the tenant would be rated on the new valuation. Mr Connor: He will be. The board won’t be. He said the reserves committee had run into “two bad cases” in the Paparua revaluation. The valuation of land in Shipleys Road had been raised from $7BOO to $22,050, but this was less $20,790 because part of the land was for shingle pits. In Mr Rountree’s case, said Mr Connor, the valuation per

acre had been increased from $20.10 to $226.20. The board’s reserves superintendent (Mr R. G. Rains) corrected Mr Connor. He said the Shipleys Road land used to have 31 acres excluded as non-rateable, but the department now said that was a mistake, and the land now was all rateable. In a discussion as to what rate relief tenants could obtain, Mr Witbrock said the City Council had special provisions for urban farm land rating, but this did not apply to land in counties. Dr W. R. Holmes said the board should consider that Mr Rountree’s block was valued lower than nearby land, which had sold at up to $6OO an acre. “I don’t think we can do anything about the valuation, because it’s realistic in relation to the' value of adjacent land,” he said.