WADESTOWN SLIP

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 54, 27 November 1930, Page 12

WADESTOWN SLIP

Compensation Claim “PROPERTY USELESS’’ Alleging that a slip which occurred in Grosvenor Terrace in January last had rendered his property useless, and that the slip was caused chiefly through excavations made for street widening by the City Council, John Edwin Hunt yesterday claimed a total of £1737/17/compensation from the corporation. The case was heard by Mr. Justice Ostler, with him Messrs. J. M. Dale and B. W. Vickerman as assessors. It will be continued to-day. . . The property concerned is situated m Grosvenor Terrace and Orchard Street, Wadestown, and the City Council s excavations were miyje in Grosvenor Terrace. The plaintiff claimed that these excavations, affected by continuous rain from December 24 onward, had been responsible for the slip coming down, so affecting his section that not only had its value been considerably decreased, but that it was practically useless to him. During yesterday’s hearing it was mentioned that the plaintiff’s house had been burnt on December 24, and that then some 13,000 gallons of water had been poured on the property. The city solicitor, Mr. J. O’Shea, mentioned that the council had offered plaintiff £l2OO for the land, which offer had been refused. Opening the case, Mr. Treadwell, who with Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff. said that on December 23 the plaintiff had received expert advice that the cliff in front of his property was not as safe as it might be, and the City Council had been advised accordingly. A few weeks after a slip had come down, but nothing had been done by the council until after the slip, when some men had been sent to cut back the section to what they considered a safe distance. The plaintiff claimed that the section was unfit at the present time, but he was prepared to abandon the first part of his claim if the council would erect a satisfactory retaining wall. ’ The section, counsel mentioned, was regarded as one of the finest residential sites in Wellington. „ , Mostly Rotten Rock. Hugo Page Hanify, surveyor and engineer, in evidence, said he had been on the section in December last. The cliff fronting Mr. Hunt’s property was com-posed-mostly of rotten rock, with, a little clay and soil on the top. There were several “greasybacks’’ on the slope, while the height of the cutting at its maximum was 47 feet. The slope was unreasonable, taking into consideration the nature of the soil. . , Later witness had again visited the property, when the slip had taken place, and had formed the opinion that there would be more slips. He was pretty sure the slip would go back at least another five feet in one corner. To Mr. O’Shea witness said he had not made a sufficient examination of the property to say there was more than one “greasyback” visible. Counsel:—Did you see any sign of the “greasyback” before the slip? Witness: “I saw water percolating through." He had seen the property before the house had been burned and did not know that 13,000 gallons of water had been poured on the blaze. Most of that water, however, he considered would have fallen on either side of the house. Counsel Would it not soak the whom area? .... Witness:—l don’t think so. If you -were told a regular stream of water came out of the property after the fire, what would you say?— I wouldn’t believe it.” Witness added that he had seen no signs of the water mentioned and went on to say that he considered rain had caused the slip. Would Not Like to Build There. Henry John Wynne, civil engineer, said he thought the slip had been caused by water percolating through, the tact that the original support had been cut away, and the steep “batter” at which the cutting had been left. He considered a retaining wall should have been built. He would not like to build a house on the section. ' . ~ . Cross-examined, witness said the tact that a great quantity of water had been poured on the locality by .the fire-brigade might have caused a slip within, say, 24 hours, but he did not think it would have anything to do with the cause of a slip there two to three weeks, after. In witness’s opinion rain had been the cause of the slip, following the excavation made. Land Agents’ Valuations. Basil Ramsay Webster, land agent and valuer, said he had inspected and valued the section. If it had been undamaged and free from risk of slips, he thought the land alone would have been worth £l2OO at the end of 1929. With present conditions, however, he thought the section would be difficult to sell, though there was a possibility of getting a speculator to take a risk, in which ease £3OO or £4OO might be obtained. Sydney George Kfithan, land agent and valuer, said the site had been an outstanding one for residential purposes. Before the slip occurred he thought tne site would have been readily saleable at £l2OO or £l3OO. but to-day he would not care to build there at all. Counsel: What do you say about its saleability to-day? Witness: I say it is unsaleable. Family’s Alarm. John Edwin Hunt, the plaintiff, said he had bought the section in April, IJZb. He had selected the place because of its convenient position, and also, because it was a splendid site, commanding a wonderful view, a place any man could be proud of. After the slip had taken place he and his family had grown increasingly alarmed at various ortions of earth falling away: later they had rented a house in Highland Park, and since then had lived in other parts of Wellington. If the council would make his Wadestown section safe he would be fully prepared to go back again. Stanton Harcourt, land agent and valuer, said he valued the section before the slip occurred at £l2OO, but it would be difficult to bring off a sale to-day. City Council’s Offer. Addressing the court, Mr. O’Shea submitted that the claim was greatly exaggerated. The sum asked for, he said, was a long way more than the property was worth, and he contended that better land had been sold in Wadestown for less than what the plaintiff was asking. On the occasion of the fire, water from two mains had been played on the property for half an hour, and it was estimated that about 13,000 gallons had been poured on the land. The ground had been saturated. and from that time on to the time of the slip there had been i * , t" l 'ically continuous rain. ... t The City Council had tried to meet the plaintilff. Mr. O’Shea said, and had made him an offer a long way more than the land was worth —£1201)—and if it got the land it would disregard the possibility of further slips. The offer of £l2OO still’stood. The erection of a wall as suggested by the plaintiff Mr. O’Shea described as out of the question. John McLeod Rankin, City Council foreman, said he was in charge of the men engaged in road-widening adjacent to the plaintiff’s property. Up to the time of the fire there had been no slips, and no explosives had been used in the excavation work, only rotten rock had been removed with picks. The morning after the fire the ground had been saturated, and at the foot water had been running in two places. Previously he had noticed that water had run at one point, after continuous rain. Before the court resumes to-day tne bench will visit the plaintiff’s property.