PROPERTY TAKEN FOR SCHOOL

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 41, 12 November 1936, Page 8

PROPERTY TAKEN FOR SCHOOL

Old Wellington Home

To Go

OWNER BRINGS ACTION FOR

COMPENSATION

An old and well-known home at 32 Brougham Street, Wellington, recently taken under the Public Works Act for the purpose of extending the Elizabeth ■ Street school, was the subject of an action, in the Supreme Court yesterday, when Mrs. Ethel Sophia Quinlan claim_ed compensation amounting to £4lBt from tlie Wellington Education Board. Mr. Justice Blair presided, and with him as assessors were Mr. H. E. Leighton and Mr. A. A. Gellatly. Mr. P. J. O’Regan appeared for claimant, and Mr. T. C. A. Hislop for respondent. ‘■Although the property is situated practically in the heart of the city, it has all the characteristics of a countryresidence, and the Quinlans, who have lived there for 20 years, naturally feel somewhat of a heart-break at having to part with their old home,” said Mr. ' O’Regan. The property was half an acre in ex- > tent, said Mr. O’Regan. To-day the Government valuation on which rates were paid was £2300. In 1932 the unimproved value was £1745, in 1933 it was £1650, in 1934 £l3lO, and in 1935 it had risen to £l4OO. As far back as 1921 land immediately adjoining the property was sold for £4O a foot. Lewis Quinlan, builder and contractor, said that the property was bought from Mr. C. J. B. Norwood 20 years ago for £2OOO. Eighteen months later the house was reconditioned at a cost of £lOOO, and from time to time improvements had been made. Phillip Chetwood Watt, builder and contractor, said he valued the house alone at £1629. It was not up to date, but it was a very comfortable residence. He thought that the house as it stood would be good for another 20 years. The timber was of good quality, and there was no trace of borer. Robert Arnot Nicol, florist, said he valued the trees and shrubberies on the property at £429. Away From Noise of Traffic. William Alexander Thomson, estate agent and land valuer, said that the property was ideal for residential purposes because it was right in the heart of Wellington and yet away from the noise of traflic. He considered that the ■ land was worth £2283 and the improvements £1545. He had not taken the trees into consideration. Mr. Hislop: Is it an advantage to a residence to have a large public school next door? Witness: Yes, some people would prefer it The school does not interfere with this residence at aIL There are very large backyards that this site looks into?—“There are side fences running along.” Have you ever been there on washing day?—“Yes, and I have seen washing hanging out in front of houses in Oriental Bay, where land is valued at £lOO a foot?’ You don’t compare this place with Oriental Bay, do you?—“I would rather live there than at Oriental Bay.” It appeals to your aesthetic sense?— “I like getting back to Nature.” In answer to further questions, witness said that in his opinion the site was one of the best on Mount Victoria. Anyone with £2500 and looking for a residence would buy there. There had been revolutionary changes in houses since 1918, but the Quinlan home was as good as any modern residence. The front door alone cost £25. The oriel window was worth £64. Dunbar Sloane, estate agent and valuer, said that he valued the land at £2266, the house at £1364, and the garage at £75. This completed the evidence for claimant. Case for Respondent. Mr. Hislop said that there was a very considerable discrepancy between the amount claimed and the sum which witnesses for respondent would say the property was worth. The biggest discrepancy, to begin with, was the land, the value of which claimant assessed at £2250, whereas the utmost the board’s witnesses placed on it was £1134. The latter figure was based on sales in the neighbourhood. Mr. Hislop submitted that the land could be treated only as back land to Brougham Street and not as back land to Elizabeth Street. Claimant was asking £l3OO for the house. Witnesses for the respondent would assess the value at £lOl5. The place was a long way from being a modern and up-to-date residence. Inside, it was gloomy and dark and lacked that sense of openness which present-day architecture gave. The garage, which claimant estimated was worth £9O, was nothing more or less than a dilapidated old shed. The sum of £5O would cover every penny it was worth. Witnesses would say that £9O was a liberal allowance for the vinery, fences, and concrete paths. “I submit anybody who would give £4187 for a home there would be mad, and that such a person does not exist in this town,” said Mr. Hislop. “We say that the whole property is worth £2300.” The case will be continued to-day.