COMPENSATION CLAIM

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 172, 17 April 1937, Page 11

COMPENSATION CLAIM

VALUERS’ EVIDENCE Wellesley Club’s Loss of Land The hearing of evidence and argument about the value of the section of land in Ballance Street, Wellington, next to the Wellesley Club building, which the Public Works Department has taken from the club, its owners, for use as part of the site of new Government offices, concluded yesterday. The club is claiming £17,976 7/6 as compensation for the loss of the land. Decision was reserved. Mr. Justice Reed presided and the assessors were the Hon. Sir Charles Statham and Mr. H. E. Leighton. The Hon. W. Perry appeared for the club, and Mr. A. E. Currie and Mr. N. A. Foden for the Crown. Membership Policy. Under cross-examination by Mr. Currie, Charles W. Tringham, president of the Wellesley Club and an officer of it for 28 years, said the club had no policy about ultimate membership. It accepted any suitable person who wished to join, and held the view that it must either go forward or go back. The committee preferred to go forward.

William Gray Young, registered architect, member of the firm of Gray Young, Morton and Young, which has been architectural adviser to the club for many years, said it would be impossible to rearrange the present interior of the club to give extra accommodation. Stories could not be added because earthquake regulations demanded a greater strength, under those circumstances, than the building had.

Henry Mainland, building contractor, said the replacement value of the garage on the land taken by the Government was £2500. With an expenditure of £lOO it could have been brought to a condition in which it would have been as useful as when new, and would have been good for another 15 years. Robert Elrakine Tolhurst, member of a firm of land agents, said he had made a valuation of the land since he gave evidence in the Butler case earlier in the week. He valued the land on which the garage had stood at £220 a foot, which gave the site a value of almost £ll,OOO. Considering the rent obtained from the building the structure was worth £2500.

Charles James Stanton Harcourt, land agent, said he had given evidence in the Butler case, but had not been asked to give evidence in the second case until Thursday or Wednesday. The reduction in the area under the ownership of the club reduced the value of its remaining property because a small area was not so valuable for building. Comparing the club’s property with one next to the old art gallery in Whitmore Street, the price of which in a recent sale was known, the value of the former was £12,295 on a foot-frontage unit basis. Then Ballance Street was a better business street than Whitmore Street. Valuations for Crown. The first witness for the Crown was John Gordon Harcourt, land agent, who valued the property and building at £9250. The land was worth £172 a foot and the building £750. George Halliday, land valuer, previously land purchase officer to the Government, said he considered the land was worth £7920, which was £l6O per foot of frontage. William Hollis Leighton, land agent and valuer, said he had made a detailed inspection of the building when the demolition of Butler’s building was commencing. The building would be a deathtrap in an earthquake. There were cracks in the brickwork over the door-heads. The structural life of the building was passed. He would allow £292 for it The value of the land was £8415, which was £l7O a foot. The total value of the property would thus be £8707.

Charles Thomas Buckingham, district valuer for the city of Wellington in the Valuation Department, said the capital value of the property was £8965, made up of land £8165 and improvements £BOO. The value of the land was £165 a foot of frontage. Deduction From Terms of Leases. Mr. Currie pointed out that almost as soon as the club bought the land it put it on the market for sale as if it were surplus land, and at any time since then had been willing to sell it. The club’s building could be extended over the property the Government had taken only with some architectural ingenuity. The lease of the property provided for its termination if a sale were made, but made no provision for termination in case the club desired to extend its club building. It was inherent in the character of a social club to have a limit to the size of its membership. He commented also on the

evidence as to the value of the land and the building.

Mr. Perry contended that the club had been very modest in its claim of £2OOO for the injury it had suffered. In explaining the reasons for the club’s actions at former times concerning its land, he recalled the changes that had occurred in business conditions, the earning power of the land and the size of the club’s membership. The architect’s evidence showed that the extension of the club’s building would be easy. The property was withdrawn from the land agents in 1926. For 25 years it had not been ministerial policy to grant more charters to clubs and so the membership of the existing clubs would grow. Mr. Perry traversed other aspects of the evidence also.