BUILDING COSTS

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 124, 21 February 1944, Page 4

BUILDING COSTS

Move To Secure Details From Department STATE HOUSE PROJECTS

Dominion Special Service. AUCKLAND, February 20.

"It is most unfair and improper that a witness called to give evidence should be bound by departmental instructions as to'how far he can give information on which he makes statements on oath, suid Mr. Newbery, counsel for the vendor, in a case before the North Auckland Land Sales Committee, when a valuer of the State Advances Corporation was being cross-examined. Witness was giving evidence on building costs as computed by himself from contracts within the knowledge of his department in regard to the construction of dwellings from State loans. He said he was not ut liberty to give the names of the builders or the owners, but could furnish details as tu the locality aud lhe price aud specifications of the Houses. When counsel reiterated his comment and pressed witness for further information, the chairman, Mr. S. 1. Goodall, interposed, suggesting that it would be advisable to seek the information from someone higher in authority in the department. Counsel said the Director of Housing Construction had been subpoenaed to produce the relevant documents regarding building costs. "1 have been informed that it will not be possible to produce the bousing contracts today, the difficulty being, I understand, that lhe Solicitor-General is considering the question of privilege, said counsel. "Then, till that is settled aud you have an opportunity of applying your test to a higher authority, 1 would suggest you accept the witness’s evidence as he cun give it,” said the chairman. The case before the committee was an application by Nelson L. White io sell a four-romed new bungalow in Cornwall Road, Papatoetoe,. to F. C. Brown for £1750. Counsel said this was probably the first application of this nature, as the -house had been built since the legislation came into force and subsequent to the stabilization dale, December, 1942. It was what was commonly called a speculative building and had been built almost entirely by the vendor himself.

"The Game Was Up.”

Building costs had increased considerably since December, 1942, said Hie vendor in evidence. He submitted cost sheets for the house showing the total cost at £1825, including wages for himself at 5/- an hour, commissions and other overhead charges, and 10 per cent, builder’s profit. In reply to the Crown representative, Mr. D. Stevenson, he said he had agreed to sell at the belowcost figure, as he had come to the conclusion after summing up the Land Sales Court decision that "the game was private valuer, D, E. Stacey, said he valued the property at £1741 ou a basis of 29/- a square, foot. On inquiries he had made he believed it was impossible to get a house built for less than 30/- a foot. He said the Government was paying 27/6 a foot for State houses, not including drainage, paths, and other outside amenities. This footage rate was for groups of 10 houses. Stephen H. Clark, State valuer, said he valued the property at £l6lO on a basis of 26/- a foot. He knew of similar rates for houses built in Auckland and suburbs around about December, 1943. He quoted from records of the State Advances Corporation, stating that in December, 1942, a hip bungalow similar to the house under discussion had been built for £1330, giviug a basic footage of 24/5. • . , Mr. Newbery asked for au adjournment pending information whether privilege could be established by the Housing Construction Department. The chairman said he would adjourn ffie case sine die to enable counsel to call the evidence from that department, if it were available.