VALUATION OBJECTIONS IN FEILDING BOROUGH

Manawatu Times, Volume 65, Issue 229, 27 September 1940, Page 3

VALUATION OBJECTIONS IN FEILDING BOROUGH

Assessment Court Makes Adjustments REDUCTION FOR CARTHEW PROPERTY When the Assessment Court resumed its sitting at Feilding yesterday proceedings were continued with respect to the Carthew property in Manchester Street. During the hearing of the objection to the new valuation on this particular property in the business area of the town on Wednesday it was accepted that these premises constituted the key position. The Court comprised Messrs. A. A. McLauchlan (chairman), H. E. Leighton (Wellington) and G. .T. Fitzpatrick (Feilding). Mr. D. P. Varcoe represented the Valuation Department. On resuming Mr. Varcoe said that he would close his case in answer to the representations concerning the Carthew property with some comment on Mr. N. E. Clifford’s valuation. Interrupting, tho chairman said that the biggest difficulty the Court had had was in. endeavouring to reconcile tho Valuation Department’s figures with respect to the two bank premises, the Bank of New Zealand and the Union Bank ,oC Australia. Mr. Varcoe said that the frontage of Carthew’s property on to the Square worked out at £22 10s per foot which was too low when compared with the Union Bank property at £25 per foot. The chairman: What about the Bank of New Zealand? Mr. Varcoe: We say it is fair in relation to Carthew ’s valuation. We say that after analysing all rentals in Manchester Street from Carthew’s to Chappel’s corner and analysing those iu Fergusson Street, the records show that the valuations we have struck have a fair relationship one to the other. In one or two cases you get a rental in Fergusson Street equal to that obtained in Manchester Street, but generally speaking they are lower. The chairman asked Mr. Varcoe whether he considered the rental of Carthew’s premises at £6 10s per week a fair one.

Mr. Varcoe: I do not. It is a family affair.

Mr. C. E. Taylor (representing the objecting interests): You are not entitled to say that.

Mr. Varcoe: I merely make the statement in analysing the rentals in the remainder of the block. The chairman: It occurred to the Court that, the rental was low. Tho Court had in mind Mr. Gifford's statement that a small shop on the corner would bring in a rental of from £3 10s to £4.

Mr. Varcoe proceeded to question Mr. Gifford's figures as to the cost of replacing the building on the Carthew property. He would say that a modorn building, in forro-couerete and without the ornamentation of the existing building, could be erected at a cost of £3OOO. Mr. Gifford’s estimate was definitely on the high side.

Replying to a mention, by the Court, to the Saudilands building in Kimbolton Road, Mr. Taylor said that it had less than half the unimproved value of the Carthew property, but its rental was within 30s of Carthew’s.

In a general discussion which followed the chairman remarked that it would always bo found that the inner area of a town or borough carried a heavier rate burden and everyone knew of the story that business people had a practice of passing on their costs. In tbe

end it all went back to the i ‘cocky (Laughter.)

After consideration the Court announced its unanimous decision to reduce the unimproved valuation of the Carthew property to £63 per foot. The reduction was made, the Court added, not so much because it considered the valuation too high but simply with a desire to strike a fair relationship with tho Bank of New Zealand corner. The chairman went on to say that the Court desired to retain the value of £O6 per foot and bring the other valuations up to £1 or £2, but as it could not do that it had decided to make a reduction in the case of tho Carthew property of £3

per foot. Mr. Varcoe: Was the Court suggesting that it could not briDg the Fergusson Street values upl The chairman: We cannot bring the Fergusson Street values up.

Mr. Varcoe said that, the Court had authority to do so and the chairman,

replying, said that this could be done only in the cases before tho Court. The view the Court had always taken was that it was loathe to interfere with the valuations which were not disputed.

Mr. Taylor then mentioned the case of the property in Manchester Street belonging to tho Branrwell Estate arid the Court stated that the reduction iu the case of the Carthew property would give a line on the adjustment to be made in his particular instance. The finding of the Court in the Carthew case was a reduction of £9O in tho unimproved value and a reduction of £75 in Ihe case of the Bramwell property. Mr. J. Graham requested consideration of the Williamson property in Manchester Street and the unimproved value was reduced in sympathy with the reduction made in the Carthew property. The premises of J. Darragh and Son were next represented by Mr. Graham and for the frontage on to Manchester Street the Court approved of a reduction of £2 per foot iu the unimproved valuation. Counsel then sought, to have an adjustment made in the valuation relating to the frontage on to MacArthur Street which had been fixed by the Department at £22 10s per foot. This was out of all reason when compared with the Union Bank premises at £25 per foot. Viewing the premises as a. whole, the chairman remarked that, the value of the MacArthur Street frontage was on the Mg’ side. Mr. Varcoe said that the Department had to proceed, in fixing its values, on lines which would produce reasonable uniformity in the valuations. He considered the valuation of the MacArthur Street frontage quite fair in re-

lation to the Union Bank property valuation. After a discussion it was agreed that a sum of £370 had been added to the value of the MacArthur Street frontage for “corner influence,’’ which the chairman considered a bit too high. The chairman: Will you concede that it is a bit on tho high side? Mr. Varcoe: It is a debatable point. I will concede that it might be, but then there is a value there in the corner. After consideration the Court decided to reduce the value on account of “corner influence” and granted a total reduction in the unimproved value of tbe premises as a whole of £205. The capital value of a, residential property in upper Manchester Street was disputed by Mr. J. C. Hill, who told the Court that ho recently acquired it for £IOOO. The place hau been on the market for several years and two years ago he had offered £950 and a. month or so ago had purchased it for £IOOO. The capital value stood at £1250. The Court agreed to a, reduction to £IOSO of the capital value.