HIGH STREET WIDENING

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18130, 30 June 1922, Page 9

HIGH STREET WIDENING

«. —. REVIEW OF NEGOTIATIONS. i PROPERTY OWNERS* POSITION. CONFERENCE TO BE HELD. The proposed further widening oi H:igh j Street- from Yakan lane to Shortbvod Street was dealt with by the Works j Committee in a report presented io the City Council last evening. j Arrangements were made with property j owners in 1910 for the acquisition of a j portion of their land, the committee said. and :'t was then contemplated that thf 'i widening from Chancery Street, to Vulcan j Lane on tie eastern side would eventu j ally be carried out. A portion of tne j work had alreadv been completed. The j building at the corner of Chancery and High Streets was the property of the corporation subject only to a short ten- j anc'v, and mijht be demolished at any ; \ time* the remaining obligation being the ■ j acquirement of the other properties peces--3 sa-v to complete the scaerne. This involved financial provision which had not vet been made, but which, if it wa.>; de- ; cided to proceed with the proposal. could be provided for in the estimates in general account in any year. This was I estimated to be a substantial sum tor ] the owners' claims alone, and in addition the street work would have to be aimed 1 out. No such provision had yet been | made. Values oi the Properties. I The council, as. the records showed, } had been fully alive to the necessity of ] loring no feasible opportunity for widenj ins; High Street through to Shortiand i Street. " The recent application for a. building permit by Leighton. _ Limited, again raised the question, and the Works j Committee in January and February last l went fullv into the question. Full rei ports, were obtained as to the values of tbe properties concerned, and negotiations were* carried on with Messrs. Leighicn. lie roaual required a strip of land 12ft. 6in. to the street into alignment with the widened upper portion, i Messrs. Leighton stated that the section i on which their building was to be erected was alreadv on the small side and a.r.y | reduction would result in loss oi space. |in letting area. The building would j ! suffer by" reason of being _ set _ back, j ! from alignment of adjoin'-ng j ! buildups and there wers also other j j disadvantages. Providing tie conned j j would allow them to go up or three j I extra storevs and that, tie widening j scheme would be completed between \ ulcan Lane ?nd Shortiand Street within a ! reasonable time, say five years, they would i require £3750 as compensation to dedicate | the striD of land fronting High Street. ! 12ft 6in"deep. I L&nd Advisers' Beport. The owners would not give the land as I the committee asked them to do. in view J oi the proposed betterment of their prc- ; pertv. If they had done this the eom- ! mittee was prepared to go on with the j proposals and negotiate further with adI joining owne'-s. The committee, following i Messrs. Leighton's decision, went fully > into tie question and obtained a report | from the councils land advisers, Messrs. I S. Yaile and Sons, who, in the course of ! their report ift February, said : —" it ' should be remembered that betterment I cannot be set off against area taken and | it should be pointed out that the whole ' 20ft frontage to Shortiand Street must be 1 taken, as it is useless to leave a strip ?ift : wide. In anv case the whole of tie original ! hotel building would be destroyed. We i are certain that compensation payable in • respect of land and buildings taken would | be between £55,000 and £40.000. exclusive !of special claims for disturbance, hotel j license, tenants' claims, etc. We do n>t ' know whether we are expected to express j our own opinion, but if so. we mav say j w e think the money might be much better spent for the general benefit of ratepayers. Of course if owners who benefit on tie other side of tie street would substantially contribute, it would be different." ! The committee said that apart alto- j gether from the claims of Messrs. Leighton I and other owners, the council would probablv have been faced with a claim of some £40,000, exclusive of claims for disturbance/etc., which would have added; considerably to the first figure The whole position was most carefully considered by the committee, with the" result, having | regard to the attitude of the property owners concerned, that in March Messrs. Leighton were granted permission to erect their buliding to * greater height than 50ft.. in accordance with plan submitted. It would therefore be clear that tbe utmost consideration had been given to this important CK*ter, and upon the advice of the committee the council had not seen its way to undertake further widening. Reference was made to various streets that had been widened, and in many of these cases the property owners gave the land or accepted nominal compensation, recognising the increased values which such improvements had brought to the properties involved. There were several large properties on the western side of High Street which would receive a direct benefit bv the widening of the street between Vulcan Lane and Shortiand Street as proposed. Gin oS Land Needed. The committee stated that several owner? of the properties immediately concerned vaited upon tie Mayor and the chairman on June 26,. and had been advised that the committee was prepared to recommend tie council to undertake the wideninc if the owners on the eastern side would jrive the land necessary, as the O'Connell I Street owners did. and if the owners on I the western side would contribute reasoni ably toward the cost of land where ; necessary to acquire it. and which could i net reasonably be expected to be criven. it Mr. J. A.'C. AHum, in thanking the committee for its interesting report, said ' he realised that while the council would .hike to do he work, it must have the I co-oreraiions of property owners. f The Mavor. Mr. J. H. Gur.son. said a . conference of all Hieh Street property j awriers and others concerned io meet' the Works Committee was being called for | next Thursday.