VALUATION OF LAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20521, 24 March 1930, Page 11

VALUATION OF LAND.

APPEAL BY DEPARTMENT! CHRISTCHURCH PROPERTY. . \ WIDE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED. Whether valuations throughout New Zealand are made on a wrong basis was a point at issue in an appeal from the decision of the Assessment Court, heard before Mr. Justice Adams in the Supreme Court at Chrisfchurch. The case involved a block of land subdivided by Liverpool Street, which runs from Hereford Street to Cashel Street, between Manchester and Madras Streets. It was the contention of the owners that the valuation should be on the value of the benefit of the road to the land, while the Valuation Department contended that the valuation should be on the cost of the road.

Tho appeal was made by the 'ValuerGeneral against the decision of the Assessment Court at Christchurch in allowing an objection by James Openshaw Coop and others. The specific reason for the objection was that the unimproved value was too high. On November 1, 1929, the Assessment Court decided that tho principle laid down in Broadways, Ltd., v. the ValuerGeneral, 1923, applied to the facts of the objector's case, and therefore applied that principle, but deducted from the value of improvements one-third of the total value as representing the value of amenities placed in the subdividing road by persons other than the objectors. Department's Contention. The decision of the Assessment Court was: Land on east side of Liverpool Strret—capital value £9930, unimproved £7550. improvements £2380. Land on west side—capital value £2725, unimproved £2060, improvements £665. Mr. A. T. Donnelly, for the ValuerGeneral, said the question of principle was raised as to the way in which the residue blocks had to be valued by the Valuation Department. The block was subdivided some 20 years ago by the respondents in the appeal, and they put Liverpool Street through. These sections concerned were the residue sections, the balance of the subdivision having been sold. The question was how far Mr. Justice Reed's decision in the Broadways case applied. There His Honor was dealing with a subdivision on which no sections had been sold at the time of the dispute. In this case the subdivision was made 20 years ago, and they were dealing with a residue of five sections.

Mr. Donnelly said that improved value | meant the added which, at the date j of valuation, the improvements gave to the land. The department said that in the case of a subdivision the owner was entitled to the cost of his reading and such improvements he put into the subdivision. It conceded also that he was entitled to any other legitimate costs in putting the subdivision through and some allowances to profit in order to eiicourage people to go into schemes of subdivision. Owners Entitled to Costs. The difference was in respect to the subdivisional road, Liverpool Street. The department admitted it had to allow the owner the cost of all money spent on the subdivision. It took into consideration (1) the cost of improvements to the owner, (2) the aggregate of the value of the whole subdivision as at the date of valuation. The amount by which the second exceeded the first was the unimproved value of the whole block at the date of valuation. To get at the improved value of the five sections in dispute a fair proportion of the unimproved value of those sections had to be calculated. The objectors disagreed, saying that they were not limited to the cost of subdivision and other legitimate expenses. They said that the road gave an additional value to the subdivision far beyond_ its original cost, and that they were entitled to that increment as at date of valuation. Mr. C. S. Thomas, for the respondents, submitted that the principles as laid' down in the Broadways case were capable of being applied in this case._ It was common ground that if 110 sections had been sold the Broadways case would apply. His Honor said that he would consider the case and give his decision in writing.