COMPENSATION CLAIM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20594, 19 June 1930, Page 14

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

[POWER LINES ACROSS LAND.

PROPERTY AT PANMURE.

CASE FOR THE DEPARTMENT.

Tho claim by James Donald, wool broker, of Auckland (Mr. Leary), against the Public Works Department (Mr. Meredith), for compensation for land taken for power purposes and alleged depreciation arising from tho department's operations, was further heard yesterday by a Compensation Court. Mr. Justice Ostler had associated with him Mr. John Alexander as assessor for tho Crown, and Mr. J. B. Paterson for tho claimant. The total compensation claimed was £3820, mado up of £I2OO for 4$ acres of land taken by tho department, £720 for injurious affection of tho remaining 46 acres of tho property, and £I9OO for diminution in valuo of the residue on account of tho existenco of an electric transmission lino upon it. Tho area is at Panmure overlooking tho Tamaki estuary. Mr. Meredith in concluding his opening address said the evidenco for tho respondent would show that tho value of tho plaintiff's land was from £l5O to £2OO an ac,ro and that any damage that might ensue from the department's operations would be adequately compensated for by tho payment of £2OO. His witnesses would say that tho property could not be considered as a subdivisional proposition.

Question of Subdivision.

John 11. Jackson, land agent, said that he would not viow tho plaintiff's land ns a subdivision proposition at present, although it had possibilities for that purpose later on. Tho time was not ripe, and .there were thousands of acres of land in a better- position to bo subdivided. It was generally accepted that land at over £IOO for farming could not bo made to pay. He valued tho 4$ acres of land taken by the department at £175 an acre. Mr. Leary in cross-examination produced to witness a report that witness had made on tho property for mortgage purposes in May, 19X7. Tho report stated, " The position of this property in relation to the new railway and having a long frontage to deep water must result in a largo increase in valuo in tho near future." Witness valued the whole 198 acres in the property, including buildings, at £28,970. Charles F. Bennett, land agent and ■valuer, said he would not have considered th.3 plaintiff's property as suitable for subdivision in 1926 and 1927. There was much vacant land with much bettor access.' Tamaki Heights was certainly more favourably situated. He valued tho 4} acres taken by tho department at £2OO an acre, and tho whole 50 acres, at £l7O an acre. He estimated the damage done by severance at £2OO. Another valuer, H. G. Palethorpe, placed a valuation of £l5O an aero on the property and agreed that it "was unsuitable for subdivision in 1925.

Agent Favours Farming. An opinion against subdivision of the property was also given by Gregory P>. Osmond, land agent, who said ho would advise a client to farm the property for another 10 years. He valued the strip of land taken at £2OO an acre. Ho would allow £175 to cover severance.

Reasons for preferring the second subdivisional plan of tho properly with the department's area deducted to the first plan of the property intact were given by E. V. Blake, surveyor and engineer and qualified town planner. He produced a third alternative scheme of his own.

The land purchaso officer of the Public [Works Department, James T. Brosnan, described the land that had been taken frotn the claimant's property and the? ■work that had been carried out upon it. /It was considered desirable to have a strip of land wide enough for the erection of a duplicate line. The department's offer to grant access through the strip was not accepted by the claimant. Land to provide for possible future requirements was taken and vested in the Grown on March 12, 1928, continued witness, but the department exempted from the proclamation certain portions of the land to give access from one part of th 6 property to the other across the routo of the power line. An offer of £ISOO in settlement of the claim for that strip, two chains wide, was made, but the claimant declined it. The claimant had paid £ll7 an acre for the whole block of 193 acres in 1923. j A Point of Law.

Mr. Leary asked witness whether ho would not agree that the pole line, which was completed first, was part and parcel of tho larger scheme, involving the erection of the steel towers, which were built over • the property later ? His Honor: What is your point, Mr. [Leary ? Mr. Leary: The defenco says we are out of time with cur claim regarding the polo line, and I want to show that both sets 01/iines are one public work. Mr. Meredith submitted that there was statutory authority for 'holding that each part of tho work should stand on its merits and that plaintiff's objection to tho pole line was out of time. Witness said the pole lino had been in existence on adjacent property, but on December 28, 1928, the line was removed to plaintiff's property, notice having been given of the department's intention to tako the land for Arapuni development pur poses. Plaintiff objected. The survey had actually .been commenced on October 27, 1926, and plaintiff saw the plan when it [was on view in offices in Pan mure.

Evidence of Engineer. The district electrical engineer to tl>o Public Works Department at Hamilton, T. McL( ;niiari, produced photogranhs fit power transmission lines in Canada ami tha'United States, showing that the towers cressed over streets and buildings. The towers erected in New Zealand, he said, were designed to withstand extreme conditions of wind In the case of a break in the wire the lino was made dead by an automatic device.

Mr. Leary protested against the suggestion of the defence that the plaintiff ;wus out of time with his claim. It was wrong, he said, to lay it down that a claim was invalid if it was filed more than ti year after the first unit in the work objected to was started. The pole lino bringing power from IJorahora was part and parcel of the one task, which was continued when Ihe steel towers bringing Arapuni power came through. The whole public work must be viewed as one and .in that case plaintiff's claim was certainly in time.

The case was adjourned until this morn sng-