SHOP PREMISES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22400, 22 April 1936, Page 17

SHOP PREMISES

QUEEN STEEET AREA ASSESSMENTS CHALLENGED PURCHASE price no guide The contention that rental values for t.lie purpose of rating should not be based on the prices paid foi buildings where the purchase has Seen made in exceptional circumstances was advanced at the City Assessment Court yesterday by Mr. J. Terry, when objecting to the assessment placed by the city valuer, Mr. P. F. Notley, on the portion of Imperial Buildings occupied by Phillipps and Impey, Limited, in Queen Street. Last year a little over half of this building was bought by Woolworth's (N.Z.), Limited, from Phillipps and Impey for £50,000, following the destruction by fire of the adjoining building formerly occupied by Woolworths. Last year the City Council assessment of Phillipps and Impey's half of the building was £1937 and this year it was increased to £2324. In asking the Court, over which Mr. W. 11. McKean, S.M., presided, to reduce the iatter figure, Mr. Terry said it was suggested that the increase was calculated on the standard of price fixed by the sale, but this price was quite misleading. Woolworth's building was destroyed by fire in 1933 and as they had established a goodwill there they were reluctant to leave that locality. They required large frontage and show space and, being compelled to remain in that area, had purchased more than half of Imperial Buildings. They had a frontage of 34 feet to .Queen Street. On the other hand, Phillipps aud Impey had only 25 feet frontage, seven feet of the frontage having been used for an entrance to the upper floors. The assessment should be based on the 25ft. by 78ft. shop, with a lower rata for the store and showroom space. Queen Street Rentals Evidence of values was given by Mr. G. B. Osmond, who thought the assessment should bo £1926. Mr. Notley also submitted comoarisons showing near by shops as paying rentals of £l, £1 3s and £1 5s a foot and said he was of the opinion that if Phillipps and Impey's shop, which had twice the depth of those, were let it would bring £3O a week and rates. Mr. Terry said the difference of £4OO between the assessment of Woolworths and Phillipps and Impey was not nearly sufficient. He remarked that Woolworths had 12,800 square feet of shop and basement space, whereas Phillipps and Impey had only 2000 sauare teet of retail space. Mr. McKean: What 1 am unable to understand is why there should be such a tremendous difference between the rateable value of City-owned property and the rating value of this building. It seems a most extraordinary position. Seduction Mada

Mr. Notley said he was not in a position to explain the policy of the council in leasing its property. Mr. McKean said that where a business bought a property for a special purpose the price paid was not to be taken as an indication of the values in the locality. A comparison with th* rating values placed on other buildings in the vicinity made him think that the assessment of Phillipps and Impey's building was somewhat unfair. He could not see sufficient reason for the increase and the assessment would be reduced to £2OOO. A*£ter hearing evidence on an objection to the assessment on a bulk store in Gore Street owned by the same firm the Court sustained the valuation of £676 made by the city valuer.