Board of Review.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1057, 2 June 1892, Page 38

Board of Review.

The Board resumed its sittings yesterday week, and considered objections to valnati»ns io the Lambton and Te Aro Wards, and a few objections at Newtown. NEWTOWN. (Messrs W. Miller and P. F. Jaoobaen, Assessors.) Alioe Wilson, section in Daniel street, L 630 (no Improvements).—Valuation adjusted, L 630 (improvements, L 39). Other objections made by objeotor to adjoining properties were adjusted in a similar manner. LAMB I’ON WARS. (Messrs W. Miller and P. F. Jacobsen, Assessors.) Chas. Godber (Dixon’s estate), Town Acre 177, Cuba street, L 2210 (improvements, L 560). Objector asked for the improvements to be increased to £S4O, for which amount the shop was insuied.—Valuation sustained. Same, shop occupied by Berry and Orr, Cuba street, L2OOO (improvements, L 360). Shop insured for L 650, to which amount objeotor wished the improvements to be raised. —Actual value reduoed to LISOO (improvements as before). Henry Brittain, shop, Manners street, L2OOO (improvements, L 300). Shop insured for LBOO. —Valuation sustained. Wesleyan Churoh Trustees, brick shops, oorner of Manners and Cuba streets, L 4510 (owners’ interest in leasehold only), the total valuation being L 7510. —Owners’ int.reet reduoed to L 3500. Same, reserve in Botanical Gardens road (owners’ interest, L 1200). —Sustained. Bank of New Zealand, Lambto » quay, 106 ft frontage, L 15.290 (improvement?, L 3450). Objector asked that the un improved value be reduced to LIOO per foot. Unimproved value reduced by L 1760, improvements to remain. Bank of New Zealand Estates Cempany, sections 146 to 148, Feathex’ston street, near Foundry (leasehold interest, L 750). Reduoed to L 259. Elizabeth Cowan, owner’s interest in sec tion in Boulcott street, L 1750. .Riduotion asked to LI2OO. —Reduoed to L 1650, by consent. Robert Laery, llOftx 120 ft, Willis street, L 6350. —-Valuation sustained. Charles T. Tatum, part of Town Acre 489, Lambton quay, L2*280 (improvements, L 300). Owner’s interest reduced to L 2995. Burns’ Estate, allotment 69, Lambton quay, L 4200 (improvements, L 800). Reduotion to L3OOO asked on unimproved value.— Valuation sustained. James Lockie, section 63a, Lambtou quay, value of lessee's interest L2OOO (improvements, L 1000). —Unimproved value reduced to LBOO. Burns’ Estate, section in Willis street, 49ft x 66ft, LI9SO (improvements, L 1000). Reduction of L2OO asked for. —Valuation sustained. National Bank, 60ft x 92ft, Grey Btreet, LBOOO (improvements, L 2000). Reduction asked of L9oo.—Reduced by L6OOO on unimproved value. Bargood, Son and Ewen, warehouse, L 20,375, the objectors’ interest as leaseholders being valued at L 12.500, the value of improvements. The objectors’ claimed that the cost of the building was L 10,709. Leaseholders’ interest reduced toLII,OOO by consent. Burns’ Estate, three quarters of an aero on Wellington terrace, L 650. Objector stated that the section was not muoh over half an acre.—Reduced to 1.500. Michael Quin, 216 ft x 49fb, in Quin street, L7OO (improvements, LSO . —Valuation sustained. The valuation of another section in Quin street belonging to the same was also sustained. E. U. Kane, Town Acres 498 to 500 in Bolton street, 1.1600 (improvements, L 200). Objector asked that the value of the improvements should be raised to L7OO. — Valuation adjusted, LI6OO (improvements, L 400.) 0. W. Smart, 34ft x 66 ; t, Herbert street, lessee’s interest, L6OO. Objector asked for reduction to L3OO. —Reduced to L3OO. TE ARO WARD. (Messrs W. Miller aud P. F. Jacob en, Assessors). Mary London, owner’s interest in 16JR by 66ft in Cuba street, LsSo.—Valuation sustained. G. and F. W. London, Jensen’s shop, &c,, Cuba street, L 4745 (improvements, L 260) ; owners’ interest, L4ios, —Owners’ interest reduced to L4OOO. Name, part of section 173, Cuba etreet, L 1690. —Valuation sustained. Same, portion of sams sectiou, L 250 (no improvements).—Valuation adjusted, L 250 (improvements, ESO). William Nicholson, 70ft frontage in Cuba street, L 4420 (improvements, L 920) Reduction asked to L 2450. Reduced to L2SOO. Mary Palfrey, section 909, Hanson street, L 550. Reduction asked to Lsoo.—Valuation sustained. Alfred Luscombe, section 708, Wallace street ; owner’s interest, L7OO. —Reduced by consent to L6OO. Same, seetion 706, Wallace street, LI2OO.

Objector stated that his valuation was L4OO or Lsoo.—Valuation sustained. Francis M. Hawbrey, part of town acre 73, Hopper street and Broadway terrace ; owner’s interest, L2o9s.—Reduced by L3OO. ARE ROADS IMPROVEMENTS ? F. Simeon, Maraina Crescent, L 425. Ob. jector asked that a road through his land, which he had constructed, should be treated as an Improvement —Mr H. D. Bell said that was the question he wished to bring forward with regard to the Brooklyn Estate, which had been adjourned for that purpose. Recently they paid L4OO to the Borough of Melrose to make roads, which they then took over, and which had, previous to that, formed part of the estate. The result of making the roads was to increase the value of the land, which was transformed from pasture into town sections, and they, therefore, contended that the road thus forme,d constituted improvements within the meaning of the Act, which said, “Any improvement whatever the benefit of which is unexhausted at the time of valuation.”—Tho Chairman remarked that there were numerous Instances on record where a landowner had taken off 30 or 40 acres for the purpose of making roads, and he was only then assessed on the remainder, and did not claim any reduction for tho value of the land given up.—Mr Bell : He has not speDt any money on it ; he gave up the land for the purpose of increasing the value of hia property. We have spent money for the purpose, which the Aot is intended to encourage. We are not claiming the value of the streets, but the actual money (L 400) which we expended in order to make access to this land possible. —Mr C. J. C Campbell, of the Land Tax Department, said tho Department had in another instance submitted to them ru’ed, rightly or wrongly, that improvements to property on account of roads having been made by the owners should not come under the category of improvements under the Aot. He did not think it was the intention of the Aot that indirect Improvements on property should be considered improvements; the roads in question could only be termed an indirect improvement, and could not therefore come within the four corners of the Act. After some further argument the Chairman announced that the Board had decided that the Act did not warrant any leduction for this expenditure, and disallowed the objection.— Mr Simeon’s valuation was then reduo d to L3OO, and the valuation of another section tn the same locality was reduced from L 325 to L 250. The Board then rose, and will meet again at u date to be hereafter decided, to deal with a few special objections which still remain unsettled.

There are between 8000 and 10,000 assessments included in the city valuation, but during the sitting of the Board of Reviewers on Monday and Wednesday week only 31 objectors appeared to contest the valuations of Messrs William Miller and P. F. Jacobsen. We append a summary of the cases dealt with

W St3 GO r d ea c T3 U ’-S £ 03 o © •r? <d o & § .2 s 3 6 S 'S a S5 2* g 03 |a t> * P3 o 3 M £ £ Thorndon . .. 5,385 250 7 4 3 Larcbton . .. 86,575 6,820 16 6 10 Cook .. 5,065 45 6 1 5 Total . .. 113,465 8,795 31 12 19 Te Aro .. 16,440 1,680 2 1 1