LAND AT KAIWARRA

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8679, 12 March 1914, Page 8

LAND AT KAIWARRA

THE SEPTIC TANK CASE

CLAIM FOR £B4O COMPENSATION. The case was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday in which compensation was claimed from the City Council, by John Holmes and Jonah Harris, the owners of certain land at Kaiwarra, which, it was contended, would be deleteriously affected through the installation of the septic tank for the suburban drainage system. The Corporation, by proclamation on October 26th, 1912, took a piece of land comprising 1 rood 7.02 perches, owned by the plaintiffs and situated for the greater part in the bed of the Kaiwarra stream, for the purposes of the construction of a septic tank. The plaintiffs, who carried on the business of tanners at Kaiwarra, under the name of Hirst and Co., alleged that their adjacent lands, of 13 acres 2 roods 26 perches, would be injuriously affected, for the following reasons: —(1) That pipes conveying sewage and drainage to the septic tank have been permanently laid in and upon portions of the last-men-tioned lands. (2) That other portions of the said lands would be deprived of convenient access. (3) That the said adjacent lands would be depreciated in Value by* the construction of the said public work, and the taking of the land first described. The claim was for £B4O as compensation for all loss arising out of the taking of the land and the construction of the tank. The amount claimed was made up as follows: —Taking of 1 rood 7.02 porches, £560; laying of sewage and drainage pipes, £100; deprivation of Access, £80; depreciation in value, £IOO. The case was heard before His Honour Mr Justice Hosking, and two assessors, Messrs C. B. Morisoh, K.C., and* L. H. B. Wilson. Mr A., Gray, K.C., with Mr O. N. Beere, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr J. O’Shea for the City Council. After Mr Gray had opened the ease on the previous day, the proceedings were adjourned to enable the Court to visit the locality. On the resumption of the case, evidence was called on behalf of the plaintiffs. Everard William Se.aton, engineer and licensed surveyor, stated that the land taken by the council should be worth £6 or £8 a foot, as he understood that £l2 a foot had been paid for McArthur's land near by. One strip of land had been deprived of access, and he estimated the depreciation at between £50_ and £IOO. The whole depreciation might be a matter of several hundred pounds, and he thought the claim a very moderate one. Gerald Fitzgerald, civil engineer, stated that the value of land was always damaged by the presence of septic tanks. William Cable, ironfounder, now carrying on business at Kaiwarra, whither “he moved from Wellington four years ago, stated that he bought the’ site for his ’ works there twelve years ago. The land values in Wellington were such that it was not possible to carry on _a manufacturing business here, and a number of firms were -now operating at Kaiwarra. He valued the land in dispute at £4 or £5 a foot. Further evidence was given as to the value and condition of the land. BUILDING OVER SEWERS. Mr O’Shea, in outlining the. defence, submitted, in regard to the value of the land, that it was absurd to attempt to deal with it at a price per foot. ■ His Honour: “Did you make an offer?” Mr O’Shea; “We made an offer of £IOO for the whole, without prejudice.” Continuing, Sir O’Shea said that the Corporation considered that the land could not be built on without such expense as would defeat the purpose in view. There was no demand for factory sites in that neighbourhood ; if there had been such a demand, the firm ground below would have been used up long ago, and no room would have been left for the dirty-looking houses fronting the sea. There was no great scope for factories in Wellington, or in New Zealand,; there had been no. expansion in this direction for the last ton years, and the number of people employed had been on the decrease. The tion’s work was not of such a nature that one' oould not build over the land. He contended that there was nothing to prevent people,from building over sewers. There were buildings on Thorndon quay over the main drain running out to the sea. Where the drain at Kaiwarra ■ ran through the plaintiffs’ property there was no interference with any building. He suggested that a (reasonable award would be from £SO to £75 for the land taken, and £2O damages for the placing of the pipes. The deprivation of access, he submitted, was nil. As for the septic tank, he did not think there was. any nuisance affecting any of the adjoining land. He thought it was clear that no houses would be erected on any part of the property.

His Honour: “Will it not he affected by the sentimental consideration?” Mr O’Shea: “We have had no complaint from the people there.” His Honour: “You would not like to say to a stranger, ‘I live next to the septic tank at Kaiwarra.’ It would suggest an unsavoury direction, to be avoided if possible.” (Smiles.) Mr O’Shea said the land was such that he did not know what could he done with it except to use it for the purposes of a septic tank. His Honour: “It is in the middle of the property.” Mr O’Shea: “That was the worst part of the. property. The piece we took was a hog; we picked out the worst part of the property we could find.” He suggested that if the plaintiffs received £l5O compensation they would be overpaid. His Honour; “You must add something for the taking compulsorily.” Mr O’Shea: “Ten per cent, is the limit we propose for that.” James Murray Morris, assistant city engineer, who was in charge of the construction of the tank, stated in evidence that the adjacent land was about one foot above the level of the stream. The tank was really floating on silt. In order to erect buildings on the land it would be necessary to sink piles, and any machinery would have to rest on a concrete bed placed on piles. Evidence was also given by the city engineer (Mr W. H. Morton), and the case was not concluded when the Court adjourned till 10 o’clock this morning.