LAND VALUATIONS.

Otaki Mail, 22 August 1930, Page 4

LAND VALUATIONS.

OBJECTIONS TO ASSESSMENTS.

COURT CONSIDERS CASES IN THREE HOROWIIENUA RIDINGS.

HILL PROPERTY OFFERED AT A SHILLING AN ACRE.

A sitting of the Assessment Court was held in the Levin Courthouse, on Thursday, ito hear objections to the revised valuation roll for the Tokomaru, Otalci and Te Horo ridings of the Ilorowhenua County. On the Bench were Messrs J. G. L. Hewitt (president), R. McLean (local body assessor), and E. A Campbell (Government assessor). Mr Richard Self, district valuer for the Otaki and To Horo ridings, Mr A. H. Mackie, district valuer the Tokomaru riding, and Mr R. H. Northe, assistance, valuer, wer ealso present. With respect to his property of 36S acres at Okuku Road, Tokomaru Riding, Mr C. H. Speirs appeared as an objector to the valuation, but said he did not propose to call any evidence. The valuation of this area was sustained, also of the same owner’s 210

acres. SECTION THAT YIELDED NOTHING Air Arthur E. Alabin was present for the. purpose of objecting to the valuation of 538 acres in the Tokomaru riding. He referred first, however, to his 111!) acres in.the Wirokilio riding, for objections to the valuation of which riding the Court, has to sit on a subsequent date. He stated that this land, which ho had owned for a good many years and which is on the hills behind Shannon, was practically valueless; lie had never taken a penny off it, and was not likely to. He would be only too glad to be relieved of owning it. The President asked the objector why he did not offer the land to the Government. Air Alabin stated that he had offered the 1110 acres to the Government it Is an acre. The President: If we sustain the valuation, you have the right to offer the land to' the Valuer-General, and he must buy it or reduce the valuation to your price. It was stated that the land in question was valued at £835 lbs. “You can offer it at whatever you like,” the President added. Air Alabin: I am willing to sell this at Is an acre, and the 538 acres at 10s an acre. Coming to the .valuations of the Ta Iloio ritling, the' Court heard the formal objection of Air A. J. Blackmore, whose son appeared and stated that he was proposing to offer the property of 1040 acres. The President: We sustain the value. Y r ou offer it in 14 days to the ValuerGeneral. HOLDINGS ON ALINAKAU COAST. Air C. F. Atrnore appeared as counsel in regard to objections to assessments in the estate of Arthur Drake, in the, Otaki riding. He stated that over thirty sections were involved and there , were objections in the cases of practically all cf them. “AVe want to test the value before the Court,” lie stated. “We are not going to offer them at this stage.” The President: If you are not satisfied with the decision and are going to offer them, why not get it over! You may get something higher. Counsel: We want to know how the Valuation Department arrives at the individual valuations, and to get an idea of what it is basing its values on. The matter should be thoroughly thrashed out before the Court. The President: What is the good ot coming before the Court for the purpose of having a sham fight? Counsel: I do not say that we are in a position at present to offer it. Air Atrnore added that there was a subdivisional plan prepared two oi three years ago when the 30-odd sections were divided into four sections The President: Town sections, oi what ? Air Atrnore: Country fronting on the sea-coast of Alanakau. It is suggested that the individual auctions are greatly over-valued. The President: It is not suggested that they are lit for anything but farm-

Mr. Self: No, only' farming. The'President: If there is any difference in the value it is because some •part is better as farming land than another. You would lake it as a whole, 1. imagine. Mr Atmore: They are valued in 24 or 2G assessments, and We are objecting to each assessment. Mr Self: On the extreme eastern eiid there is some very good land indeed, then it peters out to the coast. FIVE SHILLINGS TO £35. Asked by the President wliat the valuation was, per acre, Mr Self stated that the unimproved value ranged front os to £3o. Mr Atmore stated that evidence would be given by one of-the members of the Drake family, supported by Mr S. Sieve,rs (local manager of Messrs Abraham and Williams, Ltd.), who had lived in tile district for many years. The President: The question wo have to decide is, wliait is it expected to realise if offered for sale on reasonaide terms and conditions. Mr Atmore: I do not propose to ask Mr Sievers to give independent valuations of >the individual sections, but to give liis idea, of the values of the four lots. Mr Self: We have not handled it in that way. That is Drake’s subdivision. We cannot discuss that at all. The President: We have to consider the assessments as they are, and each section stands on its own. In giving evidence, Ivan N. Drake, a member of the Drake Estate, stated that lie was actively engaged- in farming land on the estate. The 33 acres now under consideration was mostly swamp laud; there was five acres of very wet waste swamp in it; also about -ten acres, of sand ridge. Most of the section was covered in scrub and rushes, the balance, the hill part, was in native grasses. The President: We are supposed tobe considering what it was in a state of nature. Has it, been improved at all? Witness: It has only had some scrub cut on it. The President: Then it is practically in a state of nature now.* Continuing his evidence, Mr Drake stated that a smalt part only was drained. He. valued the section at £7 10s an acre all through. Mr McLean: -What would it. carry? Witness: It would take it ail its time to carry one sheep to the acre; I do not think it would.

Is the swamp that is dry fit for sheep only—Most of it is too wet for sheep. Toe President: What are you using it for now ? Witness: Principally for sheep. SECTION WITHOUT ACCESS. ' Replying to further questions from the Bench, witness stated that there were seven chains of fencing and sis chains of drains on the section. The | fence was an old one, and he valued it at £1 a chain. The cost of making the drain would he £l. a chain. There were no other improvements. It had never been ploughed. The section had no access—no road frontage at. all. The President: Who is going to"bny a piece of land "that has no access? One would think.that they would be batter in one assessment. The Colonial "Hjigar Company case decides that you havfftto take each assessment separately.

I should think that without access it would fetch very little. / , Mr Atmore: If we offer, individual sections to the Valuer-Geeral, wo may agree to some reduced values. In reply to a question by the valuer, Mr Atmore said lie could not indicate what sections those would be. The President said it .was claimed on behalf of the Estate that the section- was worth £7 10s, even though there was no access to it. “I think you have put a pretty good value on it,” he added. Mr Atmore: It is an indication of our bona tides in coming before the Court. Mr McLean asked Mr Self what he would consider the carrying capacity of the section. The valuer replied that it was hard to say, but he thought it would carry a sheep to the acre. The President: You have, put it at £l2 an acre, unimproved. It is for the assessors to say; whatever they say ends it. In my opinion, it could not, by any' stretch of the imagination, he said to be worth £7 10s an acre. Nobody would want to buy it without the other land. Two other pieces of land were referred to by the President as being without any’ access, and he asked the witness what ho considered they were

worth. The reply was £7 10s an acre. The President stated that the Government had put the value at about £l2 an acre. He asked Mr Self if he could say that the land that had no access could be worth more per acre than £7 10s. The valuer said it was difficult to answer. The difference between the Drakes’ valuation and his own was a great deal more than would be two cost of giving access to the sections — taking the necessary land and the cost of roading. The President: Whose land? Mr Self: That of members of the family'. The President: Blood is not in this business—it is pure cold water. Nobody call bring a road through except by proclamation under the Public Works Act, with the attendant costs. The fact of laud belonging to other members of the family is out, of the question; one of them might sell tomorrow. You could not come through someone else’s land unless you bought the land. Could you get more than £7 10s an acre for a piece of land of this description if you could not get any access to it ? Mr Self: A piece of land without access is practically valueless, but if 1 bad to consider ’values without access I could not do it. 1 do not. sechow we are going to get any further with the case at all. The President: Except for the sections that have access. Mr Self: The members of the family have overlooked not having access;' they do not count that. SEPARATE INTERESTS OF ASSESSMENTS. The President: I rule, following the Colonial Sugar Company case, that each assessment has to be considered on its own bottom, and the fact that the owner owns other land is not to be taken as' a factor that he will pay a bigger sum for this particular land than any other member of the public will pay. If a piece of land is offered and it has no access, what price is the public expected to pay for it? That is its value; it would not be expected to fetch more. That is the answer. Mr Self: On what grounds are Drakes objecting? The Clerk: Over-valuing. The President: The parts that have got access arc differently considered altogether; but I do not think these other parts are worth more than £7 10s an acre. Mr Atmore stated that these lands were bought originally from the Natives. The President: You cannot get other land without frontage; it could not be sold to you unless you wore an adjoining owner. Mr Atmore: There is nothing to prevent your selling to me without trontage although I am not an adjoining owner. You can subdivide. Mr Self said he thought, he had bet

tor apply to havo the case adjourned. He did not feel disposed to handle it until it had been gone into again. The President: You have heard what t ruled, and lam either right or wrong. Firstly our duty is to consider what assessments are placed before us —each independently of the others. The fact that a person owns adjoining land does not come into the question of considering the individual assessment. Because he owns the adjoining land you do not say that he would be likelv to give more than other members’of the public. You have to find what the public as a whole would give for the land in the assessment. If the land has no access, you could not expect the public to pay very much for it. In this case it is not only a question of separate assessment, but of separate ownership. If you wish it, I will adjourn the case. Mr Seif: Yes; I do not feel disposed to go on with it as it is. The Clerk mentioned that in the Otaki Borough access was given to subdivisions by l-igbt-of-way over adjoining property. The further hearing of the case was adjourned, the .President stating that the parties would be advised as to the date when it was to bo resumed. CPiOSS PURPOSES. In reference to an objection by Mr E. Cobb, the valuer stated that it had been withdrawn. Mr Atmore: Pardon me; he has iu- ! strutted .me to oppose it. Mr Self: I interviewed him myself, ! and he said he would withdraw it. Mr Atmore: It is rather unusual for : the valuer to see these individual objectors without communicating with me as to the result. My client instructed me this morning to proceed. Counsel added that Mr Cobb valued the land at £OO3 capital value, and the Valudr-General placed it at £1600; he bought., it from the Crown in September, 1929, at £993, paying £25 cash and taking over a mortgage from the Crown of £9GS. The President: According to this, the Crown is throwing away its property. Mr Self: Mr Cobb arranged with me to withdraw the case. Mr Atmore: 1 say he has not tvitlt- j drawn it. I 'am acting for him and ; have conducted ail the correspondence: I The President: Adjourn _it then. - Mr Self stated that the property was a freehold one and that Mr Cobb bad paid a goodwill to go in. * At this stage the Court was adjourned sine die.