ASSESSMENT COURT

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 61, Issue 4320, 16 August 1940, Page 5

ASSESSMENT COURT

TE AWAMUTU BOROUGH. OBJECTIONS TO NEW VALUATIONS. A sitting of the Assessment Court to hear objections to the new valuations in the borough of Te Awamutu was held in the Borough Council Chambers on Wednesday last, when the members of the Court were Messrs A. A. McLachlan, Christchurch (chairman), F. Ji. Bertram (representing Te Awamutu Borough Council) and G. H. French, Rotorua (representing the Government). Mr W. Gordon attended on behalf of the Valuation Department, and various objectors attended in person or were represented by counsel. After we went to press on Wednesday’ the case of Newton King Limited w’as resumed.

Continuing, Mr Swarbrick said the Valuation Department had a*l possible information to guide it in reaching valuations —. far more than many 7 people? imagined. New’ton King’s appeal was then dealt w’ith, objecting to a new valuation of £l2 per foot. Mr Preston contended that the erection of modern buildings had resulted in the property’ being re-valued too high Mr A. Yarndley, in evidence, gave particulars of the purchase of the sections. Mr Preston asked for an inspection of the locality, and the Court agreed. He criticised the practice of the Valuation Department of altering valuations in five or six years on appeal. Newton King’s valuation would not stand comparison with other properties in the locality 7. William A. Gordon, in evidence, gave his valuations and how they were arrived at, with particular reference to Newton King’s properties, and including other properties in the locality. He considered the eastern (sunny) side of Arawata Street was better than across the street, and his valuations bore out that contention. Old, dilapidated buildings affected valuations.

Mr Preston contended that Newton King's corner should not be valued any higher than the other corners. The firm was penalised for being progressive in erecting costly modern buildings. Mr McLachlan said the Court was not expected to set itself up as better informed than the valuer. It was a judicial body, to hear evidence and have all cases explained. The Court decided to inspect the locality 7 before giving its decision. The Court gave its decision laterrespecting Newton King’s objjection. There was unanimity that the site was definitely more attractive than across Arawata Street. The valuation w 7 as sustained. The objections of J. G. B. Gifford (Mr Preston) and J. Philp w’ere mentioned. J. Philp said his two small sections at the corner of Jackson Street and Brady' Street were leased from the Borough Council as residential sections. The lease, for 21 years, expired next March. The unimproved value had remained the same for 20 years. In that time the lessor’s interest was £6. Rates had increased nearly 25 per cent to 1932, and almost doubled by 1939. Rubbish collection levy had been imposed. He was only appealing .against the rate, “which was computed on valuations. The rent on house property 7 could not be increased commensurately. He gave details of his computation, and contended that his return could only be 4 per cent. If he could not get increased rent he would have to consider abandoning the lease. He was opposed to raising the rent, but was being forced. The corner section was well below’ street level, making it difficult to get sew’erage connections; thus he could not build another house. Other sections not far away, held on the same tenure, were compared. There w’as no selling value in his section. Referring to the second section, he said the valuations w’ere somewhat lower, but on the same basis. The tenure was often called “ a Glasgow lease,” the features of which he explained. The local Borough Council show’ed no tendency to lower costs to property owners. Mr Swarbrick said if unimproved values w’ere doubled it did not follow that the lessor would pay' double the rate. The valuer could not differentiate between leasehold and freehold properties.

Mr Gordon said in valuing Mr Philp’s tw’o sections he considered that two houses could be erected on each section. There w 7 as a bowser station right opposite. On the far corner a quarter acre had been sold for £2OO. The Department’s practice was not to allow for what might happen in the future. He had not allowed for the rounding of the corner. As to building, he believed Te Awamutu had more new houses, pro rata, than any’ of the South Auckland boroughs, and saturation point had not yet been reached. Philp’s sections could each carry tw’o houses. The Sloane Street frontage of the corner section was 82 feet and the Brady Street frontage was 260 feet. There was a tennis court there. Lots 3 and 4, similar sections were sub-divided. They were freehold.

It was agreed to reduce the unimproved valuation of section 138 (the corner one) to the same as section 137, namely. £220.

The luncheon adjournment w 7 as then taken. J. G. B. Gifford (Mr Preston) withdrew his objection regarding his residential property’ after his counsel had referred to the decision in Philp’s case. The objection of H. C. Rainey (Mr Preston) concerned his business block at the corner of Alexandra and Roche Streets. 51 feet by 84 feet. Counsel said the Alexandra Street frontage was valued at £76 per foot. Comparisons were made with other business blocks. He criticised what he called the “ rule of thumb ” process of arriving at valuations—«but when Mr Gordon suggested it was a process Mr Preston could not quite understand, “ Quite so ! ” said Mr Preston. Continuing, counsel 1 said the revenue from the premises to-dav -was less than in 1926, yet the valuation had been increased by over £9OO. Herbert C. Rainey, in evidence, gave particulars of cost, rents, rates, etc. Replacement, in the event of a fire, ■would* be very heavy indeed. Rates

had risen from £56 in 1926 to £l7O in 1939.

Mr Preston suggested that decision be reserved until other cases had been heard. To Mr Swarbrick: The Council had spent nothing round his property since he bought it in 1926. Walton Street was paved for use as a motorparking area, but it did not benefit his property. He did not object to some increase in valuation, but not to the extent proposed. The centre of the business area had been harshly treated by 7 comparison with other parts. His was one of the best sites in the town. He admitted the Commercial Hotel was raised proportionately more than his own property. Mt Swarbrick contended that as a town grew 7 the value of the centre of the town also grew. Appellant said that in the past ten years he had been asked to put a price on his property, but had no desire to sell.

R. L. Henderson’s (Mir Preston) appeal was next, respecting his block at the corner of Alexandra and Mahoe Streets, diagonally opposite to Rainey’s. His valuation was £B4 per foot, raised from £6O in 1928. Rents w’ere no higher now than twelve years ago. Rates were practically’ doubled. He had no desire to sell. Mr Preston said it w’as not fair to ask a man to sell now 7, for there was little other avenue for investment. Mi- Preston contended that there was no equality in the valuations of the centre of the town and those further along the street, where there had been just as much progressive development. In some of the latter reductions had actually been made in valuations.

J. G. B. Gifford’s appeal respecting his business premises in Alexandra Street w’as next.

Mr Preston said the greater part of people coming to town on business cam? in via Sloane Street. Though motorists seldom came into Alexandra Street, the area that he asserted was being unjustly treated. Yet Sloane Street valuations showed little or no increase. He could not understand why those factors were not given full value. Gifford’s rents had not increased until 1937. There were no permanent tenants upstairs. His annual rental revenue had fallen since 1925. Street improvements were the same all over the business area, except where Sloane Street was widened.

The Court said there was little or no demand for business sites further along Alexandra Street; therefore values w’ere not increased.

Mr Preston said empty sections were on the market, but were a liability. The high cost of building was a factor. The chairman said there were several factors in arriving at a valuation. Mr Preston had not satisfied the Court that there was a grave anomaly. His cases would have been improved if he had had a competent valuer-—one as competent as a Government valuer. Mr Preston said it seemed useless proceeding, for he could not produce such a valuer.

The Court said he was asking for combative facts in evidence. Falling rents were not the only consideration.

Mr Preston said there was no justification for the heavy rise in unimproved values in the heart of the business area if the rest of the borough was not also raised. Appellant claimed that the business area was asked to carry too great a proportion of the rates. Mr Preston again asserted that the new valuation in the business area w’as iniquitous, and he felt impelled to withdraw the -rest of the objections he was concerned in. Mr Sw’arbrick said that both Rainey’s and Henderson’s buildings, good 20 years ago, were now below average. But they’ were corner sections, valuable and desirable. The town w’as going ahead as the district became more productive. The greatest development was in the south-east. Mr Preston quoted a number of buildings where rents were no greater than a few years ago. After some discussion it was proposed to adjourn until next morning, the Court meantime to look at some of the properties under review, and consider the statements made in support or rebuttal of objections, the chairman saying that the Court would not alter the valuations prepared by experienced officers unless there was convincing evidence that those valuations were unfair. The Department’s figures had been carefully prepared, as they had to be subject to investigation. OTHER CASES. H. de L. Peake, Teasdale Street: From £4OO to £350. FL Parsons, Fraser Street: From £l2O to £lOO. J. Langmuir, Laurie Street: From £125 to £ll5 (two sections) and from £l4O to £l2O (three sections). THURSDAY’S SITTING. Before the Court resumed yesterday morning the members inspected some of the properties that were the subject of representations the previous day, and at the sitting the president announced that the Court considered the valuer, Mr Wl. S. Gordon, and his Department had made a thoroughly fair job of the revaluations of the borough. If anything Mr Gordon had erred on the conservative side. If he had gone up to £lOO per foot for the best properties in the business area it could not have been called excessive. There was no doubt Te Awamutu was a progressive and good market centre. In fixing his values Mr Gordon had carried out the declared policy of the Government to keep on the conservative side. All the values that were not fixed al Wednesday’s sitting, including those to which objection had been lodged by Mr Preston, were sustained.