Sessional_Paper_1905 — Page 695

617

1. The Claimants purchased their Lot in 1884 for $65,000 at the rate of about $2 per square foot, the area being 32,481 square feet.

2. Taking into consideration that Marine Lot 184 was a corner Lot, having a frontage to Whitty Street, I consider the land to have been of the value of $3 per square foot in 1895. The buildings cost $36,000 in 1885, and I think that an allowance of $50,000 for the buildings in 1895 would be liberal, having regard to the increased cost of building :--

Marine Lot 184-32,481 sq. ft. at $3 per sq. ft, Value of Buildings.

$97,443

50,000

$147,443

3. In order to arrive at a valuation based upon the rental of the property, it is necessary to remember that there is a great difference between the rent at which a Godown would let to a person who wished to carry on a Godown business there, and the annual income to be derived by a tenant from the storage of goods in Godown. The latter amount would of course include the profits derived by the tenant from his Godown business, and in valuing the Lot it is necessary to exclude such profits. After taking into consideration all the material I can gather on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that a fair gross yearly rental to be paid by a tenant of the Godowns in 1895 would have been $10,800. From this the usual charges for Crown Rent, Insurance and Repairs have to be made, leaving a nett rental of $10,305.25 which, capitalized at 7%, equals $147,227. The deductions are as follow:-

Less:

Estimated Gross Annual Rental,

$10,800

Crown Rent,

Insurance,

Repairs,

$249.00

95,75 150.00

1

494.75

$10,305.25

4. I therefore consider that the value of the Marine Lot and the Buildings in 1895 was $147,443.

5. In April, 1898, the Government commenced to extend the Praya Recla- mation Works in front of the Claimants' Lot, and I am informed that in the Spring of 1899 access to the sea was entirely cut off, and the Lot practically converted into an Inland Lot.

6. On the 11th October, 1899, the Claimants sold their Lot for $110,000 which they allege to have been the value of the Lot as depreciated by loss of access to the sea.

7. I do not, however, consider that this sale was a fair criterion of the value of the Lot. I think that the smallness of the amount realised must have been occasioned by the temporary depression in the property market at that time, owing, amongst other things, to the tightness of money. This theory is borne out by the fact that very shortly afterwards the property was re-sold at $120,000 and five

months later at $140,000 and seven months after that at $146,000. consider, therefore, that the Lot was not depreciated by the Reclamation Works although the class of business which could be carried on upon the Lot was changed.

I

8. I have compiled a schedule shewing the annual rateable values of this and a number of adjoining properties similarly affected by the Reclamation for a period of years extending from 1894 to 1901, and this schedule shews the highest total value was reached in 1896, that in the following year there was a drop of less than 0.6%, and this was confined to one property-Marine Lots 204 and 205-and from that date there was a progressive increase which still continues.

9. I am of opinion, therefore, that the Claimants would not have suffered any injury from the Reclamation Works bad they not sold their property at an unfortunate moment and at an undervalue.

(Sd.) A. SHELTON HOOPER.