BOROUGH ASSESSMENT COURT

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 384, 8 April 1902, Page 1

BOROUGH ASSESSMENT COURT

A sitting of the Assessment Court to deal with objections against the Borough valuations was held yesterday. Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., presided. Eleven objections were received from five property holders, the value of the property in dispute being £496. Two objectors (seven of the objections) did not appear. The reductions made by the Court amounted to .£35 4s. Mr Robinson, borough valuer, appeared in support of the valuations. Mr Jas. Rosie objected to the valuation of section 117, corner of Bright street and Gladstone road. 1 MrR. N. Jones appeared, for objector. The Bench said the objection was informal, and,section;^of the Act had not been 1 complied with. Mr Jones said their contention was that the valuation should not exceed but be less than the present rontal value. It should bo rental value less 20 per ceut. The annual rental, value was £7B. Any suggestion that the owner could got more for the property, and that it was a family arrangement at present was not correct.

Charles Rosie, a partner in the firm of

C. Rosie and- Co., stated that they paid £7B a year. They had paid part of the rates this year, £4. Witness did not think they would be prepared to pay more for it if they were leasing it from anyone else.

The owner of the property stated the rent he received was 80s a week. Harbor and Borough rates amounted to £l2 a year. The cost of the building was £330, and the 30s a week returned a fair investment. He was agent for the next shop, late Eure’s, and could not obtain 30s for it, as it was considered too far out of the town. If his place was vacant, he did not think he would get 30s a week for it. In reply to Mr Robinson, witness stated that the tenant paid £4 of the rates, although not bound to do so. It was not a family arrangement. He had received an offer of over £2 a week for Eure’s late shop, but it bad only been for a fortnight.

Re-examined by Mr Jones, witness stated the tenant paid £4 of the rates as the value had been raised, and he considered he was entitled to pay part of the increased rates.

The Borough Valuator stated that Mr Cox, photographer, was paying £lO4 annual rental, and his premises were valued at £BO. The frontage was the same as Mr Rosie’s. “

Mr Jones said the cases were not similar, as Mr Cox had dark-rooms and buildings at the back. Shops in the centre of business only paid £2 5s a week, and he considered the value of Mr Rosie’s property should be £7B, less 20 per cent.

The Court assessed the letting value at £IOO, less 20 per cent., £BO. The owner of section 159, corner of Grey street and Gladstone road, objected to the valuation of £26 on his property.— Mr Hubble, occupier of the property, said he was prepared to take £l5O for his interest. He was willing to let the bouse, a two-roomed one, at £26 a year, but he did not believe he conld get 10s a week. He paid 7s a week for the four-roomed jhstuse next to him.- Other shops adjacent wefa not paying 10s a week. "He was ready to take 10s a week for the house arid section, but did not think he had a hope of getting it.—The Court assessed the value at £26, less 20 per cent., £2O 16s.

Mr J. Robb objected to the valuation on section 114, £7o.—Mr Jones, for objector, stated that as only £lO reduction was asked for, perhaps Mr Robinson would agree to the request.—The valuation was reduced by consent to £6O.