1.—14.

18

IJ. M. BA.THAM

17. Right Hon. Sir J. G. Ward.] Under the suggestion that is made for utilising that block in the interval until the time arrives for cutting it up, by cutting off the two front wings as suggested by the Government, the frontages would be available for letting purposes in addition to the £264,000? The .£264,000 includes the land on which the building stands. 18. The frontages of those sections right round the building would be available?— Yes, if of sufficient depth. 19. And the building could be continued for letting purposes if necessary?—l am afraid the depth in some places would scarcely suit for cutting up sections outside the present building. [Plan explained by witness.] 20. Mr. W. Fraser.] You have said, Mr. Campbell, that the present value is .£264,000. You see the building is there, and therefore the present value is one we could not deal with, and probably it would be six or seven years before the whole of the building would be removed. Supposing you were to rebuild, are the sections available for letting?— There are four corners and the Featherston Street frontage available. 21. Is the £264,000 the present value, or is it the value which the land would sell at when the building was removed —that would be some six or seven years hence? —It is the present value with the building removed. 22. It is not to-day's value?—No, not as it stands with the building on it. 23. Then, what date have you fixed upon as the date of selling?—l have allowed five years within which to realise. 24. And you are taking the probable rise during the next five years? —No, it is the present value. " 25. Surely you must have if you have allowed five years for realisation : you must have taken into consideration the probable rise during the next five years?—No, not necessarily. 26. Assuming the property will rise during the next five years, what do you think would be the realisation from the sale of this property?—l could not give any estimate of what the increase would be in five years. 27. Then you have taken it upon the present basis? —Yes. I wish to explain my statement that it would take five years in which to realise. The property would not be realisable all at once, because you could not sell all the sections in one day, and it is considered that probably it would be five years before the property would be sold, because there would be no demand for all these sections at once. 28. Hon. Mr. Paul.] Is it your opinion that this land should not be sold under any circumstances?—l think it would be bad policy. 29. You understand there is no suggestion made by the Government to sell this land?— Yes. 30. The Chairman.] I think you said that you calculated this as simply the capital value of the land at present, irrespective of the buildings? —No, not the capital value; the capital value would include the buildings. 31. Well, the unimproved value of the property?— Yes. 32. And you estimate the rental value at, say, 5 per cent, upon that?— Yes. 33. In other words, it means that if all the sections were made as indicated upon that plan they would bring in a rental of about £13,000 a year?— Yes. 34. Eight Hon. Sir J. G. Ward.] Taking the land as it stands, irrespective of the buildings, there are portions of it if necessary which could be let at once without interfering with the buildings at all?— Yes. 35. Would you be good enough to state what are the portions?— The frontages to Featherston Street and the corners of the block facing Lambton Quay. 36. And half of Whitmore Street?— Yes, there is also a portion of the Whitmore Street frontage. 37. Then, in addition to the areas that you state are now available irrespective of the building, assuming that further accommodation is provided elsewhere for the public departments, and that those two front wings are cut off, it is a fact that the balance of the Government Buildings such as would not be required could be utilised for leasing purposes ? —Yes. If those wings were cut off, that would give sufficient depth for leasing in the front. 38. Leaving the remaining portion of the wooden building available for leasing purposes?— Yes. 39. And in the estimate you have given you have not taken into consideration the value of the wooden buildings at all? —No, not at all. 40. The Chairman.] Have you sufficient accommodation for the Valuation Department?— Yes, quite; it was increased a year ago. 41. Hon. Mr. Guinness.] You say you valued that land at its present selling-value to-day?— Yes. 42. Do you think there will be any increase in that value in five years hence? —I do. 43. What percentage?—l could scarcely hazard a guess. In some parts of Wellington the value increases more rapidly than in other parts. 44. You say there will be an increase?— Yes, I think so. 45. Would it be 5 per cent, or 10 per cent.?—l could not say at all. George Fhederick Colin Campbell further examined. (No. 5.) 1. Right Hon. Sir J. G. Ward.] Regarding the valuations you gave to the Committee, I understood from you when you were here before that they were made up after yourself, as well as your valuers, had examined into the general position of the land at present occupied by the Departmental Buildings?— Yes.