January 7, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
22
royalty one year, giving £690 ; the land afterwards could be used for market garden purposes, and would be worth £214; the total of the two items was £904. He considered £300 would fairly represent the damage by severance, and £50 for depreciation of two houses in the line of access to the cemetery, as walking funerals would pass the windows. He had assumed that the same facilities of a straight access from Gravel-pit-lane would be retained as formerly, on laying out the estate for building, and if a curved road or right angle turn was made, an addition must be made to his valuation.
Mr. George Humphreys-Davies, F.S.I., of 8, Laurence Pountney-hill, E.C., with nearly 35 years’ experience as surveyor and valuer, said he considered the land in question available for building houses of 8s. to 10s. per week rental; there was not a house to let in Sunbury at the present time, and an investor building such houses would find it very profitable. He put the 2a. 35p. at £450 per acre, and added 10 per cent. As a gravel pit, 9d. per cubic yard could be obtained for the gravel. He considered five acres of land would be damaged 3d. per foot frontage, and allowing for a deferred value of two years, he gave 22 years’ purchase, producing £385. The houses would be depreciated in value owing to funerals passing the windows, for which he put £50. This land was the highest spot in Sunbury, and Gravel-pit-lane was 40ft. wide. He had just valued 300 acres of land in Sunbury for a client.
Mr. Edward Holroyd Bousfield, senior partner in the firm of Edwin Fox and Bousfield, 99, Gresham-street, City, said that during a practice of 40 years he had large experience in dealing with building land in this district, and all other districts around London. He might say at once that he agreed with the figures given by the previous witnesses. He was quite certain that the land was ripe for building, from its configuration, elevation, proximity to the centre of Sunbury, facility of access, and on every account. A straight access was necessary, or the severance damage would be greater. The compensation had been arrived at in view of the surroundings and amenities of the property.
Mr. Scarlett: What would be your valuation of the property, including the houses?
Mr. Bousfield : When you have taken them I will tell you (laughter).
Mr. George Neal, contractor, of Wandsworth Common, said he should say the value of the gravel as it stood was 9d. per yard.
Mr. Avory asked the Under-Sheriff to take a note to the effect that if the local authority took a corner piece of the land there would be no access to the property at all.
Mr. Scarlett said he would give an undertaking that the Council would not include the piece in the corner.
POE, THE COUNCIL.
Mr. Charles E. Goddard, solicitor, and clerk to the Sunbury Urban District Council, said that on May 13, 1897, the Hedge’s trustees offered to sell the whole ten acres of the land for £2,600, but the offer was declined. The population of Sunbury was just over 4,000.
Mr. William Catlin, brickmaker, Sunbury, and member of the Council, said he had asked the price of some land adjoining the property in question, and it was offered to him at £100 per acre.
Mr. Frank J. Brewer, F.S.I., F.It,LB.A., of 2, Upper Hill-street, Richmond, and Bucking-ham-street, Strand, said the land in question was back land, approached by Gravel-pit-lane on one side, and School-alley on the other. At present it was agricultural land, with a small prospective value as building land. He had taken a liberal view of the matter, and to the value of £140 per acre as agricultural land he added £60 per acre as prospective buildin״ land, making the value £200 per acre. The class of !houses that would be built there could only be small cottages, the surroundings were so bad, gas works, a burial ground, a school and an old gravel pit, used as a dust shoot, being in the vicinity ; whilst there was difficulty of approach. He had not heard of any demand for gravel in the neighbourhood, and the cartage to the station, a mile and a half away, would be a considerable item against its value.
Mr. William Edwin Phillips, F.S.I. (of Messrs. Nightingale, Phillros and Page, surveyors and estate agents, Kingston-on-Thames and Weybridge), said he was well acquainted with the value of land in the neighbourhood, and acted as agent for various properties in the surrounding districts. The land acquired was back land, and might become suitable for building cottages of 6s. per week rental. He valued it, with its latent prospects for building, at £150 per acre, adding £100 for any depreciation to the adjoining land. He thought that £500 would be a liberal sum in compensation. There was little demand for such new houses and gravel in the neighbourhood ; he looked upon the gravel as practically valueless.
Mr. Harold F. Coles, surveyor to the Urban Council, said he agreed substantially with the last witness as to the position and surroundings
considered that Mrs. Virgin could not continue with any prospect of success to occupy the house as a lodging-house. He had put the compensation due to her on the basis of a yearly tenant, and considered she was entitled to six months’ notice. She ought to have a year’s net profits, and £50 for removal. She had a right of user over this garden.
Mr. Kelsey, auctioneer and surveyor, manager to Messrs. Maple and Co., Eastbourne, said he had dealt with a considerable amount of property in the town, and the smallest number of years’ purchase he had obtained for freehold property was 16|, and the highest 26, years’ purchase. He put the depreciation of rental value of house at £35 a year at 20 years’ purchase, £700; the loss of user of a portion of the garden, 10 per cent, of rental value (£8 a year), at 20 years’ purchase, £160; with 10 per cent, compulsory sale, £176; the depreciation of prospective value: rental of premises converted into shop, £200 ; present rent £80; loss £120 at 12 years’ purchase, £1,440 ; deduct alterations, £450; leaves £990; add 10 per cent, forced sale; total, £2,035.
In reply to Mr. Macoun, Mr. Kelsey said: If the Corporation erect those shops as per the scheme shown on that plan it does away with the prospective value of this house, if converted into shop premises, and we all know the owners have for a considerable number of years had not only an idea, but had it in contemplation to convert the houses into shops. If, as I say, anybody deals with the land in a way to prevent these houses being turned into shops it does away with the prospective value of the houses, and allowance ought to be made for that.
Alderman Bray : When you speak of a rental of £200, you mean if the existing premises were brought over the private road, across the garden to the new building line?
Mr. Kelsey: Yes, that is it.
Witness added that the effect on Mrs. Virgin’s business would be such that she would have to look out for other premises, and he agreed with Mr. Burtenshaw's estimate of her compensation.
Mr. H. Peerless, the owner, Mr. Charles R. Enever, his solicitor, and Mrs. Virgin also gave evidence.
Mr. Neilson, addressing the arbitrators on behalf of the claimants, quoted the case of “ The Duke of Buccleuch v. The Board of Works,” which arose out of the construction of the Thames Embankment. He submitted that the user over the garden was, for the purposes of this enquiry, land within the ׳meaning of the Lands Clauses Act.
Mr. Ritchie Macoun, in replying on behalf of the Corporation, asserted that no award could be made in respect of prospective value. He severely criticised the conduct of Mr. Peerless, saying that he alone had stood out against the scheme for bringing forward all the houses in Sussex-gardens and making them valuable. In consequence of his refusal, the Corporation had now before them a scheme (the plan for lock-up shops), which was nothing more nor less than a disgrace to Terminus-road. Mr. Neilson’s client was the gentleman who was responsible for that.
The award was reserved.
LAND AT SUNBURY, MIDDLESEX.
At the District Council’s offices, Sunbury-on-Thames, on Tuesday, the Under-Sheriff for Middlesex, Mr. J. L. G. Powell (Messrs. Powell and Rogers, of Richmond and Essex-st-reet, Strand) with a jury determined the compensation payable to the trustees of the late Mr. Hedges for 2a. 35p. of land, bounding School-alley, near Green-street, Sunbury, acquired by the Sunbury Urban District Council under the Public Health Act, 1875, for the purposes of a new cemetery. There was also a claim for severance.
Mr. Horace Avory and Mr. E. Percival Clarke (instructed by Messrs. Hedges and Davis, Red Lion-square) represented the claimants; and Mr. J. Scarlett (instructed by Mr. Chas. E. Goddard, solicitor, clerk to the Council) appeared for the local authority.
Mr. James Green, F.S.I. (Messrs. Weatherall and Green, 22, Chancery-lane, W.C.), with 39 years’ experience, said he was one of the consulting surveyors to several Government bodies, to London authorities and railway companies. The claimants’ property comprised Lorn Villa and Elm View, and a total area of 10a. 2r. 20p. ; the land acquired was the western portion, having a frontage of 190ft. to School-alley, and communicated on the south side with Halliford-road, by Gravel-pit-lane. There was׳ a deep bed of gravel,and sand in the subsoil, and the area in question and two meadows adjoining were suitable for the erection of small villas, and could be readily developed for this purpose, a good sewer being laid in School-alley. His value on this basis was £900, to which he added 10 per cent, for compulsory sale, making £990. He had made an alternative valuation on the basis of working the land as a gravel pit. There were 19,360 cubic yards of gravel upon the land, which was worth 9d. per yard ; he deferred the
ate on the less valuable side of Terminus-road from a business standpoint. The end houses would not sustain much damage by reason of the alterations proposed by the Corporation. He did not see why Mrs. Virgin’s business as a lodging or boarding house keeper need suffer to any serious extent.
The Mayor (Alderman Keay) explained the circumstances under which the rent of No. 6 had been reduced to £40.
The Building Surveyor (Mr. W. C. Field) corroborated the evidence of Mr. Card and Mr. •Jinman, and at the conclusion of his examina-tion Mr. Macoun closed his case.
FOE THE CLAIMANTS.
Mr. Killick (Messrs. Killick and Davies, sur-veyors and valuers, Terminus-road, Eastbourne) said if the suggested row of shops was built in front of Sussex-gardens the existing houses would cease to appeal to the class of people who required such houses. He considered that the end houses and the centre ones were on all fours. He thought the rental value of No. 1 in the event of these alterations would be reduced by one-half. He considered also that the fee simple and the right of user of the garden in front were worth £800 or £900. He had assessed the compensation in respect of the depreciation of the house at 30 years’ purchase. This would work out to £1,200. He considered there ־was substantial value in the user of the garden. He estimated the damage to the owner in being prevented from bringing out his house for business purposes at £1,500. He added to his valuation 10 per cent, for compulsory purchase, making a total of about £3,000. The witness then gave details of a valuation !of the loss that the tenant (Mrs. Virgin) was sustaining from disturbance of her lodging house business.
Mr. Brock, a contractor, and also secretary of the Eastbourne Master Builders’ Association, said the proposed shops would utterly ruin the existing property, as it would become cut off from Terminus-road. In his opinion all the houses would suffer equally and would sustain depreciation to the amount of £40 a year each. The necessity for letting the houses in smaller tenements would, he was of opinion, require an expenditure of £200 on each house for inter-nal alterations. Deprivation of the garden would add £368 to the loss, and he thought there should be personal compensation apart from the actual damages. Add to this com-pensation for being prevented bringing forward the houses as shop propety, they had got a total right to compensation of £3,000.
Mr. Albert Burtenshaw, F.S.I., Hailsham and Eastbourne, with 28 years’ experience, said the effect of the building of shops would greatly depreciate the value of No. 1, Sussex-gardens. He might almost say it would do away with the value of the houses along there as residential properties, and depreciate the houses from £80 to £45 a year. He had taken it broadly that the owner’s claim was one-nine-teenth part of the whole of Sussex-gardens with its rights and conveniences. He had a right of user ׳of all the garden and of all the road. This right of user, although not worth much when separated from the house altogether, was other-wise worth a great deal. F׳or the purpose of assessing the value of the property he could not separate them very well in his own mind. Mr. Peerless could not, as he contended, be said to have a right to only one-nineteenth part of the garden and road, but he had a right to the whole, in common, of course, with the rest of the owners; and he took it that the Corporation’s proper way to treat the property was to take the strip required to widen Terminus-road, and then to make over the fee simple of the frontage, with the road and garden, to the owners of the houses in Sussex-gardens.
Alderman Bray: Each house its own plot ?
Mr. Burtenshaw: Yes. I am led to believe that the owners in Sussex-gardens are perfectly well aware of this, that that is eventually ־what it will come to, and I have this reason for thinking it will be so, that although there are several houses to let, yet there are none to sell. I don’t think any of the owners at the present time would sell their right and interest in Sussex-gardens. I notice the Mayor, in his evidence the other day, distinctly said he had advised his client not to sell. To make up my figures, I take the present value of No. 1 and put it at £1,400. Taking into account the present state of depression, perhaps that is its value. For £600 this house might be brought forward and let as a shop, which would realise a rent of £200 a year. He estimated the value of the freehold at £3,500. His figures were : ■—
Freehold.. ..	..	..	..	..	£3,500
Deduct present value, £1,400 ; with added cost of
alterations, £600	..	..	..	..	2,000
1.500
Add 10 per cent...	..	..	..	..	150
1,650	״
Depreciation ..	..	..	..	..	600
Total .. £2,250
Mr. Burtenshaw added that if the Corpora-tion plans were carried out, the view of Ter-minus-road would be shut out, and the same class of people would not live there at all. He
Ccmpmsation Cases.
SUSSEX GARDENS, EASTBOURNE.
CLAIM BY OWNED AND TENANT.
In connection with the acquisition by the Eastbourne Town Council of the space fronting Sussex-gardens, with a view to widening Terminus-road, a Court! of Arbitration sat at the Town Hall, Eastbourne, on the 15th and 20th ultimo, to assess the compensation due to Mr. Harry Peerless, as the owner, and Mrs. Virgin, as the tenant, of No. 1, in respect of the damage that will be sustained by them respectively, as a result of any works that may be carried out by the public authority.
The arbitrators were Alderman John Bray (Messrs. John Bray and Procter, auctioneers and valuers), Eastbourne and Hastings (for the Corporation); Mr. Sidney Saker, Hastings (for Mr. Peerless), and Mr. A. A. Oakden (Messrs. Oakden and Garland, estate agents and surveyors), Eastbourne (for Mrs. Virgin).
The Town Council were represented legally by Mr. Ritchie Macoun, barrister (instructed by the Town Clerk, Mr. H. W. Fovargue); and Mr. Peerless and Mrs. Virgin by Mr. A. Neilson, barrister (instructed respectively by Messrs. Trass and Enever, London, and Messrs. Coles and Sons, Eastbourne).
Mr. Macoun said that Mr. Harry Peerless was the owner in fee of No. 1, Sussex-gardens, and Mrs. Virgin was the occupier and entitled to dower in respect of those premises. The house in question was the one to the extreme south of Sussex-gardens, and approached by a carriage way. The tenants and occupiers of these houses had a right in perpetuity to the use of the garden and also, of course, to the private roadway which formed a sort of crescent, and it was in respect ׳of the extinguishment of that right of user that these proceedings were necessary.
Mr. Neilson: We have an exclusive user of this portion. I mean the owners collectively. It is not a public garden.
Mr. Macoun said he quite agreed. He submitted as a matter of law that no compensation could be made to either parties in respect of loss of light and air. The Corporation would have to sell the surplus ground, probably for building shops and houses 16ft. high, or else obtain special leave of the Local Government Board to hold it, and it was quite possible that the Corporation would get the necessary authority and lay it out as a public garden, in which event it would be difficult to see that any damage of any kind could accrue to the owners and occupiers of these houses.
Mr. Neilson said he did not propose to put in a claim for loss of light and air.
Mr. Macoun said the Corporation had obtained the opinion of Mr. Freeman, Q.C.
Mr. Neilson objected t׳o the opinion being read.
Alderman Bray: We think that professional opinions and also cases can be cited by counsel.
Mr. Macoun said the offer was £100 to Mr. Peerless, who claimed £3,440 ; and £57 10s. to Mrs. Virgin, who estimated her interest at £154.
The Town Clerk, in evidence, stated that the Corporation purchased the fee simple of Nos. 3 and 5, Sussex-gardens, in October, 1897, for £3,500. No. 1 was purchased by Mr. Peerless in 1881 for £1,275. There had been complaints about the gardens, and some of the houses were vacant.
Mr. Henry C. Card, F.S.I., of North-street, Lewes, said that in October last, upon the instructions of the Corporation, he made an inspection of the property in Sussex-gardens with a view to ascertaining any depreciation that might occur through the carrying out of the proposed works. He came to the conclusion that the inner houses would suffer to the extent of £300 each, and the two end ones to the amount of £150 each. The tenants of the two end ones he proposed should be paid £7 10s. each, and the tenants of the others £15 each. These last-named amounts represented the annual depreciation that would be likely to arise from these works. He considered the amounts fair and reasonable compensation. The property referred to had certainly very much depreciated of late years. Twenty-two years ago he valued the ten first houses for the late Mr. Tomkinson for a mortgage. He put the value at £13,299, upon which a mortgage was obtained for £10,000. Since then, while nearly all the neighbouring property had immensely improved in value, the Sussex-gardens houses had been practically stationary, if in fact they they had not deteriorated in value. That morning he noticed six of them were empty. The garden in front in its present condition was of no practical value ; it was, in fact, an eyesore. He valued No. 1 as at £1,320. By giving the owner £150 as compensation he could let the house under the new conditions equally well at £7 10s. less than he was now receiving.
Mr. G. S. Jinman, auctioneer and valuer, carrying on business in Eastbourne during the last 20 years, agreed with Mr. Card’s estimate of the depeciation. Sussex-gardens were situ-