1397
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
March 11, 1899.
Mr. Roderick Everest (Messrs. Walton Lee, 10, Mount-street, Grosvenor-square,^ submitted the following valuation : —
Area taken by company, 2a. 2r. 8p.
At £372 per acre =.....................
10 per cent, for compulsory sale Compensation for the severance by the railway of an area of 3a. 3r. 17p.
Compensation in respect of the loss of access to the lane on the south sitfe of the property cut eff by the i ail way, and the consequent depredation in the building value of 46 acres of Mr. Barham’s adjoining land ..	920 0 0
£948
94
358 0 0
£2,320
COMPANY.
FOR THE RAILWAY
Mr. Howard Martin, F.S.I. (Messrs. Thur-good and Martin, 27, Chancery-lane, W.C.), gave the following figures : —
For land taken—2a. 2r. 8p. at £150 an
^ acre.........................£382 10s.
Compensation for forced sale at 10 per cent... ..	..	..	..38 10s.
£421
Consequential damage.—3a. 3r. 8p. of land severed from the remainder of the estate, damaged a quaiter of its value, £37 10s. per acre .	.. 142 10?.
Grublingthe fence between the two enclosures of severed land, say two chains at 15s. per chain = ..	.. l 10s.
12 acres north-east of the company’s works, damaged 10 per cent, of its value by being cut of from access to the grass lar.e, at £15 an acre,	.. £180 Os.
324 £745
Mr. R. T. Wreathall, F.S.I., Vestry Hall, St. Martin’s-place, Trafalgar-square, had prepared his valuation as follows: —-
Land taken-2a. 2r. 8p., at £150 per acre..	..	£382
Add 10 per cent. ..	..	..	..	..	33
_	420
Damage to land severed at the south-west corner of the estate, 25 per cent, of its value (£150 an acre)=£37 10s. per aers for 3a, 3r. 8p. ..	..	142
Damage to land along the north side of the railway, say 5 acres damaged, 16 per cent, of its value, or £25 per acre ..
Total..
Mr. Alex. R. Stenning, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., 121, Cannon-street, E.C., also gave evidence. The jury awarded the claimant £1,600.
125
£687
THE SURVEYORS' INSTITUTION.
he fixed £350 as the value of the shop. Erom the licensed house he deducted the ground rent £581, leaving £3,769, and added 10 per cent, for compulsory purchase, making a total of £4,146, which he considered the fair market value of the premises.
Mr. Thomas Fenwick, F.S.I., Leeds, said a brewer had no right to take advantage of the present inflated value of public-houses, and to claim compensation for loss ׳of trade as well. He considered £200 a year a fair rental for the house. At 21 years’ purchase he placed the value of the ׳house at £3,762 10s., and at 18 years’ purchase the shop was worth £274. Ten per cent, for compensation had to be added, making a total of £4,140.
Mr. W. M. Eadon (Messrs. W. H. and J. A. Eadon, valuers, Sheffield) said the fair amount due to the claimants would be £4,290.
Mr. Charles Appleton, valuer, Leeds, suggested £3,990.
A figure was handed privately to the Arbitrator as to what the Corporation would be willing to pay.
This concluded the inquiry, and it was then agreed that if costs were awarded the amount should be certified by the Arbitrator and paid accordingly. No objection to be taken in reference to the certificate by either side, and to be settled in three months.
THE NEW BUILDING.
The members of the Surveyors’ Institution and the profession generally will learn with satisfaction that the handsome structure in Great George-street, Westminster, which is to be the new headquarters of the Institution, is now rapidly nearing completion, and is likely to be ready for occupation early in May.
We are this week enabled to give an illustration of the new building, which stands on the site of the old premises. The architect, Mr. A. Waterhouse, R.A., who has had to provide in the building not only accommodation for the Institution proper, but also rooms for the Tribunal of Appeal, and a museum for the forestry collection, of which the Institution is gradually making a special feature, has adopted a style of architecture known as the free classic. In order to carry out his ideas, and to produce the pleasing effect which the imposing structure undoubtedly gives, he has made use of Ancaster stone and Ruabon brick. The former is generally regarded as a particularly wise selection, as it is well calculated to resist the destructive influences of the London atmosphere.
The ground floor, which has a large hall and a marble staircase, contains on the left of the entrance a reading and tea room, and on the right the secretary’s office. The other rooms of the secretarial department occupy a position further back, and the remainder of the floor is taken up by a consultation room, an arbitration room, and other apartments for the Tribunal of Appeal.
On the first floor the most important features are the great meeting room, which will provide seating accommodation for nearly 200 persons׳, with corridors in Little George-street, a large room for the council and for arbitrations, and the library, which is in every sense a very fine apartment. It occupies the whole of the frontage to Great George-street, thereby securing a good light, and is capable of housing a collection of books numbering 20,000.
The forestry museum, already referred to, occupies the second floor, passing through the third or top floor on a level of which a gallery runs round the apartment, and it has a fine open timbered roof. The third floor contains caretaker’s and store rooms.
All the sanitary and other fittings are of the best materials, and the specimens of stone and wood carving, or cast and wrought iron work and mosaic flooring which are to be seen reflect great credit upon the style of the workmanship.
PHOTOGRAPHER’S PREMISES IN UPPER BAKER-STREET.
At the London Sheriff’s Court, on Wednesday, Mr. Under-Sheriff Burchell and a special jury heard the case of “ Ellis v. the Waterloo and Baker-street Railway,” which was. a claim for about £14,000 in respect of the acquirement of the leasehold premises, No. 20, Upper Baker-street, occupied by the well-known firm of photographers. The property is held for a term expiring in June, 1908, at a rent of £130 a year.
Mr. G. M. Freeman, Q.C., and Mr. Foote were counsel for the claimant, and Mr. C. A. Cripps and Mr. Acland for the railway company.
The hearing having been commenced, the parties agreed to accept a verdict for £6,b00.
Among the experts retained were Mr. J. G. Head, F.S.I. (Messrs. George Head and Co., Upper Baker-street), Mr. C. W. Millar, F.S.I. (Messrs. Millar, Son and Co., 14, Grafton-street, Bond-street, W.), and Mr. Giddy, F.S.I. (Messrs. Giddy and Giddy, 4, Waterloo-platee, S.W.), for the claimant; Mr. Alex. R. Sten-ning, F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I., 121, Cannon-street, E.C. ; Mr. Daniel Watney, P.P.S.I. (Messrs. Watney and Sons, 33, Poultry, E.C'.), and Mr. Leslie Vigers, F.S.I. (Messrs. Vigers and Co., 4, Frederick’s-place, Old Jewry, E.C.), for the railway company.
Auctioneers and Estate Agents desiring to secure Partners, Purchase a Business, or engage Professional Assistance, should consult the “Wanted” Advertisements in the centre of the Paper.
BUILDING LAND NEAR HARROW.
At the King’s Head Hotel, Harrow, on the 1st inst., before the Under-Sheriff of Middlesex and a special jury, an enquiry was held for the purpose of deciding the value of 2¿ acres of freehold building land, belonging to Mr. Geo. Barham, and forming part of the Sudbury Park Dairy Farm Estate, which had been acquired for the purposes of the Ealing and South Harrow Railway Company.
Mr. A. T. Lawrence, Q.O., and Mr. Ernest Pollock were counsel for the claimant; Mr. Edward Boyle, Q.C., and Mr. Archibald Willis for the railway company.
Mr. George H. Ward, surveyor and land agent, of the Sudbury and Wembley Estate offices, Station-approach, Wembley, said he had been established at Wembley for a considerable time and had had many transactions in land and building estates in the neighbourhood. At the present time he was developing two estates within half a mile of the land in question, and he found' that the demand for houses exceeded the supply. The Sudbury Farm Estate was situate within half a mile of the L. and N. W railway station, and had a frontage of about 1,800ft. to the main Harrow road. The land was ripe for development. The line of railway cut obliquely across the south-west comer of the estate, and seriously interfered with the plotting. Witness preferred to base his valuation upon the acreage value rather than upon the frontage. He valued the land at £450 per acre, or £1,147 10s., and had added the usual 10 per cent, for compulsory sale, making £1,262. The railway company, in his opinion, should be compelled to take the lower portion of the estate, and this would be quite severed by their line. Assuming, however, that it was retained, he considered the depreciation by severance to be at least £150 an acre; 3a'. 3r. 17p. , at £150 per acre, £580. In regard to the remainder of the property, there was no doubt that the value of the whole would be affected, but the portion most seriously damaged was an area of about 10 acres, by reason of a certain increase of the cost of road construction compared with the building frontage obtained, in addition to which the close proximity would prejudice its value for building purposes. In his opinion the property would be depreciated to_ the extent of at least £50 per acre—£500. His total valuation, therefore, was £2,342.
The Arbitrator : I shall take it as compulsory on the acquisition of the leasehold.
Mr. J. J. Greaves (Messrs׳. Nicholson, Greaves, Barber and Hastings, auctioneers and valuers, Sheffield) said he had dealt in almost all the public-houses bought and sold in the city during the last 20 years or more. The discount allowed to a free tenant was׳ counted as rent in the case of a tied tenant. Thirty per cent, was supposed to be the brewers’ profit on tied houses at the present time, and that was in addition to the 25 per cent, discount which they returned. The number of licenses in Sheffield was slightly diminishing, ■and the value of public-house property in recent times had gone up by leaps and bounds. The cash rent paid for the Bay Horse was £20, and the amount charged by the brewery company for beer in excess of what they would charge a free tenant was £250, making the total rent £270. For the purpose of his valuation, he had deducted the whole of the ground rent from the public-house, and after that, and £9 14s. 8d. for repairs, this made the net rental £235. The lease of the property ex pired in 1948, and placing that on the 3¿ per cent, table, at 23¿ years’ purchase, it gave £5,522 10s. Taking the net rent of the shop at £18 a year, on 20 years’ purchase, it gave the value of the shop at £360 ; making a total of £5,882 10s. Ten per cent had to be added to that to compensate for compulsory purchase, 30 per cent, on £1,040 for beer sold to compensate for the loss of trade by the brewery company, and multiplying this by five years’ purchase gave £1,560, or a total of £8,030 15s•. as the value of the property. Excluding the 10 per cent, valuation for compulsory purchase, he had not the slightest doubt that the house would fetch a higher figure by auction than he had valued it at. Any improvement in the neighbourhood would improve the trade of the house.
Cross-examined : He considered it fair to estimate the value of the house on the last year’s trade, when it was increasing. He did not agree that the class of people living in the neighbourhood made the holding of the license a risk. He thought impending legislation would increase the value of the licensed houses which were left. He had capitalised the brewer’s profits upon the same principle as he would a nominal rent, because it was as׳ safe. In his opinion this was not a district where the number of licenses was in excess of the requirements of the locality.
Mr. Greaves, in reply to further question®, said they would not put that item in the claim if they could be guaranteed another house, but they could not find one.
Mr. Charles Gott, C.E., F.S.I., Bradford, valued the property at £8,007. It had an increasing value.
Mr. Wm. H. Wellsted, C.E., F.S.I., Hull, gave the value at £8,078.
Mr. Daniel Mullins, manager for the Sheffield District of the Tadcaster Brewery Company, fixed the rent of the house if it were free at £320. The house he valued at £7,500 without the shop.
Mr. John Bartholomew, secretary to Thomas Berry and Co., Sheffield, brew׳ers׳, said the estimated value of the house and shop adjoining was £7,500, and he would add £800 for compensation for compulsory purchase.
Mr. Joseph Hartle, auctioneer and hotel valuer, Sheffield, said his total valuation of the property was £7,933 18s.
FOB THE COBPOBATION.
Mr. Coward said the committee of the Corporation felt most strongly that th׳e claim was inflated, and ought to be subjected to the most rigorous investigation. Mr. Dodd had invited the Arbitrator, in the words׳ of the statute, to find what was the fair market value of the property, but he had not suggested the time when the value should be fixed. To arrive at a fair market value they must not take a year which had only just ended.
The Arbitrator remarked that he took it that the fair market value was to he ascertained that day. It would be quite possible to take into consideration the large number of houses which were contiguous, and which had been pulled down, and any circumstances which existed now, to show that the value was less or more than five years ago. It was, therefore, open to him to have it shown that some customers would not be available now.
Mr. Coward said when the company knew that the Corporation was about to hold an '
quiry as to the value of the property, they put in a new tenant, and the year he had been in possession was to be taken as the sole basis upon which to arrive at the fair market value. The two claims were inconsistent. To take five years of the brewers’ sales to the house would be a real guide to fix the amount of compensation. The value attached to the lease was equally inflated, and the house was not worth more rental than £200.
Mr. Frederick Fowler, F.S.I., Sheffield, said it was fair to take the average of the past three years to value a house. His estimate was based on a trade of £800 a year, and if the property were freehold, five years’ purchase on that sum would be a fair price. On the same assumption
poration. In the second case, Mr. John Parker, building material merchant, Silver-street Head, claimed £6,000 for his warehouse premises, which the Corporation wish to acquire. The Corporation some years ago made an offer which was not accepted, but four days ago the claimant agreed to accept. £4,000, and pay his own costs. This was accepted as an agreement, and the matter being settled without dispute, the Arbitrator will make his award accordingly.
Beyond these there were half-a-dozen littl claims made by the tenants of properties, which have been acquired by the Corporation׳. The claimants seek to recover the costs of the removal of their goods, fixtures and furniture. In all the cases the Corporation were represented by Mr. Lewis Coward (instructed by the Towr Clerk, Mr. Henry Sayer). Mr. Cyril Dodd. Q.C., and Mr. Montague Barlow (instructed by Messrs. Rodgers, Thomas ■and Sandford), appeared for Rawson and Co. ; and Mr. C. A. Russell, Q.C., and Mr. T. E. Ellison (instructed by Vickers, Son and Brown) appeared for Mr. John Parker.
Mr. Dodd, in stating the ease for Messrs. Rawson and Co., said he relied upon the 21st section of the Act of 1890, which provided that when the compensation was payable in respect of any lands, or interests in lands, proposed to be taken, the assessment of the value of such lands or interest should be based upon •the fair market value, as estimated at the time of the valuation being made. In this case the time was material, because the trade of the house now was one-third more than it was at the time the brewery company sent in their claim two years ago. The public-house and the shop were not within the unhealthy area. The fact was, Sheffield during the past 10 or 15 years had been greatly improving the streets!, and in order to have access to the unhealthy area, it was necessary to take Messrs. Rawson and Co.’s property. In order that the said area might be improved and made sanitarily efficient, it was necessary for the Corporation to acquire the brewery company’s premises for the purpose of widening the approaches thereto, and this made the company still more secure in their claim for compensation, to be calculated on the highest, namely, the market value. The brewery companies in Shef field, as in other towns, had no doubt been doing well in recent times. They had paid large prices for their public-houses, and had realised large prices at■ any time they parted with them. .Sheffield was doing exceedingly well, and growing very rapidly both in population and in | wealth. The result of that growth was! that the present so-called unhealthy area, when it was built 50 years ago, was then thought good enough for people who could not pay much for accommodation.. It was now regarded with horror, particularly as the property was getting old and dilapidated. The area was, however, in the very centre and heart of Sheffield, close to the important streets, and the new streets being opened out. The Bay Horse was a good property, with considerable conveniences׳. It was fully licensed, and had clubs attached to it with a membership of 1,020, which, of course, meant the consumption •of a good deal of liquor. It was a respectable house, and it was in a neighbourhood that was growing for the kind of trade the house did. The value of a public-ho-use was arrived at by finding out what trade it did, without regard to the size of the house. During 1898 the trade done at the Bay Horse was £1,000 for beer ; in 1897 it was £771 ; in 1896 £694. In 1898 the bottled beer trade amounted to £40, and in 1897 it was £37. The tenant bought his spirits, aerated waters and tobaccos where he pleased. The public-house and the adjoining shop were leasehold, with 50 years of the lease to run, and the ground rent was £25 5s. 4d., the Corporation being the ground landlords. The brewery company, to whom it was let, only charged their tenant a ׳nominal rent of £20 10s., but if he were not the tenant of the company he would have a discount of 25 per cent, allowed on the beer he bought. This, on a £1,000 trade, would be £250, so that really made the rent of the house £270. Certain deductions for repairs and for the share of the ground rent had to be made, and the result was a net annual value of £236 10s. The value of the property depended upon the number of years’ purchase, and the witnesses he should call would suggest that 23¿ years’ purchase was probably •the right figure. That gave the figure of £5,557. Then they had to consider what compensation should be paid to the brewery company, not only for loss of rent, but loss of profits, which would have been earned on the trade done by the house. The rent of the shop, the learned counsel proceeded, was only £28 12s., from which had to be deducted allowances for repairs, rates, and share of ground rent., leaving the net annual value at £14 2s. That, on a 4 per cent, table, gave a value of £303 3s., and 10 per cent, for compulsory purchase, which must be added, gave a total of £333 8s. The 10 per cent, for compulsory purchase! turned on the question whether the property was outside the insanitary area or not.
Mr. Coward admitted that it was outside. Did the company claim 10 per cent, on their trade profit’of £1,564?