March 25, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
484
had taken the value at £50 per acre for arable, and £80 per acre for pasture. He ־was aware that a field adjoining ׳the piece of land completely severed at the Meonstoke end was sold last year, and he believed realised £30 an acre. He had been told the rates were respectively 30s. and 8s. per acre.
Mr. Francis Arnold, F.S.I. (Messrs. Pink and Arnold, land surveyors and valuers, Winchester), with 40 or 50 years’ experience, said he was well acquainted with the value of land in this locality and in the south of England generally. He had had to do with the negotiations in respect to nearly half the land affected by this railway. He had negotiated with the company's surveyor, Mr. J. A. Wallington, as to the settlement of three or four large properties in this immediate neighbourhood, and to some extent he brought his experience in these instances to bear in making a joint valuation with Mr. Harris. He agreed with Mr. Harris’s figures. He considered a great deal of Colonel Woods’ land was in a good state of cultivation, and the farm buildings, for the most part, in sood repair.
Mr. Daniel Watney, P.P.S.I. (Messrs. Watney and Sons, 33, Poultry, London, E.C.), said he had taken the value of land throughout at £50 per acre ; he put the general severance at £4,500. The estate was 4.500 acres, and he put its: value at £90,000, and 5 per cent, on that was £4,500. He estimated the special severances at £4,020—two-thirds of the value of those fields were gone. His valuation was made independently of anyone else. From his experience with regard to many other large estates he was of opinion that his total valuation, which amounted to £11,282, was perfectly justified and fair.
FOE THE BAIL WAY COMPANY.
Mr. J. A. Wallington, F.S.I., of Basingstoke, a valuer under the Railway Department of the Board of Trade, and also of the Board of Agriculture, surveyor and estate agent, ■of 26 years’ experience, extending over estates in the south and west of England, and farming some 5,000 acres, deposed that he had thoroughly examined Colonel Woods’ estate. He had made a field to field valuation, and his figure was £1,091 13s. 2d. An adjoining field at the Meonstoke end had been bought by the railway company ; it was about 22 acres, and was purchased alt the rate of £30 an acre, aard £32 was paid for tenant’s rights. A piece of land was also purchased at the other end, near the station. To the £1,092 he added 20 per cent., or £218 : the damage by severance he put at £1,640 : £25 for timber, and £55 for the grubbing-up of hedges. For loss and inconvenience during the two year® ־Which it would take from now to complete the line he put at £250 ; and for the general inconvenience by the severance of the «state he put at £750, or. altogether, a total of £4,030. Hay carts loaded could not pass through the cattle creeps, but the hay could remain, as now, on! the other side. There was no residential damage to the estate—the £1,000 he had allowed would be practically for the sporting. He had no doubt that the directors would be willing to exchange the pieces of land at the Meonstoke end.
Cross-examined: He wTa>s a little over Mr. Harris in his individual figures for severances. The worst severance of a field was near Garden-hill-lane, Meonstoke, and the worst severance of a farm was that near Westmeon station (Woodman’s Farm). He allowed £660 for the damage to this farm generally. The amount for inconvenience in working varied very much “ up and down.” He had taken the value of the land plot by plot. Asked as to these figures, Mr. Wallington said his lowest price was 18s. per acre for arable, which, calculated at 33 years’ purchase, tithe free, was a purchasing price of £30 per acre ; his highest price was 27s. 6d. per acre for pasture, hut this was only in one instance, on Woodman Farm, close to the village ; his next best price was 25s.—he allowed 20s. and 25s. per acre for the fields where the cattle creeps were—■these particular fields had heavy tithes on them, commuted, he believed, at 7s. 3d. per acre. He had been told bv the engineers that it might be reasonably calculated that the line would take two years to finish from now.
Questioned as to his settlements on behalf of the company with the neighbouring landowners, Mr. AVallington ■said that, in the case of West-bury Park they took 15 acres. and settled with Mr. Le Roy-Lewis for £4,500 : in this instance the sporting damage was very considerable, the line going right■ through the best coverts On the Rotherfield Estate they took between 31 and 32 acres, and settled with ■the owner for £7,500 : in■ this instance there was very strong residential damage, the railway cutting across the view of the park for a long distance, and there were most unsightly accommodation works׳. On the Rooksburv Estate they went through the middle of the village; thev cut the village “all to smithereens”—he did not suppose a more destructive hit of work was ever ■done. Thev allowed in this instance £5.000 for residential damage, and £5.000 for the land-
Mr. E- P. Squarev, P.P.S.I. (,Messrs. Raw-lence and Sqoarev. of Salisbury and Westminster),^ said he had had great experience in land valuing ; he was concerned in the management
15, Coleman-street, E.O.); Mr. John Marks (Orgill, Marks and Orgill, 21, Hart-street, W.C.); and Mr. Edgar Harper, assistant valuer to the London County Council.
A HAMPSHIRE RAILWAY.
The Under-Sheriff for Hants (Air. J. H. T. Wharton) and a special jury were engaged for two days during last week, at Winchester, in determining the value of certain lands on the Warnford Estate, belonging to Colonel William Woods, which have been taken compulsorily by the London and South-Western Railway Company, under the powers of their Act, and in assessing the amount of the damage or injury which the owner has. further sustained by reason of the severance of his land, and the ■execution of the work.
Mr. Corrie Grant (instructed by Messrs. Cun-liffe and Davenport, of London) was for Colonel Woods and Mr. G. M. Freeman, Q.C., and Air. Canceller (instructed by Messrs. Bircham and Co.) were for the London and South-Western Railway Company.
Air. Corrie Grant said the Aleon Railway Act of 1897 authorised ■the London■ and South-AVestern Railway Company to make three lines, but they were only concerned on that occasion with railway No. 2, which oame from the junction at Titchfield, on the Bishopstoke and Portsmouth Line, to Alton, joining ■the Fareham, Alton, ■and Winchester Line. The new line in passing over Colonel Woods estate passed through four parishes, beginning at Westmeon, coming next to Warnford, then to Exton, and finally out at Aleonstoke. The railway would cut the estate practically in half, the house being some little distance ■to the left of the line. The claim of Colonel Woods was made up practically under four heads. There was first the land actually taken for the construction of the line, as to the ■area of which there was really no difference between them, it being 32a. 2r. 14p. ; there was also a small piece at Meonstoke end, about an acre, which was cut off without access —the only way in which it could be reached was by a balloon,—and he thought it would have to be treated as destroyed land. There was hardly a field on the whole estate, through which the railway cut, a distance of over three miles, that would not be damaged by severance ; this would interfere with the course of cultivation, and seriously depreciate the value of the land to its owner. This was damage ordinarily known in these cases as special severance, and constituted the second head of their claim. The third head was the damage which the estate suffered as a whole from the existence of the railway. He did not know whether it w׳as so true to-day as it was 35 years ago that the owners or purchasers of estates were extremely ■anxious to have all their land in one compact holding, hut he thought they would agree that the owner of a large estate of 4,500 acres would find the whole estate seriously depreciated in value by the fact that it was divided throughout by a railway. The fourth head of the claim was a small one— an allowance for the timber on the estate which was taken, and ,something for the cultivation on the land. The company had been buying a good deal of land throughout the district, and had settled with many owners׳.
Air. James Harris1, F.S.I., of AVinchester, deposed that the measurements of the land were 32a. 2r. 14p. ; he had made a field to field survey and valued it for purchase ■at £2,130, and should add £430, or 20 per cent׳., for compulsory purchase. The severance® were very serious, and would, he thought, necessitate new buildings, and these he should estimate, inclusively, at the sum of £4,025. Near the farm buildings it severed the land generally, ■and cut off entirely several ■acres—this was near the, proposed station at AArestmeon. He described other severances along the line in the direction of Exton׳ and Meonstoke, ■new buildings being in some cases necessary, and what were formerly good sized meadows would be seriously curtailed and depreciated. Cattle creeps were provided, but would not be practical for the passage of loads of hav. The last bit׳ of land at Meonstoke end owned by Colonel AVood's was entirely cut off. The estate would suffer peculiar and special damage during the time the railway was being made either as a letting or selling property ; he had estimated this at £500 a year for three years, £1,500. When the railway was finished and in working order ,there would be a permanent depreciation ■of the estate, which he took at the sum of £3,000. His total valuation, therefore, oame to £11,085.
It was here agreed between counsel that the amount to he paid for crops, ■etc., should be determined by the valuers subsequently, and the timber was valued at £25.
In cross-examination Air. Harris said he was aware that when the company promoted the Bill in 1897 Colonel AAroods opposed it; there was a line proposed in 1895. and this was to have gone through Colonel Woods’ estate in the same way —in that case he knew Colonel Woods was concerned in the promotion. He also knew that special provisions were made in the company’s Bill for Colonel AAroods’ protection and accommodation. Mr. Hams said that in his estimate of £2,130 as the market, value of the land he
by £835. Deducting the apportioned ground rent, £270, left a net rental loss of £565, which he capitalised on the 5 per cent, table, 19j years’ purchase, giving £11,017 ; he added 10 per cent., £1,101, producing £12,118. He had received offers to rent the shops.
Sir Edward Clarke said he agreed to £656 lor the loss by stoppage for eight weeks.
Witness said that the stoppage of works was really longer than the eight weeks mentioned. Entirely new plans had to be prepared as well as those of the elevations, and his extra fees and payments to other people amounted to £505.
Mr. Alderman Samuel Green, F.S.I. (Alessrs. Green and Son, 28 and 29, St, Swithin’s-lane, City), estimated the value as follows : —
Original Scheme:—Four shops let to Lockhart's =14s. a foot, including basement, £750: two shops in Walwortb-roai and Newington Butts, 22oft.eaeh,at 14s. a foot=£157 10s. each, £315;
Three shops, south end, 290ft., at 14s.=£200 each, £600. Offices2,190ft. estimated at 2s. 9d. per foot, £300 ; eight suites of flats at £15 each,
£360: together	..	..	.,	.	£2,326
Amended Scheme : -Four shops let to Lockhart’s £750: two shops, south end, 471ft. at 14s., including basement, £330. Offices : - 688ft. of two suites=1.376 square feet at 2s. 9d. per foot. £189 ; flve suites of flats at £40 each, £200 ;	total	..	1,469
Loss of rental value ..	..	..	856
Ground rent reduced by..	..	..	..	270
Net loss per annum	..	586
This for a term of 80 years on the 5 per cent, table gives a multiplier of years’ purchase ..	..	1960־
£11,485 . . ״
Deduct saving m cost of building in accordance with architect’s figures	..	..	,.	2.290
Add 10 per cent, for compulsory sale
9,195 919
£10,114	״	״ ,
Add further losses as proved by the architect and solicitor.
Mr. Edward Stimson, auctioneer and surveyor (Alessrs. Stimson and Sons, 8, Aloorgate-street, E.C., and 2, New Kent-road, S.E.), said the first plan allowed for four shops of an area^ of 268ft. each, agreed to be let to Lockhart’s at £750 per annum; two shops, each 225ft. super, at 14,s. per ■foot, £315 ; two corner shops, 295ft., at 15s., £435; intermediate shop in Short-street, containing 290ft, super, 14s. per foot, £203, say £200 ; three suites of offices on first floor, at £100 a y ear each, £300 ; and eight suites of residential chambers on upper floors, £45 each, £360; total rental, £2,360. By the amended plan there were four shops, £750 ; two corner shops, 267ft. and 204ft, respectively, at 15s. per foot, £353, say £350 ; two suites of offices on first floor, £100 each, £200 ; and five suites of chambers, £45 each, £225 ; total £1,525. The difference was £835. His figures then were : —
Rental loss ..	..	..	..	.. £g3o
Deduct ground rent ..	.	..	270
565
At o per cent., years purchase ..	..	..	19j
Deduct the saying in the cost of erection by curtailment of original plan	..	..	.. 2,290
8,727 872
Add 10 per cent. ..
Total	..	.. £9,599
Air. Stimson said there were other items to be added which it was not in his province to prove. The property was an exceptional one.
Mr. E. H. Bousfield (Alessrs. Edwin Fox and Bousfield, surveyors and auctioneers, 99, Gresham-street, E.O.) gave the following valuation ; —
310ft. north at 25s. per foot for land and buildings, £387: 740ft. south worth about 30 per cent, less, 16s. per foot. £592 ; per annum	..	£979
Estimated cost on building on above sites, £4,600, interest thereon at 5 per cent., £225; apportioned ground rent, £270 ; together ..	..	495
484
20
9,680
968
.. £10,648
Al 5 per cent., years’ pn-chase
Add 10 per cent...
Total
FOE THE COUNTY COUNCIL.
Sir Edward Clarke said he should not call any witnesses, and contended that, although the case was exceptional inasmuch as the pro perty was valuable, it was not exceptional for the present purpose, because the claimant had to pay an exceptional price. He calculated that the net rental loss would be £625, from which £270 ground rent should be deducted, giving £355. That amount ought to be multiplied on the 6 per cent, table, owing to the mixed character of the property, or 16¿- years’ purchase, producing £5,857. From that he deducted £2,290 saved in rebuilding, giving £3,567, and added 10 per cent, for forced sale £356, making £3,923. He had admitted £656 for the delay, and allowed £270 for ground rent which would have to be paid by the claimant for one year, but considered the architect’s fees ought to be £250, and the law charges £100. The total thus arrived at was £5,209.
The jury awarded £7,207, exclusive of architect’s charges, £500, and law costs, £105 ; total £7,912.
The experts retained for the London County Council included Air. James F. Field, F.S.I. (Field and Sons, 45, Borough High-street, and Chancery-lane); Air. Ernest A. Runtz, F.S.I., 10, Walbrook; Air. W. B. Thornton, J.P., D.L. (Thornton and Newman, hotel valuers,
CompmsattDtt ®am.
THE ELEPHANT AND CASTLE ISLAND, NEWINGTON.
On Friday, Alarch 17, at Newington Sessions, before Air.” Loveland-Loveland, Q.C., and a iurv, the case of “ Algernon Meekins (Truman, Hanbury and Co.) r. the London County Council,” was determined.
This was a claim in respect of 1,046ft. of land acquired under Alichael Angelo Taylor’s Act, and situate on the Elephant and Castle island, Newington-butts, and of expense and loss in consequence of the rebuilding on the site being
stayed.	_	. r
Mr. Asquith, Q.C., and Mr. Germaine (instructed by Alessrs. Barfield and Barfield, /2, Finsbury-pavement) appeared for the claimant, Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Air. Edward Morten and Air. Percival Clarke (instructed by Air. W. A. Blaxland) represented the Council.
Air. Asquith, Q-C., said the notice to treat dated February 17, 1897, was for two strips •■f land taken from the Elephant and Castle estate in the district of St. Mary, Newington. The Elephant and Castle was an old historic name in the south of London, and the public-house had been a landmark probably every since the memory of man. In southern estates, the site was almost unique, being a kind of island surrounded by four different streets, and on every side there was a frontage. In addition it stood at. the confluence of five different streams of traffic on roads which formed arteries and communications to the central spots of London ; at most hours of the day and night there was an uninterrupted stream of traffic around it. The situation for buildings and shops was of exceptional value. The site had always been used for a public-house and shops until 1896, when the lease fell in. The freehold of the estate it was charity property—was vested in the trustees of St. Alary, Newington, who held it for the benefit of the parish. On February 7, 1897, the claimant’s tender was accepted for a new lease, and he agreed to pay a premium of £30,000, and erect new buildings at a cost of at least £25,000. The trustees were to grant a lease for 80 years at a ground rent of £2,750 per annum. The claimant paid a deposit of £8,750, made up of £2,500 rent and £6,250 premium, and at once set to work to have plans prepared for the erection of a new public-house to take the place of the old Elephant and Castle tavern, and shops. Considerable time and money was spent in obtaining the approval of the authorities, and the old buildings were demolished. The whole portion of the estate opened at ■one end on to a comparatively narrow street called ShorUstreet, the opposite end facing Newington-butts, whilst the two sides fronted Walworth-road and the continuation of Newington-butts. In November, 1897, plans were passed and a builder’s tender accepted at £36,000 ■for a new hotel, shops, suites of residential flats and offices, the buildings to be completed by December 24, 1898, or a penalty of £10 per day was to be imposed. On February 17, or less than a month after rebuilding commenced, the Vestry came to the conclusion that they would require a strip 10ft. in width on the Newington-butts side, ■where the frontage of the old public-house was, and another strip 18ft. wide where Short-street ran. The result was that the property would be diminished in length h.y 28ft. and a superficial area of 1,046 square feet. This necessitated modifications of the agreement with the freeholders and of the plans, and the ground rent was reduced by £270 a year. The operations of the builder were stopped for eight weeks, and the claimant sustained various losses. Under the old scheme there were to he nine shops, three offices and eight suites of flats. By the new scheme, the hotel covered exactly the same superficial area, but was set back 10ft., and the loss of area was at the expense of the shops. There was a difference in the rentals of about £850, from which should be deducted proportion of ground rent, £270, leaving the annual profit rental lost of £580, which should be capitalised■ on the 5 per cent, table, 30 years’ purchase, giving £11,500, or with 10 per cent., £12,650. There had been a saving in the cost of building of £2,290, which should be set off, but there was a loss ■of ground rent of £53 per week, interest on premium £24 per week, and interest on expended capital £5, total £82 5s., which for eight weeks made £628. The extra legal costs were £200. The contract of £36,000 was reduced by £2,290. and the builder was relieved from the obligation of penalties. There was little doubt that the hotel would not be opened until June, so that Air. Aleekins was losing the profits from the public-house and the rental from the shops, and could not recoup himself by enforcing the penal clauses.
Air. John Farrer, architect and surveyor, of 20, Finsbury-pavement•, E.C., said he was appointed architect for the new buildings and prepared the plans. The first plan was to build nine shops, ■four of which were to be let to Lockhart’s at £750 a year, and five at £100 a year each : three offices at £100 each ; and eight flats at £45 each, total £2,460. The second plan would produce £1,625, reducing the rental