April 1, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE,
526
tenancy, and 9s. 6d. was the rent charged when the houses were built. Rents had very much increased since then, and he thought the houses were worth very much more than 9s. 6d. per week. He put the rental value of No. 10, which had a workshop in the rear, and the advantage of a frontage and back entrance to Reginald-road, at £45 a year; and the next house at £32 a year, which gave £77 for the two. He deducted £5 for repairs, and capitalised the balance of £72 at 50 years’ purchase ; his total valuation, including 10 per cent, for forced sale, was £1,584. In his opinion, 7^ per cent, was a fair deduction for repairs.
Mr. Joseph Barker Wall, surveyor, said he had carried on business in B exhill for 14 years. The value of property there had increased enormously, particularly during the last five years Witness had taken the rental value of each house properly repaired, at £36 a year. That, for a yearly tenant, gave £72 per annum, from which he deducted 10 per cent, for repairs, £7, giving a net rental of £65 a year, which he had taken at 20 years’ purchase, freehold, making £1,300. Witness estimated the rental value of the workshop at £15 a year, and at eight years' purchase, that gave £120, making £1,420, to which he added 10 per cent, for compulsory purchase, £142, making £1,562. He thought a further sum of £170 should be added in regard to the land in the rear, which was available for the erection of stabling. His total valuation, therefore, was £1,732.
Mr. James L. Thomas, auctioneer, said he had lived in Bexhill all his life,. He was a rate collector, and was therefore in a position to say that in 1888 the rateable value was £31,067; in 1893, £38,023; and in 1898, £78,709. It was now about £85,000. There were now ,about 150 houses in course of construction. In 1893, the number of inhabited houses was 1,164 ; last year it was 2,047.
Mr. M. Dodgson Graves, architect and surveyor, said he had lived in Bexhill since 1893. He estimated the rental value of the houses in question at 13s. a week each, making £67 12s. per annum, and the workshop at 5s. per week, making £13 per annum; he had deducted £7 12s. for rates, leaving a net rental of £73, which he capitalised at £1,460. He had added the usual 10 per cent., which brought his valuation to £1,606. The tenant having to move away, he had made no allowance for expenditure or loss incurred. He had not put down any value for the back entrance.
FOE THE E AIL WAY COMPANY.
Mr. Boyle, in opening the case for the railway company, remarked that the actual rents were 9s. and 9s. 6d., and it was absurd to suppose that a house that was let at 9s. 6d. when the company took possession was now worth £45 a year. £600 or £700 was the outside value of the property.
Mr. G. Humphreys-Davies, F.S.I., 8, Lawrence Pountney-hill, London, E.C., surveyor to the South Eastern Railway Company, the Board of Trade, etc., described the premises as a poor class of weekly property. He thought the present rentals were the full letting value. Since the houses were built 10 years ago, Bexhill, as had been pointed out, had vastly improved, and that had made it more difficult to find tenants for old houses. The houses were of common construction. He had taken the rent of No. 10 at 11s. a week, and No. 11 at 9s. a week, giving a total of £52 per annum ; deduct one-third for repairs, rates, insurance, etc., £34 13s. 4d. net; and having regard to the character of the property, he had put• it on the 6 per cent, table, 16J yeais’ purchase, £581 ; add 10 per cent., £639. Some deduction ought to be made for repairs required, which he put at £20, leaving £619.
Mr. E. H. Bousfield (Messrs. Edwin Fox and Bousfield, 99, Gresham-street, London, E.C.) said he had been a partner in his present firm for 40 years. He had had a large experience in buying and selling property all ovei the kingdom, but had never sold or let in Bexhill. Witness was of opinion that the outside value of the property in question was £300 for each house. They would not get more for it by auction under any circumstances. The addition of the usual 10 per cent, would make his valuation £660 for the two houses.
Mr. O. Paley Mason, Queen Victoria-street, London, E.C., valued the property as follows: —No. 10, at 10s. a week, or £26 a year; deduct• one-third for rates, taxes and insurance, £8 13s., £17 7s. ; 16f years’ purchase, £290 12s. ; add 10 per cent., £29 8s., £320. No. 11, at 9s. a week, £23 8s. ; deduct one-third, £7 16s., £15 12s. ; 16f years’ purchase, £262; 10 per cent., £26, £288. Total valuation, £608.
Mr. J. Woodhams, E.S.I. (Messrs. Wood-hams and Son, Hastings), said he was the agent for many estates in and around Bexhill. In his opinion the rental value of the two houses was £52 a year. From that he deducted one-third for repairs, renewals, rates collection, etc., £17 6s. 8d., leaving £34 13s. 4d. ; 17 }׳ears’ purchase, £589 6s. 8d׳. ; add £10 for the workshop and 10 per cent, for forced sale, £659 6s. 8d. The road had not been made up, and that would not cost less than £30. Strictly speaking, thal sum ought to be deducted.
before they were pulled down, so as to be able to give a certificate and plan of the existing buildings. By the Building Act no other houses suitable for the working classes could be built on the site owing to the provision for open spaces. He took the •rents at- £87 12s., and deducted 45 per cent, for outgoings, leaving a net of £48 ; he then deducted the ground rent, £28, producing £20, which he capitalised on the 10 per cent, table, 7¿ years’ purchase, giving £150. He added 10 per cent, for compulsory sale, making his total £165. He looked on the £28 as the rent of the property and premium paid for the lease, and considered the life of the property was 15 or 20 years.
Mr. Herbert Clarke, valuer (Messrs. Sales and Clarke, auction and survey offices, 11, John-street, Minories), said he knew the neighbourhood in question well. The houses had four rooms each, and he took the rentals at £88 18s., and deducted 50 per cent, for outgoings and £28 ground rent, producing a net rent of £16 18s., which he capitalised at 10 per cent., giving £136 ; he added 10 per cent., making his total £149 12s.
Mr. Percy H. Clarke, F.S.I., 2, Lancaster-place,	Strand,	submitted the following figures :
Actual	rents ............................   £87	18
Deduct: —
Head rent ....................... £28 0
Hates, taxes, repairs, insurance, losses and collection, 5 per cent... 43 19
------	71	18
On lease for 57J years unexpired would! lie
Net	rental	value ................. £16	0
worth, on 10 per cent, table, 10 years' purchase, but life of property would not in my opinion exceed■ 15 years = therefore....	71 yrs.
120
Add 10 per cent, for forced! sale .......... 12
£132
Mr. G. J. Elphick (Treasure and Sons, builders) said his firm had demolished the houses. They were entirely dilapidated ana worn out.
The jury awarded the claimant £375.
HOUSE PROPERTY AT BEXHILL-ON-SEA.
At the Sackville Hotel, Bexhill, on the 13th ult., Mr. W. Bartlett, Under-Sheriff for the county, and a special jury, had under consideration the case of “ Cheale v. Bexhill, Sid-ley and Crowhurst• Railway Company,” which was a claim by Mrs. Jane Cheale for compensation in respect of two freehold houses, Nos. 10 and 11, Reginald-place, Bexhill, acquired by the railway company under their compulsory powers.
Mr. H. F. Pickens, Q.C., and Mr. George Thorn Drury (instructed by Messrs. Hillman and Burt, of Eastbourne) were for the claimant ; Mr. Edward Boyle, Q. C., and Mr. Archibald Willis (instructed by Messrs. Cheesman and Cope) for the railway company.
Mr. Dickens, in the course of his opening statement, referred to the rapid development of Bexhill in recent years, remarking that in 1883 the rateable value, taking the gross, was £38,000, which in 1898 rose to as much as £78,000. The population in 1893 was 5,820, and last year it was 10,105, whilst in the same period the number of inhabited houses had gone up from 1,160 to 2,020. Counsel proceeded to remark that• the houses in question, together with a workshop in the rear, were erected in 1888 by the claimant at a cost of £800, £130 being paid for the land, which was nothing like its value now. No. 10 was occupied by Mrs. Cheale and her husband, who is a carpenter, and he erected a workshop at the back of the premises. Mrs. Cheale let some rooms to visitors, and they made as much as £25 a year on an average from this source. The other house was let to a personal friend of the claimant, at a rental of £24 14s. per annum, but it was estimated that the fair rental value of this house was £32 a year. The claim was for £1,440.
Mr. George Cheale, husband of the claimant, gave evidence to the effect that he purchased the land in 1883 for £130, including conveyance. The actual cost of building was £670. Witness carried on business as a carpenter in the workshop in the rear. In 1895 he made £32 profit, the second year £79, the third year £127, and the last year about £180. His wife was in the habit of letting apartments to summer visitors, and made about £25 a year thereby. Since the railway had acquired the property, he and his wife had to take a house near Sidley, which was about two miles away, and about twice the distance from the railway station.
Mr. Wm. Hurst Flint, F.S.I. (Messrs. Humbert and Flint, 11, Serle-street, Lincoln’s-inn, W.C.), surveyor to the Cranston Leslie Estate, Bexhill, etc., said he had had a very large experience with property in Bexhill for many years past, and• he had surveyed the whole of Warkham’s Estate. The property in question had a frontage of about 33ft., a depth of about 100ft., and a right of way at the back. Witness had not heard that the rent was 9s. 6d. per week, and if he had he would not have adopted that principle because he considered it was a property that might fairly be let on a yearly
No. 108, DRURY LANE.
On Monday, Mr. Dickens, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. Walter C. Cooke, solicitor, Finsbury), appeared on behalf of Mr. Moss Cohen, the lessee of the shop, No. 108, Drury-lane ; Mr. Corrie Grant and Mr. A. L. Johnstone (instructed by Mr. A. Blaxland) represented the London County Council.
Mr. Frederick J. Ball, valuer (of the firm cf Cooke, Baines and Ball, surveyors and estate agents, 48, Finsbury-circus, E.C.), said the premises were held on lease for a term unexpired of 17 years on December 25, 1898, at a rent of £65 per annum. There were six rooms on three upper floors, whilst the whole of the ground floor was used for the fried fish business ; a large basement, paved throughout, was used as a potato store, and also for cleaning fish. In his opinion, the premises would command a rental on lease of £75 per annum, and by deducting the head rent, £65, he obtained the profit rent of £10 per annum. His figures were: —
Profit rent ............................  £10	0
For 17 years unexpired at 6 per cent., years' purchase ................................ 101
105 0
Add 10 per	cent.......................... 10	0
115 0
Value of fixtures as per inventory ....... 74 4
Loss of business, 21 years’ purchase of the agreed net profits of £600 per annum ... 1.500 0 Loss on utensils in trade and incidental expenses.................................. 10	0
Total .....................£1 699 4
Mr. Ball added that he considered the claimant fairly entitled to 2¿ years’ purchase of the net profits.
Mr. H. S. Hawley, surveyor and valuer (Messrs. H. S. Hawley and Co., auctioneers and house agents, 14, Southampton-row, High Holborn), also gave a valuation of the lease and fixtures.
Mr. H. Woolley, accountant, 51, Terrace-road, Upton Manor, was retained for the claimant׳.
FOR THE COUNTY CO U■TOLL.
Mr. Johnstone said his clients were willing to allow one years’ purchase of the net profits (agreed at £600) of the trade.
Mr. Herbert Furber, F.S.I. (Messrs. Furber, Price and Furber, 2, Warwiek-court, GrayV inn), said that in his opinion the rental of £65 under •the lease was the full rental value, but he should allow for disturbance one year’s rental. His valuation was as follows: —
Allow for disturbance one year's rent .... £65
Value of fixtures and: improvements ...... 52
117
Deduct for immediate repairs under covenant:	21
Total ............ £96
The Arbitrator reserved his award.
WEEKLY HOUSES IN SOUTHWARK.
On March 24, at the London Sheriff’s Court, Red Lion-square, W.C., Mr. Under-Sheriff Burchell and a special jury had before them ihe case of “ Richards v. School Board for London.” This was a claim by Mr. Robert Dunn Richards, formerly a medical student, of Drake-field-road, Balham, for £550 compensation m respect of the compulsory acquirement by the School Board of five weekly houses, Nos. 5 to 9, Partiner-street, Southwark, for the purposes ox new school buildings.
Mr. Campbell was counsel ■for the claimant; Mr. A. J. Ram for the School Board.
In January, 1894, the claimant obtained a lease of the houses in question for a term of 60¿ years, at a rental of £28 per annum. There were, therefore, about 57 years unexpired at the time of the notice to treat, which was served in December, 1896. The Board obtained possession of the property almost immediately, and the houses were demolished in January, 1897. It was stated that the houses were worth a rental of 8s. per week, and that some of them were actually let at that figure.
Mr. Edward Stimson (Messrs. Stimson and Sons, 8, Moorgate-street, E.C., and 2, New Kent-road, S.E.) had valued the property on the actual rental, £115s. per week, or £91 per annum. From this amount he had deducted the ground rent, £28, and a third for rates, taxes, repairs and other outgoings, leaving a net profit rental of £33. This he had taken i n the 7 per cent, table, 14 years’ purchase, £462 ; 10 per cent, for forced sale, £46, £508.
Mr. Percy W. Talbot, 289, Regent-street, W., had taken the rental at 8s. per week, or £104 per annum. He had deducted the ground rent and a third for rates, taxes, insurance and repairs, leaving £36 per annum ; 7 per cent, table = 14 years’ purchase, £504 ; 10 per cent., £50 £554
Mr. H. M. Ellis, F.S.I. (Messrs. H. M. Ellis and Co., 143, Cannon-street, E.C.), had valued the property on a similar basis. His total was £560.
FOE THE SCHOOL BOAED.
Mr. Bernard J. Dicksee, district surveyor of East Islington, said he attended on subpoena. He went over the houses in his official capacity
Cnmpinsatton Cases.
THE GLARE-MARKET IMPROVEMENT SCHEME.
At the offices of the Strand District Board of Works, in Tavistock-street, Covent-garden, on March 23, Mr. H. T. Steward, F.S.I. (Messrs. Hunt and Steward, 45, Parliament-street, S.W.), the Arbitrator appointed to decide the value of properties compulsorily taken by • lie London County Council in connection with the Clare-market and Strand improvement scheme, under the provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, continued a series of enquiries.
Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, HARFORD-ELACE, DRURY-LANE.
In the case of Bowman and another, Mr. R. P. Glasgow' appeared for the freeholders of Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, Harford-place, and Mr. J. A. Johnston (instructed by Mr. E. C. Davies, solicitor) represented the London County Council.
Mr. John Henry Thomas, F.S.I. (of Messrs. Rogers, Chapman and Thomas, auctioneers and surveyors, 78, Gloucester-road, South Kensington), gave the following valuation : —
Rent on repairing lease for 21 years from
Christmas. 1887, at per annum ........ £100
Term 10 years unexpired at Christmas. 1898, on 4 per cent, table, years' purchase . 8-10
810
Reversion to £145 per annum deferred 10 years on 4 per cent, table, 17 years’ pur-chase......................................... 2־^
£3,275
Total
Mr. Thomas added that the buildings were substantial, and could be altered for any light trade.
Mr. James F. Field, F.S.I. (Messrs. Field and Sons, 54, Borough High-street, and Chancery-lane), said the houses had been reduced by circumstances to tenement property; they were 60 to 70 years old. The rental of £100 a year was thoroughly secured for the unexpired term of 10 years, as the lessee was making a substantial profit. His figures were : —
£100 a year at 4 per cent, for 10 years, 8-10
yearn’ purchase ......................... £810
Reversion, 2.270ft. of land •at Is. per foot,
£113 10s. per annum, at 4 per cent., de-ferred 10 years, 17 years’ purchase...... 1,929
£2.739
Mr. Field said that having regard to the pretty shape, from a surveyor’s standpoint, of the land, the £100 a year would be turned into a ground rent or well-secured lease rental, not■ for tenements, but let to a printer, artificial decorator 01■ a trade connected with the theatres.
Mr. Ralph S. Ellis, F.S.I. (Messrs. Fare-brother, Ellis and Co., 29, Fleet-street), said the structure was substantial and the site compact. His figures were : —
Rent of £100 -a year on 10 years unexpired repairing lease at 4 per cent., 8 years’
purchase ................................
Building site 2 270ft. at Is. per foot, £113 10s. ner annum, in perpetuity after 10 years at 4 per cent., 17 years’ purchase ............
Total ...................... £2,739
£800
1,939
Mr. Ellis said he had not looked upon it as tenement property. The site could be used for commercial purposes, and he had an enquiry from one of the wealthiest men in the country for a large area in this district.
FOR THE COUNTY COUNCIL.
Mr. Andrew Young, F.S.I., valuer to the Council, said that to save the premises running down verv rapidly a considerable amount should be spent in repairs immediately. His figures were: —
Existing rent, £109 a year, for 93 years, at 5
per cent................................. £63׳
Site on reversion, 2,276ft. at 7d. per foot, £67 rental, at 4 per cent., deferred¡ 93 years ...	1,139
1,902
Deduct land tax redeemed1 .................. 82
Total ........................ £1,810
Mr. Young said he had made an alternative valuation of £1,988, taking the net rent cn reversion at £160, the repairs after nine years to cost £167; his deductions were £259.
Mr. Leslie Vigers, F.S.I. (Messrs. Vigers and Co., Old Jewry), dealt with the rent of £100 at 7.5 years’ purchase, and the gross rent on reversion at £373, deducting 45 per cent, for outgoings; the balance he took at 7 per cent., his total being £1.708, as against £1,589 on the land value basis of 6d. per foot׳, and 24 years’ purchase. Mr. Vigers admitted that property generally had increased in value, but added :' “ There may he a betterment charge ” (laughter).
Mr. Herbert Furber, F.S.I., said the premises were old, hut structurally were in fair condition generally. He dealt with the rental of £100 at 5¿ per cent.., £750 ; and on reversion with a rental of £145, after 10 years, at• 7 per cent., £1,052, producing £1,802. The site value he put at 6d. per foot, and 25 years’ pur-clase, giving £1,688.
The Umpire reserved his award.