607
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
Apbil 15, 1899.
have been taken into consideration by the committee in making the assessment.
Mr. Wm. Waterfall, manure manufacturer, Bristol’, testified that since 1889 the manure industry had been in a languishing condition, and particularly since 1893. For five years his own company paid no dividend. He attributed the state of the manure trade to the decline in the Continental trade, leading to a great over-production in the United Kingdom. It would require a large outlay to modernise the Penryn factory.
Mr. Herbert H. Fuller, having had a large experience in surveying and valuing similar works, said in other districts the assessments of this class of property had been reduced. He valued these premises at a rateable of £218 and gross £490.
STEPHENS’ R.OPEWORKS.
Mr. Foote, in opening this case, said the works were situated at Falmouth, and were held on lease by the company at the nominal rental of £100. The freeholder was Mr. Basset, of Tehidy, and the company consisted largely of members of Mr. J. Stephens’s family. The original leaseholder (Mr. J. Stephens) made considerable improvements, but apparently this was not taken into consideration when a new lease was granted, as no additional charge was made. The valuation was upon the same principle adopted in the previous case. The original assessment was £197 net, and the committee increased it to £400, but the justices reduced it to £208.
Mr. Arthur Body estimated the net rateable value of the property at £400, Mr. W. Eve at £504, and Mr. Nye at £474. Mr. Eve described the works as in excellent condition, most of the machinery of the most expensive character being modern and of the best description, and asserted that £400, fixed by the committee, ־was a very low estimate.
Called for the respondents, Mr. W. N. Carne, formerly for 34 years in business as a rope-maker at Falmouth, stated that formerly his firm did a large trade in supplying ships and mines with rope. But with the decline in mining and the immense reduction in the number of vessels calling at Falmouth which had taken place in the last 20 years׳, the local trade in rope had fallen away so seriously that last year he closed his works because there was no longer any trade to be done. In Cornwall an immense number of rope works had been closed during the past few years; in fact, rope-making in the county was rapidly becoming an extinct industry.
Mr. George Humphreys-Davies׳ estimated the net rateable value of the works at £208. The premises were inconveniently situated and the works badly arranged for economical production, andi consequently handicapped in competition with other works more favourably situated.
Mr. Herbert H. Fuller valued the works at £202 rateable.
Mr. J. B. Donald, of Penryn, associate member of mechanical engineers, said the motive power in these works was not of an advantageous character, and it would require about £1,700 to place new engines and boilers to meet modern requirements.
_ Mr. Duke urged that the disadvantageous situation of the premises should be taken into consideration in determining the assessment.
FALMOUTH GAS WORKS.
Mr. Foote, opening; the appeal against the reduction in the rating of Falmouth Gas Company’s works, said in estimating the value they took the ,gross receipts of the Gas Company, deducted from them the expenses a tenant would incur to earn those receipts, then they allowed the tenant a reasonable percentage on the capital he required, and all the proper outgoings. From the balance they deducted the rates themselves and the landlord’s repairs, and wh at was left was the amount which the tenant could afford to pay for rent. In the present case the main difference was the amount the tenant was entitled to consider as his capital, and therefore the amount of interest he should deduct, and the amount spent in repairs.
Mr. Wm. A. Mcl. Va-lon, C. E.. London, oast president of the Incorporated Gas Institute, stated that in estimating the expenditure which would properly fall on a tenant he allowed £699 for repairs׳ and maintenance, the average of ;he past five years, instead of £727, the°amount expended last year. In calculating the tenant’s capital he deducted1 the landlord’s share of the cost of repairs to works from the total expenditure. That reduced the tenant’s working expenses on the year to £3,965. As, however, gas accounts were payable at the end of the quarter, it was only necessary to allow 4¿ months’ working expenses, which came to £1,487. For meters and cookers in use, fittings, stoves and stores he allowed £2,646. Extra stock of coal and other items brought the total up to £4,332 as the amount of the tenant’s capital. In calculating the interest on that capital he allowed 17¿ per cent, for part of the capital invested in coal, and working expenses and 15 per cent, for the remainder of the capital invested in plant and meters. On that calculation the interest amounted to £691,
at £190 gross and £142 net. The Assessment Comittee raised it to £240 gross and £180 net, and the justices put it back to £200 gross and £150 net, and the committee asked it to be restored to a net rateable value of £180. The hotel was in the town, and its receipts for the last four years averaged £3,050. Being a commercial and family hotel more than a׳ visitors’ hotel, the valuers treated it as of less value than the Falmouth or Pendennis, and they took 7 per cent, on the gross takings as the basis of calculating its rateable value. On that basis the value would׳ be £210, so that 6 per cent, would justify the rating of £180 which the appellants wanted to restore.
Mr. Wm. Eve estimated the rateable value at £213. In fixing it at £180 the committee had placed the assessment at too low a figure. There were 47 rooms in the house, which had a good bar trade. Hotel properties had gone up in value very largely in the last few years.
Mr. Arthur Body gave figures as to the value of the hotel, from which he calculated its letting value at £196 a year.
Called for the respondents,
Mr. Herbert H. Fuller, F.S.I., 15, Serjeant’s-irm, Fleet-street, London E.C., deposed that the takings of the Royal had decreased during the past few years. On the other hand, the expenditure had diminished in a greater proportion, with the result that the profits had increased. Last year the gross profits were £517; but that had to be divided between landlord and tenant. He estimated the net value of the property at £117 a year. The Royal was not nearly so good a house as the Greenbank, which was assessed at £150. It was true that the selling value of licensed property had gone up of late years, but not the letting value. Licensed property had gone up in value in consequence of the competition between brewers in order to get tied houses for the sale of their beer. It was not rent but goodwill that had gone up.
Mr. George Humphreys-Davies gave corroborative testimony.
Mr. Duke argued that the character of the Royal was changing. Its class of trade had altered, the superior uses to which it was formerly put had ceased ; people of considerable means no longer patronised it in any numbers, and the hotel was now used almost exclusively by commercial travellers. It should not be treated, therefore, as an hotel commanding a good family or tourist trade.
Mr. Foote contended in this case also that annual value, and not the question of profits, was the test which governed the assessment of hotels.
THE WEST OF ENGLAND MANURE WORKS.
Opening the appeal against the reduced assessment of the works of the West of England Bone and Manure Company, Penryn, Mr. Foote explained that the property was originally assessed at £315 gross and £214 net. The committee raised the assessment to £800 gross and £356 net, but the justices reduced it to £450 gross and £200 net, which was less than the original. Like a brewery, in valuing manure works they did not go into the question of profits, but took the actual value of the land, the structural value of the buildings, and the enhanced value given to the property by the machinery and plant. On that principle one of his experts estimated the net annual value of this property at £356, while another put it as high as £504.
Mr. Arthur Body gave the following details as to the capital value of the property: — Land, £800 ; buildings, £4,800 ; plant, £1,100 ; vitriol plant and buildings, £2,200; total, £8,900. Deducting 20 per cent, for contingencies not estimated, the total capital value of the property was £7,120. At 4 per cent, on the land and 5 per cent, on the buildings and plant, the net annual value was£356 ׳. The area of the land was just over an acre.
Cross-examined : Did not know of any manure works in the west of England that had been shut down in the last few years. In recent years the profits in this industry had been small, but last year a good profit was made, and this year, with prices having gone up, a larger profit was being earned. The prospects of the ־trade at the present moment were brighter than at any time for the past six or seven years. At the Penryn works the machinery” was not modem, but he allowed for that in his valuation.
Mr. Wm. Eve, with large experience in valuing manure works, estimated the annual value of the land at £45, buildings £323, manure plant £51, and vitriol׳ plant £71, making the net rateable value of the works £490.
Mr. George E. Nye (Messrs. Bradshaw Brown and Co., Billiter-square-buildings, London, E. C.), with especial experience of waterside manufacturing properties, estimated the capital value of the Penryn works׳ at £7,519, and the net annual value at £449.
Mr. Duke argued that the property derived its value entirely from the industry carried on there, and in recent years the manure industry had seriously declined. The original assessment wap made at a time when the industry was flourishing, but now the trade was crippled throughout the country, and that fact ought to
a landlords’ question, but it was also a very important one to the tenant. With regard to ponds on the hill tops, he always understood that they collected more water, and better water, than was the case with the ponds in the valleys.
The motion was heartily agreed to, and suitably acknowledged.
Kates aitîr Kating.
THE׳ FALMOUTH APPEALS.
At the Cornwall Quarter Sessions, on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of last week, the hearing of appeals by the Falmouth Assessment Committee against the reduction made in ihe assessment of various properties in the borough, was resumed. [Estates Gazette, April 8.]
Mr. Foote, Q.C., and Mr. W. T. Lawrance (instructed by Mr. J. H. Genu) for the appellants ; Mr. H. E. Duke, Q.C., and Mr. McLeod (instructed by Mr. Nalder) for the respondents.
THE PENDENNIS HOTEL.
Mr. Foote explained that the Pendennis Hotel was owned by the Falmouth Hotel Company, and the principles on which they proposed to rate the properties were identical, and consequently the same controversy arose as in the case of the Falmouth Hotel. Built five years ago, the Pendennis Hotel was then rated at £250 gross and £200 net. For the sake of arithmetical proportion the Assessment Committee raised the gross assessment to £275, but did not alter the net, on which the rates were paid, and which remained at £2G0. The Hotel Company appealed, and at the special sessions, when evidence on one side only was given, the assessment was reduced to £192 gross and £144 net. The business of the hotel -was increasing, the receipts, which in 1895 amounted to £1,270, in 1897 reached £2,373. For the purpose of rating the receipts of 1898 were taken at £2,500, and the value calculated on the basis of 8 per cent, of the gross takings.
Mr. William Eve, F.S.l., 10, Union-court, Old Broad-street, London, E.O., described the Pendennis Hotel as occupying a splendid and unique position, standing in its own ground, overlooking the sea and Pendennis Castle. It had 32 bedrooms. His valuation of £200 as the net annual value was based on a percentage of the gross receipts. In 1898 the receipts were £3,126, an increase of 33 per cent, on the previous year.
Cross-examined : It was the existence of the license that induced him to value the property on the percentage basis. If the license was producing no more than it cost it ought to be taken into consideration in estimating the value.
Mr. Arthur Body, A.R.I.B.A., F.S.l., Plymouth, deposed to assessing the hotel at £200 net. He took as the basis of his calculation 8 per cent, of the estimated takings of 1898. The actual receipts showed that he had underestimated the value of the property. He was informed by the secretary of the company that the building and furniture cost £11,560, of which £3,500 was for furniture.
Mr. J. H. Townsend Green (Messrs Weatherall and Green, 22, Chancery-lane, London, W.C.) also valued the premises at £200 a year net.
For the respondents, Mr. Joseph Rogers, secretary to the Hotel Company, produced the tariff, which was a low one in comparison with that of the Falmouth Hotel. It was chiefly a boarding house business which was done at the Pendennis. The receipts from the sale of drink averaged only £150 a year, yielding a profit of only £15. Apart from furniture, the capital expended on land and buildings was £6,600. So far the hotel had not made a profit.
Mr. George Humphreys-Davies, F.S.l. (of 8, Lawrence Pountney-hill, London, E.C.), described the Pendennis Hotel as merely a boarding house, but not so suitably situated as adjoining boarding houses. It could only properly be used as an annexe to the Falmouth Hotel. In his judgment, it should be valued as house property and not as an hotel. There were 48 rooms in the house, and at £3 a room he estimated its׳ rateable value at £144.
Mr. Duke submitted that the Pendennis, though erected at a large expense, had not paid until lately, and the assessment made by the committee was an attempt to put this mere boarding house on the same footing as a first-class hotel.
The Chairman asked why, if the property was not paying, the company were adding a new wing to the Falmouth Hotel!
Mr. Foote, replying on the case, said it was not a question whether the company had two prosperous hotels or whether only one paid. The question was the value of the hotel to a tenant. It was fallacious to take into consideration the amount of profits made, for it was property and not profits that they rated.
THE ROYAL HOTEL.
Talcing next the case of the Royal Hotel, Mr. Foote said the premises were rated originally
when permanent improvements would be worth good security as a tenant’s undertaking. He thought 'the system of paying a terminable extra rent charge as interest might be much more often applied applied to the case they had here. Speaking upon reservoirs for rain water, he said that they might be classed as (1) open, and (2) covered. The covered, and especially underground, reservoirs possessed one important advantage in darkness, which prevented the growth of weeds and many organisms, vegetable, slime, etc., etc., and animalcule. The position of ponds appeared to be governed in the generality of cases by the relative ascendancy of one of the two considerations—(a) where it could collect most water, and (b) where it was most needed by stock. On the hill farms the ponds were invariably on the hills, but he considered that by having a pond in a valley, there was an advantage, inasmuch as it׳ would gather the water from the surrounding slopes, and that there was less evaporation than on exposed heights. Another fact, perhaps not generally known, was that, although the top of heights attracted clouds and were often enveloped in mists, yet it was a fact that a rain gauge placed on the surface in a low position gathered more rain than one higher up. Having discussed the question of the shape of the ponds, the paper stated that shelter was commonly neglected, but was very advantageous as lessening evaporation, etc. If the pond was narrow, the shelter should not be too high, or much of the rain might not find entrance. Materials most common for ponds through Sussex, not referring to the specially constructed “rain-catch,” were chalk, puddled clay, and concrete. For various reasons, water from a clay pond was sweeter and more relished by stock than from off concrete.
Covered reservoirs were then dealt with by Mr. Brand at length, the opinion being expressed that reservoirs built underground had the great advantages which resulted in the water being kept sweet, pure, cooler in summer and warmer in winter. The circular shape had the advantage of offering the greatest resistance to the pressure of the surrounding soil, because every part of it formed an arch, and it also possessed the greatest capacity for a given length of wall. Having gone into particulars at length as to the results of these storages, the question of cost was discussed. With regard to open reservoirs, such as concrete sheep ponds, one at a neighbouring estate, which watered several hundred sheep and never gave out, cost£54 ׳ in all, inclusive of gravel foundation. Sir William Anderson stated some years ago that underground reservoirs cost about £6 10s. per 1,000 gallons with a capacity below 20,000 gallons, or £4 10s. to £5 per 1,000 gallons if larger; while artificial gathering grounds could be laid out for Is. lOd. per square yard with about 3s. per lineal yard of fencing all round. Those figures were, however, now too high in by far the majority of cases. An estimate based upon actual examples of works performed in the district showed that rectangular tanks of 8ft. by 8ft. in sections would cost £2 per foot in length, including 14in. brickwork lining, 15in. height of arching, cement, and plastering.
Mr. W. J. Malden expressed his pleasure in proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Brand for his able paper. The authorities that had been (!noted were of the greatest value. He remarked that one could not realise the value of th paper by merely hearing it read, but there was a great deal in the subject of water supply and of making use of rain water. The one objection was the expense, but he thought those who ran the risk of running out of water made a very serious mistake. He (the speaker) advocated a large water pipe being used on farm buildings as the smaller ones quickly got filled up with dirt and other matter. Mr. Brand had taken great trouble in compiling his data. The subject was one of great importance to farmers.
Mr. R. Pratt, in seconding the motion, thought that the matters dealt with more closely affected the landlord than the tenant, but sometimes when tenants constantly changed, the buildings wi re not kept as they should be, and landlords were discouraged from making provisions they would otherwise agree to.
The Chairman, in supporting the motion, said he was absolutely certain that a paper of this sort could not be prepared without a tremendous outlay of work and patience. He was very glad to find that a young member of the club could not only prepare a paper, but a very good paper indeed, and he thought there were but few elder members of the club who could have given them a better paper upon such an interesting subject. The paper was of the greatest possible use not only to farmers but to everyone who took an interest in the wider subject of the storage of rain water throughout the country as a whole. Commenting upon the tremendous amount of water supplied to the large towns from the country districts, he expressed the opinion that unless precautions such as Mr. Brand suggested were adopted, the villages would have to be supplied through the agency of water companies. The question of this supply was in the first instance