717
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
April 29, 1899.
Brockwell Park case, and the reasoning of the members of the House of Lords in that case. As to section 44 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, all that that section did was to enact that the park should be deemed to be devoted and appropriated to the use of the public, although it was closed to the general public ■to the extent defined and limited by that j section. A further effect of the section was that the local authority, doing what they were authorised to do by the section, did not lose the benefit of the rule laid down in the Brockwell Park case.
Mr. Justice Channell concurred.
iofcstril :
ITS SCIENCE AND PRACTICE.
CONDUCTED BY
CHARLES E. CURTIS, F.S.I.,
Professor of Forest Economy, Field Engineering, and General Estate Management at the College of Agriculture. FowntoD, ete., etc.
TEE DEPRECIATION OF UNDERWOOD.
I have read the letter of “ Sussex ” oil the depreciation of underwood, and I fully sympathise with him in the serious loss which landed estates in the south of England are suffering through it. I have written on this subject from time to time, as “ Sussex ” will see by referring to my columns, and I have done so with a very full knowledge of the declining values of coppice areas. Our village industries are rapidly becoming extinct through centralisation; and we have only to look around and see how changed everything is to realise that the low prices of coppice have come to stop. There is no hope of higher prices. They may, of course, fluctuate for a while, i.e., rise and fall so long as a vestige of the old industry remains; but that the old high prices will revive is impossible. Bread is baked in coal-heated ovens ; the baker’s cart visits the most isolated villages; charcoal is used but little ; nets are used in place of hurdles ; hop-poles are giving way to string and wire ; and gardeners are supplied with canes and bamboos.
All we can do is to make the best of such market which is still open to us; and cultivate our areas with due regard to supply. In these days, to plant coppice is an error, except for cover; but so long as we have areas duly stocked we should do our best to grow as much from them as possible.
The chief point, I think, to bear in mind, is to cut early; for not only is the young growth more marketable, but the stools, under such treatment, become more vigorous. If growth is left until it has passed its proper age the stool will decline. This is manifest in districts where ■the old industry is dead, and where there is no market within reach ; where the growth is from 20 ■to 30 years of age. Here the stools are rapidly decaying; and, as a rule in such districts, rabbits abound and aid the destruction.
Judging from my own experience the land-owner is best served who works out his own areas. In this way, if the work is well done, he may yet make a respectable rent.
I would refer “ Sussex ” to my column in which actual cash transactions are recorded. (I ^ am unable to give the month and page, being, as I write, in Ireland engaged in forest operations).
I see nothing for it but to make the best of a bad market; and, as the areas require “ planting up,” instead of planting coppice plants plant larch. Larch will do well under these conditions if there is space overhead, and larch is always saleable.
CORSICAN PINES.
The Corsican pine, or Pinus laricio, is one of the most useful pines we can plant; and were it not for the cost of the plants—add ng so greatly to the initial cost of planting—we might plant large areas of it ■to advantage. It grows rapidly, and, although not rabbit proof, it is seldom attacked by them.
I have lately visited a small area of These, and I could wish the area were large. The following measures will, I think, be interesting, and serve to bear out my remarks.•—
Age, about 35 years. Height, 50ft., quar-ter-girth, 4ft. from ground, 13in., over the bark. The trees stand about 18ft. apart.
This would give about 3,500 cubic feet of timber per acre—not a bad result in 35 years— taking into account the thinninos-
SPECIAL NOTICE.
The “ Estates Gazette” can be obtained at any of the Railway Bookstalls of Messrs. W. H. SMITH & SON and of all Newsagents. The Publisher will be glad to be advised of any difficulty that may be experienced in obtaining copies of the paper.
tion of the Treasury, any lands, tenements or hereditaments which they could not have sold, alienated, ■encumbered or demised without such approbation before the passing of the Act. The appellants forthwith after the purchase of the land converted the same into a public park, called Alexandra Park, and appropriated and devoted the same for the purpose of public resort and recreation and for use and enjoyment by ■the public. With the exception of the propagating houses mentioned below, all the land in the park is open in the daytime to the public at■ large as a park and recreation ground. At night the whole of the land is closed, and the public are excluded therefrom. The appellants, in converting the land into a public park, erected two lodges thereon, with a view to their being occupied by persons who should have, on behalf of the appellants, supervision and control of the park. The appellants also built a refreshment pavilion and verandah and a range of greenhouses or propagating houses, and formed and laid out a bowling green and tennis lawn. There were upon the land other minor erections strictly incidental to its use and maintenance as a public park. One of the lodges was at the time when the rate in question m the case was made occupied rent free by the head gardener of the park. The other, having been found not to be required for the occupation of any of the staff engaged throughout the day at the park, had been let to, and was occupied by, an officer of the appellants whose duties were unconnected with the park, though he and his family did as a fact answer inquiries by, and give needful directions to, the public concerning the park. The refreshment pavilion and verandah were prior to and at the date of the rate in the occupation of a Miss Davis, under an agreement with ■the appellants, at a rent, the agreement providing that ■the tenant should not carry on any other ■business than that of a refreshment room keeper upon the demised premises, that no intoxicating liquors should be sold or consumed thereon, that the hours of opening and closing should be those fixed for the park, and that the refreshment rooms should, during such hours, with some exceptions, be kept open and accessible to the public and supplied with suitable and proper refreshments to the satisfaction of the appellants to be sold at reasonable and proper charges to be from time to time approved by the appellants. The greenhouses and propagating houses were used by the appellants for propagating, rearing and sheltering plants for use in the park and for growing a few flowers and a little fruit for inspection of the public in the houses. The howling green and tennis lawn were at the time of the rate used by the public upon payment of certain small charges exacted by the appellants. The total cost to the appellants of the park (including the purchase money £24,000) had been £77,772 15s. 10d., which had been borrowed on the security of the borough rate under the Act of 1844. The necessary expenses of maintaining Alexandra Park as a whole, with the buildings and erections upon it■, far exceed any sums of money which are or could be derived from the letting of the lodges and refreshment pavilion, or from licenses to sell refreshments or otherwise. The actual expenses for the financial year ended March 31, 1898, were £3,939 11s. 8d., and the receipts were £176 6s. 7d.., made up of rent of refreshment house and lodge, bowling green fees, lawn tennis fees, and sale of fruit and ducks. It was contended by the respondents that under the circumstances the appellants were occupiers of the park and buildings for rating purposes and were rateable in respect of the same. It was contended by the appellants that they were not occupiers of the park and erections thereon for rating purposes, and were not rateable at all for any portion of the pro-perty, or that if rateable the rateable value was nil.
Mr. Lawson Walton, Q.O., and Mr. J. O. Evans appeared for the appellants. They contended that the case was governed by “ Lambeth Overseers v. London County Council” (L.R., 1896, A.C., 625), where it was held that the London County Council were not rateable in respect of Brockwell Park.
Mr. Macmorran, Q.C., and Mr. Randolph appeared for the respondents. They argued that the Brockwell Park case was distinguishable. The Act of 1844 did not, like the Act dealing with Brockwell Park, declare that particular land should he devoted to the public, but left the selection of the land to the appellants. Again, the land might in the future be sold or even let by the appellants, and its dedication to the public was therefore not irrevocable. Lastly, the park might be made a source of revenue under section 44 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, which, they contended, applied to the park, and which would enable the park ■to be closed to the public on a certain number of days in the year and let for coy agricultural, horticultural or other show, or any other public purpose.
The Court held that the appellants could not be rated in respect of the premises.
Mr. Justice Darling said that in his opinion the case was governed and concluded by the
15 to 20 estates in the district for building, including the Luton estate. He had 40 acres of land eligible for building half a mile nearer Chatham than Mr. Batchelor’s land. During the last two or three years there certainly had been a great development of land in Luton, but the Chatham field, if laid out at once as a building estate, would not sell for many years to come, although a few plots might go off to meet the purely local demand. There was another estate which would be developed long before the claimant’s estate.
Mr. William E. R. Randall, auctioneer, of Chatham, said that in his opinion the only portion of the claimant’s estate ripe for building was a small orchard containing about acres, numbered 15 on the plan. The Chatham field would not he developed for many years to come, although there might in the future be some element of building value in it. He had dealt with the matter in favour of Mr. Batchelor on the basis of the claimant being ■an unwilling seller, and that he should be offered such a price as he could accept. His figures were : —
No. 15, 2i acres at £300 per acre, and. 10 per cent. £825 Chatham Field, 14 acres at £250 per acre, £3,500 ;
plus £1.500 for buildings, and 10 per cent. ..	5,500
Nos. 22, 23 and 24. —Farm buildings, small orchard as accommodation land, suita ble for a dealer or town carter, three acres at £400 per acre, with
buildings, and 10 per cent............... ] 320
Nos. 19, 20 and 21 —Land fronting Luton-road, la. lr. 9p., £300 ; with 10 per cent........ 330
Total ..	.. £7,975
The case was again adjourned.
Rates anir Rating.
BURY BOROUGH EXTENSION.
EXEMPTION FROM RATING.
In the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court, on April 25, before Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Channell, ■the case of “ Whitehead v. the Overseers of the Borough of Bury ” came on for hearing in the way of appeal.
It was an appeal by the plaintiff, who is the owner of dwelling houses, greenhouses and stables in the township of Elton, and it came before the Court as a special case stated by the Justices of the Hundred of Salford against a rate levied in 1897, by the overseers of Bury. It appeared that the applicant was rated at £484. Before 1885 the ■township of Elton was not a part of the Borough of Bury, hut in that year the Corporation of Bury obtained a private Act of Parliament, which included Elton, and two or three other townships as part of the borough. In the private Acts these townships obtained a clause for the protection against the rates of the borough. The 14th clause was the one in question, and it provided that the added portions of the borough should not be charged or made rateable with regard ■to any portion of the debt of the borough, including water and gas undertakings, and the terms for the rating in the future were that the rate should be equal to the average rate in the previous year, which had been Is. 7 l-5d. In 1894 an order was made which constituted Bury on© township, and the overseers of Bury levied the rate for the added districts, as well as for the original townships of Bury. The Court, after hearing arguments, allowed the appeal with costs.
RATING OP A PUBLIC PARK.
In the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, on April 23, before Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Channell, was argued the case of “ The Manchester Corporation v. Chorlton Union Assessment Committee.”
This was a special case stated by consent and by order of a judge under the Quarter Sessions Act, 1849, raising the question of the rateabilit-y of a park belonging to the appellant corporation known as Alexandra Park. The land for the park was acquired in 1868, under section 48 of a local Act of 1844 (7 and 8 Yict., c. 40), which authorised ■the corporation to purchase lands either within the city (then ■the borough) of Manchester, or at a reasonable distance therefrom not exceeding five miles from the town hall, “to be appropriated and devoted for the purpose of public resort or recreation, and for use and enjoyment by ■the public.” The conveyance of the land to the appellants contained a■ covenant on their part that they would not, save with the consent in writing of ■the vendors, their heirs and assigns, use the land for any other purpose than as and for a public park, and would not without such consent erect thereon any buildings whatsoever except the necessary lodges, fences, walls and other buildings and erections necessary for the convenience of so using and occupying the land and hereditaments as and for a public park only. The Act of 1844, under which the land was acquired, does not contain any provision in relation to the sale of land except section 46, which provides that nothing in the Act shall enable the corporation to alienate, encumber or demise for t the purposes of the Act, without the approba- |
CmnputsateHit Casu
THE VALUE OP BRICKFIELDS NEAR CHATHAM.
Mr. Daniel Watney, P.P.S.I. (Messrs. Watney and Sons, 33, Poultry, E.C.), continued the hearing as Umpire, at the Surveyors’ Institution, on Thursday and Friday׳ last week, of the case of “ Batchelor v. Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham and Rochester Water Company,” which was a claim of £77,743 compensation in respect of the Chatham brickfield, at Luton, near Chatham, and covering an area of 20 acres, for water supph- purposes. The case was reported in the Estates Gazette of February 25, March 18 and 25, and April 1 and 15.
Mr. Graham Harris, C.E. (Messrs. Bramwell and Harris, 5, Great George-street, S.W.), was arbitrator for the claimant; whilst Sir John Whittaker Ellis, F.S.I. (Messrs. Farebrother, Ellis and Co., 29, Fleet-street, E.C.), acted in a similar capacity on behalf of the water company.
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Mr. Morton Smith (instructed by Messrs. Haywood and Smith, Rochester) were counsel for the claimant. ; and Sir Edward Clarke, Q. C., M. P., with whom was Mr. Danckwerts and Mr. Herbert St. George Peacock (instructed by Messrs. Prall, Son and Prall, Rochester), for the respondents.
The evidence for the water company was continued.
Mr. William T. Jackson, F.S.I. (of Messrs. Jackson and Son, auctioneers and surveyors, Sittingbourne) gave a detailed estimate of the value of the plant, which he put■ at £2,790, of the brick-earth at Is. 6d. per thousand royalty ; of the net freehold value (16¿ and 18 years’ purchase), at £6,516 ; and of flints at £1,235. His total came to £11,316.
Mr. Herbert Alexander Prall, F.S.I. (Messrs. Prall and Prall, surveyors and valuers, Rochester), said that in his opinion the claimant’s land was not in the right direction for building at present, and he could not conceive that it was likely to be required for a long time, whilst there certainly was no future in this Luton property for villas. His valuation was as follows : —•
No. 15 on plan.—250ft.. frontage to road to Dar-land, £2 per foot,£500!; 250ft. frontage to Nelson-
terrace, at £1, £250 ; together ............. £750
Nos. 19, part of 20, and 21,—115ft. frontage to main road, at £2, £230; one acre in rear, £150 :
buildings £80 ; total........................ 460
Nos. 22, 23 and 24.—Farmhouse, yard and buildings. £800; cottage, etc., £500; two acres in
_ rear, £300 ; total.......................... 1600
Nog. 29,30 and 31,—Farmhouse and garden, £500 ; range of modern stabling and cart lodges £800 ; yard and other buildings, £1,000 ; total..	..	2 300
Nos. 27 and 28.-6$ acres of brick earth, at £500 per acre, £3,250 ; seven acres of land at back,
£1,050 ; total .............................. 4_300
Add 10 per cent, for compulsory sale	..	..	'',¡til
Total ..	£10 351
Mr. Prall said his value of the brick-earth was based on a royalty of Is. 6d. per thousand bricks, the number of bricks to be made being 30 millions. He had taken 20 years’ purchase of the rental value in the other cases. His valuation did not include plant or works on the brickfield itself.
Mr. George Roots, brickmaker, of Southend-on-Sea, formerly at Luton and Chatham, estimated the number of bricks that could be made from the scheduled land at 35 millions, and put the royalty at Is. 6d. to 2s. per thousand, giving £3,287; the flints, 53,000 yards, at 3d., £663 15s. ; machinery, plant, etc., on the ground, £3,000; value of land at £1, 25s., and 30s. per foot, and buildings, £6,722 10s. ; grand total, £13,685 ; from which he deducted the cost of roads at 7s. per foot, and 10 per cent, for deferred value, making his valuation, £12,240. Witness did not 4־hink there was any severance damage, or that the Chatham field was a good site for a brickfield. He had owned a great deal of land about there, and was about to start a brickfield at Little Barling, Essex.
Mr. G. M. Taylor, M.Inst.C.E., (Messrs. Taylor and Sons, Westminster), engineer to the water company, estimated that the cost of boring and obtaining the water required for the Chatham field would not be more than £200. He produced plans showing the land still undeveloped between Chatham and the claimant’s land.
Mr. John Kidwell, F.S.I., St. Margaret’s Bank, Rochester (of Messrs. Kidwell and Son), spoke of dealings with land containing brick-earth in the district, and produced figures and prices relating to houses erected during the last seven years, and particulars as to the distance of the claimant’s land from Chatham. There were 100 acres in the immediate district■ which could be developed nearer Chatham ; the claimant’s land was too far away from the town and dockyard. There were also available 8,800ft. of building land with frontage to existing roads between Mr. Batchelor’s land and Chatham.
Mr. George Winch, solicitor, of Chatham, a director of the water company, said he had sold