Hide Articles List

21 articles on this Page


[No title]







Unocal anil Ststnct






[No title]




I 1111L SWANSEA IN UNITARY AUTHORITY AND TIL 52 PC NT I E DA WE ASSESSMENT COMMITTJS-S. AFPEAL AGAINST A A At an adjourned meeting of the Epiphany Quarter Sessions for the county of Glamorgan, held in the Town hall, Cardiff, on Tuesday (oeiora Mr. R. O. Jonea and Mr. G. Phillips), Mr. M'lntyre, with Mr. David Lewia (instructed by Mr. J. Thomas, solicitor, Swansea), appeared to support an appeal made by the Urban Sanitary Authority of Swansea, against a rate levied by the Assessment Committee of the Pontardawe Union, in respect of the Blaenantddu Reservoir. The amount of the rate was .41,604, and it was made in May, 1879. Mr. Michael, Q.C., with Mr. Bowen Rowlands (instructed by Mr. D. B. Tuberville, solicitor, Pontardawe), appeared on behalf oil the respondents. Mr. M'lntyre, in opening the case for the appellants, said the appeal was made on the ground that the assess. ments were not made in conformity with the valuation list in force. He then proceeded to discuss the position of the urban sanitary authority in relation to the waterworks, and stated that the receipts for the year were £ 7,999. Making every reasonable reduction, the rateable value of the whole would, he contended, be A3,255, and not X5,400, which was the amount of the assessment. The learned counsel proceeded to arQue that this should be distributed equally over the whole of the waterworks, and that the appellants were entitled to a material recaption iu the rate. He then called Mr. Cousins, Eurveyor to the Swansea Corpora- tion, who gave the cost of the various reaervoira, the total of which was £ 210,288. Under his superintendence the reservoir at Blaenantddu was constructed. The land cost £ 3,571; the way leaves, £ 16; the reservoir, £ £ 4,8ul; and the engineering, X2,251, making a total of £ 100,589, The original estimate for the reservoir waa £ 43,689, and the additional expense was altogether dvie to an unforeseen circumstanceâthe defective fcundatiors in the puddled trench, the outlet woxks, and the by.wash. Assuming that the ground had been goodi as was expected, -the would have been sufficient, for the construction of a perfect reservoir. Mr. Yt uig, treasurer to the Swacsea Corporation, said ihat the receipts from the waterworks for tha years 1876 7-8 were:â1876, £ 8,876; 187.7,- jt8,543 end 18.8, £ 7,999. Thia gave a toial of £ 25,418, and an average of £ 8,472. CrosB examined by Mr. Michael, Witness said the average of arrears oairied forward from yoar to 3 ter was about £ 1,200. Mr. Micbuel Therefore we must add P.1,200 to tie actual receipta for any given year. Mr. said he waa a professional valuer at Sunderland and Birmingham, aud was cne of the auditors of the Consett Waterworks CowVary. kie had had a great deal to do with the valuation of waterworks, and he had made a ,;JuaLi,. n cf the Swansea Waterworks, the pro- perty of the Swansea Corporation. The amount erpeucedsipon thoee waterworks, their raspective capacity, &o., was given to him by Mr. Cousin*, in Lis opinion the proper way of makiug a valua- tion wa& to ascertain the gross receipta of the whole fcjBtem, and then the deductions whioh ought to be made in respect of the whole system. Thf glOP receipts for the year ending August, 1878, were £ 7,9^9. The working expeubea he estimated at .£.2C5. which wae a very small percentage, and mui h IF, s th&n in maay oauea with which he was it miliar. Tu?a left a balanca of £ 5,794. 'Then there was the working capitalâ ston-s kEd naterialB, £ 1,000; meters, loose plant, &o £ 1,5<J0, giving a total of .42,500. He had net allowed ai ything for a cash balinoa, becaute the water rents were payable in advance, and in a case analogous to this it had been decided that a cash balance was not required. And again if this had been a trading conce-rn he would have RUowtd tenants profits. For depreciation of the niters he allowed 5 per cent., which gave £ 75, OJij, MB* the total down to X5 591. Then he had fahn £ 99,982 aa the value of the reservoirs, and ssfiuaang the life at 80 yeara he deducted for re- production 18 per cent,, or tll8. The conduits be had taken at 40 years' life, and at 1*05 per cent.; that worker out to £ 1,081. Mr. M'lntyre: In order to keep the waterworks in a conditiol) to supply water to the town of Swansea is it necessary that these auma onould be made out? W itness: I think they are very reasonable estimates. Bar. M'lntyre Then that bringa the total down to k4,513 P # Wit net s replied in tho affirmative, and continu- ing eaid that he had estimated the probable svvrege cost of repairs. He had assumed that they borrowed the money, and spread the repay. mentis over a period of 30 years, and this worked out £ 607. This added to the Xl,081 gave Xl,688, and brought the rateable value of the concaru, plus late. to £ 3,906. He had taken the rates at 4a in the X, or .£651, and this reduoed the rateable value to X-3,261, which waa equivalent to 1'54 per cent. on the capital ex. pendedâ £ 210,880. The proportion of the rate. able value to the gross rec:ipts waa over 40 per cent, which was very fair. He knew of oiher valuations cf waterworks in which the percentage was only 30. If they considered the way in which this amount was distributed, he would say that it would have to be distributed equally over the whole. They could not aeei^n to one part of the workB a greater value than to another without in- fiiciLg great injustice. Mr. M'Int jre Will you now explain on wù.'1o principle ycu have ascertained the rateable valae cf the refeervoir now in question ? Witness I have adopted the principle laid dewn in tie Wc,t Middlesex case. Mr. R. O. Jones: It waa not laid down, it was eimc-ly suggested. Witness I took the amount of fixed capital at X-49,476, and calculated the aanna.1 value of the whole ff equal to 1'54 pur cent. Tiiis on £ 19,476 gives .t7G, which ia the rateable value of the refJTvoir. The meeting was then adjourned till Wednesday, when the hearing ot tho appeal made by the Swansea Urban Sanitary Authority, against a rate levied iu respect of the Blaenant ddu Reservoir by the Pontardawe Assess, trent Committee, WRB continued. Mr. M'lntyre, pith Mr. David Lewia, 9-ppesred for the ap. rellaDtS and Mr. Michael, Q C., with Mr. Bowen Rowlands, for the respondents. Mr. Ct&ilep Stephen&on eaid he was a surveyor, at; d catried on busineas in partnership with Sir Henry Hunt. He had been in practice for a con- siderable number of years, and had had a largo amount of experience. He had made a valuation of the Swansea Waterworks from figures supplied to him by the appellants, and he arrived at the rateable value Of the Blaenantddu Reservoir by an equal distribution of the value of the whole. He agreed with the evidence gm-n by Mr. Headley, and vsafl cf opinion that the rateable value of the BisfP&ntdrin iieeprvoir was X762, Mr. Tftomas Waring, valuer, Cardiff, gave sir ilar evidence. Mr. Michael, Q C., then proceeded to address the court for the respondents. He said he waa bound to admit that thia case waa one of very great consequence and importance, because, in reality, they would have to determine points never jet judicially decided. There had never been a caee which had decided the points now before them, ard it was in the public interests, as well as the private interests at etsks here, that there should be a thorough decision on the part of the higher courts as to what waa the principle of rating to be adopted in such cases. Ilr. Michael then dis. cussed the valuation made by Mr. Headley, calling attention to a case in which Mr. Justice Luah said We must take the circumstances aa they are." He might as well argue that thia ooncarn was to be rated as though a profit were to be made by a company occupying the worka, as on the other hand Mr. Headley could have any right to taB e an estimation which was entirely at Variance with the faots. It was clearly shown from tha evidence of Cousins' and by the Aots of | Parliament that the corporation of Swansea were tied to the construction of the reservoir, even if the cost had amounted to £ 500,000. He then cited several oases bearing upon the point, and said the principle underlying the whole was that in estimating the value they should be guided by the price which the local authority would have to pay for suoh accommodation as was afforded by the particular waterworks in queation. Mr. E. O. Jonea I have always held, and shall hold, that the actual coat of making a thing has verv little to do with its real value. Mr. Miohael said that the cost of making a thing might be infinitely more cr infinitely lass than bø real value. He held, 168 be had stated, that in estimating the rateable value they muan find out the price which the local authority would hava to pay for such accommodation aa was afforded by the waterworks. Having done thia, they would ascertain the value of the revenion ia ques- tion by an equal distribution of the whole amount. Mr. Edward Eyde, LurvOYor, London, said he bad had long experience in the valuation of water- works. Considering all the cireamst-ineas he vpas of cpmion that the maximum rateable valut! of the DiaeLLantddu Reservoir was at least £ 3,000 a year. Ills real impression was that it W&" worth more. The amount at which the property was now asBesped, viz 91 600 waa about half the which it might be assessed. Mr. Miohael Will you now go over Mr. Head, ley s valuation, correcting it with the aumia^iono made to me. Witness said Mr. Headley started with th9 gross receipts at £ 7,999. He (witness) however, took the average for the three £ j,472. He then assumed that the cost ot the waterworks steff was correct at £ 4&|J» tbat witjea. for repairs and cleansing. yaS ?orr £ 594, and that the cost of material3 *ePau:a was correct at £ 85. The next establishment expenses, he reduoed to £uOO, which waa the amount given in the printed statement. Mr. Miohael J *1,030 haa beon got up for tbe purposes of .t1Jl.1íi Cltte6,. "Witness, continuing, said he thought that evea ihe £ 500 was too inuch. Thia gave .£1.675 againat Mr. Headley s briaging tho total down to £ 6,797. Then he took the £ 200 given aa interest on tenants capital, though he thought there wa3 no ground tor the claim; and, deducting thia amount, he round that the gross estimated rental, plus rates waB £ 6,597. He had carried forward tbe £ l,Col placed to reproduction fund, though he did not agree with 30 years aa the life of the plpp-a; and calculating the rate's at 43 in the t, or £ 919, he arrived at £ 4 597 as the rateable value of the works. Distributing thia, he found that the rateable value of the Blaenantddu Beaervoir, according to Mr. Headley's principle, waa jfcl,721, or £ 120 more than the rate appealed against. Ur. S, Harper, civil engineer, Merthyr, gave tbe result cf a valuation made by him ot the Swansea Waterworks, He estimated the rateable value of the Blaenantddu Reservoir at £ 1,760, and expressed his concurrence in the btatement made by Mr. Ryde. Mr. Michael said that this concluded hia case, and fco continued to impreaa npon the court the circuicBtf.ucee under which the reservoir ia q !:te!- tion wtls ooBfttrncted. The urban sanitary authority were bourd to coneiruot it, and he held that io dete'mil,e the rateable valae they mir t I dtetemine what vkrfe the amount of monay for that io dete'mil,e the rateable valae they mir t dtetemine what w»s the amount of monay for whioh tb^ accc-tar-o^niion cnld b» pnri-haaad, | Mr. M'IET&IC, -a ttw-yali agreed I uprit this that the acr a-.t I from the waterworks mutt be ti i,a-i, ,f (,.I, ii i,) A uptm which they arrived nt ti.. p etr* >⢠J jeut ma whole cf the watt rwurhs taken uu uue coio irn. Therefore, the qucfc-i- :í !r \V,:¡., fiist, the way in wh.t'. < g.;}-JJ recaipts to the net ra-> â¢â¢ 1 ;«o mdly, the vtij'' in tshioh t;.e .<⢠v 4,16 to be oifrtvibuted in the v, p%. lJd alo. cated tt; the various n/i^u 1I:t protucel tnat reivenne. He maint in. ti ttmt tne pciuoiple oa which they had madeont i.n-ir ci-l<!ol i IOU-i waa eir. r^ct-, ami that theaosti-miet t !-h iuld o,; ridujed to which was arrived tt oy « nkia< off tbe .kWo for repairs and cu1 .nbutiw it over the whole. The ttagistratea then ifftlied, and on their return into court, l^r, B. O. Jones annonucel that they had not taken the actual cost into OJD side ration at all, but bad fixed JCI,OW as ttle I$QLD wnicti would under the circumstances be given by a tunant for the eservoir in question. Therefore, tha rate would e altered from XI,604 to tj,o P.