SPECIAL VALUE DISALLOWED

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24748, 13 December 1945, Page 3

SPECIAL VALUE DISALLOWED

SALE OF PROPERTY FOR THEATRE DECISION OF COMMITTEE A special value was claimed by the ; vendor of a property at 296, Selwyn street, I Spreydon, when he sought, permission for-the sale from the Christchurch Urban I Land Sales Committee • yesterday.' The [ reason given by the vendor, Frank Lyman ; (Mr S. R. Dacre) was that the purchaser, 1 Henry Kitson, acting for a syndicate, required the site for a picture theatre. The property,, which comprises an old cottage and more than one acre of land, was valued by Mr L. Baker at £IO6O, and the Crown valuation was £B4O. The committee allowed the sale at £950. Mr Baker said it was difficult to place a value on the property because there was nothing in the locality for comparative purposes.* He thought the land was well worth £BOO, and Mr Kitson, who was a keen businessman, was in agreement. Mr Dacre contended that the~ land should.be given a special value because it was required for a picture, theatrebusiness. The syndicate had been trying to buy the land for two or three years, and other syndicates were, also interested in the property. Crown Valuation Tor the Crown, Mr W.' Mason said the land was valued at £590. He had valued at £6 «a foot,' making a total of £420. and the back land at £l5O. The sum of £2O had been.allowed for ihe existing interest in the right-of-way. The chairman of the committee (Mr K. G. Archer) said he did not think the committee was justified in allowing a syndicate to pay extra money to secure property against competition from other syndicates. In fixing the price at £950 the committee had assumed that three front shops could be built on the land and had allowed £l5O for each site. The back land was valued at £3OO, making £750 for the land, less £SO discount because of the amount of land involved in the sale. Improvements were valued at £250.

Hearing Adjourned At the request of Hutchinson Motors, Ltd., and Canterbury Co-op. Distributors, Ltd.. which has the controlling interest in Central Egg Floor, Ltd.. the committee I adjourned the hearing of an application for' the exchange of city business premises for a consideration of £SOOO against the Crown's estimate of £220 as the difference in value between the two properties. The properties were that situated at 286 Tuam street and owned by Hutchinson Motors, Ltd.. and that at 204 and 206 Tuam street, where the Central Egg Floor is situated. The premises owned by Hutchinson Motors are leased to the Air Force at present The terms of the contract between the parties were that the two properties were, to be exchanged and that,' in addition, Canterbury Co-op. Distributors, Ltd. was to pay £SOOO. The value of the properties was not mentioned, but the Crown considered the difference in values was £220. -."-..■ , The committee held .that, under Clause 50, Section 3. of the Lanfl Sales Act, it had to take inta consideration "other considerations to be paid" in fixing the value of the respective properties. A valuation of each property was therefore required. Question "of Commission An application for the sale of a pro•E e . rty . at the corner of Papariuiroad and Bhgh's road by Nina M. ,Palmer, to J °hn D. Lake, was granted by the committee. The original price was £2250, but this had been reduced previously by the committee to £2IOO. condition.of the' sale fixed by the committee was that any commission payable to the agent concerned with the sale was paid by the vendor^instead of by the purchaser, as previously agreed between the parties. Evidence was given by Mrs Palmer that she had made it clear-to an agent who wished to sell the house that she would' not pay any commission. The contract for toe sale was drawn up by the solicitors to the. parties, but she had never agreed to pay any commission. : J? 1 Li&e described how the-agent had told him he- would have -to': pay ■& commission if •he wanted the house. He had agreed to pay £SO. For the purchaser. Mr E. B. E. Taylor said that when the contract was drawn up no mention was made of the fact that the commission was to. be paid 'by the purchaser. '. • ■

Mr K. W. Walton, who appeared for the vendor, contended that.there was nothing in the act preventing the purchaser agreeing to pay the commission.; ;J: Mr Archer said that if the- committee agreed to the commission being paid.by the purchaser it would in effect • be' approving the sale at £SO more than at had already fixed as the value of the property. That would-be contrary to the spirit of the Land Sales Act. - -