LAND SALES

Grey River Argus, 29 April 1944, Page 8

LAND SALES

APPLICATIONS HEARD AT GREYMOUTH. Mr M--rk Wallace presided over a sitting of the Westland Sales Committee at Greymouth yesterday With him were Messrs J. W. Gqeenslade nml T Mulcare. The Commission of Crown Land (Mr. Basil* King) represente;' the Crown. The first case considered was an adiourned application by J. H. Robinson (Mr. F. A. Kitchingham) for permission to sell to Kennedy Bros., Ltd, a house property at the corner of Boundary and Frederick Streets. The price asked was £2OO and the Crown’s valuation was £l3O. At a previous sitting evidence had be® ll given that the buyers wanted the property for future extensions to their business premises. G F Shallcrass, -valuator, called by Mr 'Kitchingham, said that up to December last the property was let at 12s. 6d. a week. On that basis from an investment point of view the' property represented an investment of £440 at five per cent. Even at 10s. a week it would still represent an investment of £3OO. He valued the house at £ll4 17s. and the wash-house and lavatory at £lO. The value of this particular land would enhance the value of Kennedy Bros’ whole block, and from theii’ point of view he valued the land at £75, making a total of £199 17s. Mr. Kitchingham said he had had instructions from Mr Robinson that he would not sell the property for less than £2OO net and that if the price were reduced below that it was to be withdrawn from sale. To Mr. King Mr. Shallcrass said he assumed Kennedy Bros., would let the place till they could carry out extensions. He knew of houses m Greymouth in a worse state of reIpair which were occupied to-day. He valued the land in the .same way as valuers valued the town, starting off at a high figure at the corner ol Tainui and Mackay Streets, and working outwards, the figure getting lower the nearer one got to the residential area. The chairman said the Crown freelv. admitted that the property would have an enhanced value for Kennedy Bros. The difficulty was still the danger of creating a precedent. There was also the point that so long as the present act was in force Kennedy Bros., were protected, as the vendor could not sell ito anyone else for less than the figure fixed by the committee. Giving the Committee’s decision after the luncheon adjournment, the Chairman said that the evidence given in the morning had not helped greatly in reconciling the value of-the property to Kennedy Bros with values generally. The Committee felt that the question of the rental obtained in the past was not .altogether relevant. Taking into consideration the special value of the site to Kennedy Bros it felt that the limit to which it could go was £4O. ' It was prepared to allow £4O for the section and £124 17s for the building and to grant consent to the sale at a' sum of £165. Edward Gamble, Stillwater, ( Mr. J. W. Hannan), sought permission to sell to G. and A. Hill a farm property for £1,200. The Crown’s valuation was £1,087. Mr. King said that the Crown’s valuation of the freehold property was £767.

Mr. Hannan asked that the application be amended. The Crown’s valuation of the lessee’s interest in the Crown leases was £250 and appication would be made for transfer at that figure. The figure asked for the freehold property would be £B6O and for the railway lease £9O, bringing the figure up to the total of £1,200. The Crown would agree that the value of improvements on the railways leasehold was £9O, and the only question for'decision was the value of ihr freehold property. Edward Gamble said that his uncle the previous owner, had run 30 dairy cows, as well as sheep, lambs, and stock for fattening, on the .property. Witness wishec* to dispose of the farm as his butchering business took up the whole of his time.

Alfred Hill said he had 800 acres, of poor class land at Ngahere on which he ran store cattle. His property, combined with Gamble’s would make a first class farm, and his brother proposed to go into partnership with him. He had a knowledge of the value of the property from the fact that a brother had managed it for some time, and he was satisfied he could make a living out of it. He thought the freehold property alone of 84 acres would carry 30 cows. He was satisfied with the access to the freehold property as a dairy farm. To the Chairman: He .had no busines connection with his . other brothers who had land in the district. H. G. Carter, farmer, of Kamaka, gave corroborative evidence regarding the previous -working of the property. The two farms could be worked together and he was satisfied that the buyers could make a living out of the property. To the Chairman: He thought 30 cows could be run on- the freehold property if it were cleaned up a little. T o the Chairman: He did not think there was any question of aggregation. The property would be suitable for a returned serviceman if he had had sufficient experience, but with the risks on river-bed properties a returned man might not have the experience. To Mr. Greenslade: He did not think the price asked by the vendor was exorbitant. Mr. D. H. Thomas, valuator, called by Mr. King, said that the property 'was 20 chains from the road. Vehicular access would be down the creek which I could be crossed in normal times. He did not think a married man returned I soldier would put up with the present access and he did not think it was suitable for settlement by a serviceman. About 11 acres had been taken from the freehold property by erosion. It would take the freehold property ad jits time to carry-30 cows and it would I take a good deal of expenditure to enable it to do that. To the Chairman: He did not think there was any question of agIgregation. He thought the acquisition of the land might make the two farms a decent, profitable fanning property. r ... To Mr. King: The property woulg have a special value to the hhi .brothers. To Mr. Mulcare: It could be worked satisfactorily, as a unit with the leaseholds. ... The Chairman said the Committee was satisfied that there was no question of aggregation. The adjust- , ments in the value of the Crown ; leases brought the value of the freehold reasonably near the valuation made by the Crown. I Consent would be granted at a figure of £B6O for the freehold and £9O • for the railway lease.