LAND SALES

Grey River Argus, 12 August 1944, Page 8

LAND SALES

COMMITTEE SITS AT GREYMOUTH Onlv one case came before the Westland Land Sales Committee, Mesrs Mark Wallace (chairman) j. W. Greenslade, and J. Mulcare, for consideration at a' sitting at Gieymouth yesterday. An application bv A E Morgan for permission to sell to T. and M. C. Learmonth, section 182 A, Block 22, Greymouth Native Reserve (corner Threadneedle and Alexander Streets), a 21 year lease from January 1, 1944, at £2 17s 6d., per annum; the price being £1051) (£560 in cash, and l the balance to be taken up by State Advance Corporation) The' Government valuation in 1941 was £845, and the Crown’s valuation at present is £920 (land £l2O, buildings £835, other improvements £45, lessor’s interest £80). The Commissioner of Crown Lands (Mr. Basil King) represented the Crown and Mr. A. M. Jamieson appeared for the vendor. . G. T. Shallcrass, valuer, said the building erected fifteen years ago, was on a corner section, keenly sought after, particularly by miners and wharf labourers. The wash-house was under the main roof, and the main building had an area of 1,150 feet, which he valued at 18s 6d a foot. A builder in the town had valued the building at £1 per foot. The house had been painted in January,, at a cost of £37, but only £25 was being allowed for it. A similar section had sold for £2OO. The section alone was worth £175. The chairman suggested that painting should come under maintenance, i Mr. Jamieson submitted that there must be some difference between the price of a house requiring painting and a house just painted. Mr. Greenslade said that there seemed to be no dispute about the value of the house, but the point in question was the desirability of the section.

A lengthy discussion took place on the comparative value of freehold and leasehold sections. R. S. Drummond, Inspector for the State Adanvces Coporation, Greymouth, said the house was of bungalow type and in good condition. He did not wish to differ on the evidence concerning the structure of the house. His value was 18s. a foot, but he valued the porches at 12s a foot, because of their lack of fittings as compared with the house interior. In his depreciation he had allowed about £25, because the building was recently painted and well maintained. As far as he knew there had been no recent sale of comparable sections to give him a basis on which to value the section under consideration. The locality was not as desirable as others, such as Rochfort Street. The committee decided that the value of the propertv was £990, —a reduction of £6O on the price sought.