Sale Of Large Paparoa Property Approved

Northern Advocate, 20 December 1945, Page 4

Sale Of Large Paparoa Property Approved

Decision has been given by the Land Sales Committee in an application heard at a recent Whangareri sitting for consent to sell a property of 391 acres %t Paparoa for £14,200. This price included £4OOO for stock and chattels. Th:s valuation was agreed upon, there being no -issue on this point.

The issue was in the value of the land at £10,200.

In a written decision the committee has given consent to sale at £12,400. inclusive of the £4OOO for stock and chattels.

The case involved one of the largest property deals to be put before the committee at a Northland sitting. The vendor was Robert Dodds and the proposed purchasers, Archie Fletcher and Dennis Smith, both returned servicemen.

Lengthy evidence was given at the Whangarei sitting by Mr. Randall, of Dalgety and Company, which negotiated the sale, and Mr. Jack Oliver, both for the vendor, while the Crown called Mr. S. B. Steelman, of the State Advances Department, as valuer.

Mr. Randall did not give a valuation, but Mr. Oliver put in a budgetary valuation of £10,244 for the land, and Mr. Steedman £7357.

Sight valuation was given by Mr. Oliver at £9637, Mr. Steedman, as is the normal practice with Crown valuers, not submitting a sight valuation. NO ALLOWANCE FOR LOSSES

In the decision, the committee staved that the budget given by Mr. Oliver did not make allowances for losses of stock involved in the farming of the property, and his plan for tire running of the farm, as outlined to the committee, lacked that detailed consideration which such a proposition warranted. ,

In particular, he made no allowance for losses of sheep between mating and shearing. On the other hand, ho neglected to credit the vendor with allowances for buildings on the property in excess of normal and also with three kauri trees, in respect of which the Crown valuer allowed £560 for the buildings and £l2O for tho trees.

Mr. Oliver corrected and adjusted some of these errors and omissions in reply to questions from members of the committee, but he would not agree that he had made insufficient allowance for losses on lambs. In these and in many other respects. Mr. Oliver departed from the realities of sheep farming, and his evidence had to be discounted accordingly FAIR DESCRIPTION The committee' was impressed with the integrity and practical knowledge of Mr. Randall, but his evidence related mainly to the carrying capacity of the property, and he made no attempt to assess the value of the farm. Detailed outlines of his plans for the farming of such a property were given by the Crown valuer, stated the committee.

His reference to the condition of the young stock on the property were fully confirmed by the committee on an inspection of the property, as also were his remarks concerning the fences. His description of the property was fair and in some respects, generous.

For example, the contours of the farm were found to be steeper than his description, and the detailed plan he produced seemed to indicate. The committee concluded that Mr. Steedman’s budget was based on sound reasoning. However, the committee considered that he was somewhat conservative in his estimates of the prices likely to be obtained from the sales of wool and surplus stock.

Furthermore, an item of £250 charged against the productive value by Mr. Steedman for the subdivisional costs could not be upheld by the committee, as .it was concerned only with the value of the farm as an entity. Taking into account the type of property and the capital involved, the committee also expressed the opinion that the management and labour rewards provided for in both budgets were totally inadequate. The committee, however, could not raise the allowance in respect of these items made by the Crown valuer, who was higher than that of Mr. Oliver.