PROPOSED SANATORIUM

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 72, Issue 6243, 17 June 1946, Page 6

PROPOSED SANATORIUM

HILLCREST SITE APPEAL AGAINST PRICE The property of 1021 acres at Hillcrest on which it is proposed to erect a tuberculosis hospital was involved in a case heard by the Land Sales Court in Hamilton on Tuesday. The Crown (Mr S. T. Barnett) appealed against the decision of the Hamilton Land Sales Committee in consenting to the sale of the area by the Public Trustee to the Waikato Hospital Board at £10,254. Mr I. Jack appeared for the Public Trusted and Mr F- A. Swarbrick the purchaser. Mr Barnett contended there was not the slightest justification for a vendor to receive more money because a hospital board was buying the property than if a private individual were the puchaser. The committee had given the following reasons for what he termed a curious decision—that the land was required for a specific purpose; that a voluntary offer was made by the board; that the board, having the power to take the land under the Public Works Act. was certain to take it by one means or another; and that the Compensation Court, if it fixed compensation as a result of that action, would be unlikely to fix it as less than the voluntary offer made by the board.

Mr Barnett submitted that the vendor was subject to the same resraint as any other vendor. The contention that the land could be taken by other means was quite irrevelant. He submitted that the true value was £8960.

“I submit that this appeal -is vexatious in its futility,” said Mr Jack. He referred to the fact that time had been lost through the lodging of the appeal. The hospital board had the power to take the land but it preferred to conduct amicable negotiations.

Mr Jack said that in fixing the value, account must be taken, of the potentiality of the property for the benefit of the community in general and not for an indivilual private purchaser. As it was spending’ public I money it was not likely that the board would be prepared to pay too much. The transaction did not affect either stabilisation or rehabilitation. The hospital board had been asked a. totally unreasonable price by the vendor originally, said Mr Swarbrick. However, the board’s price of £lOO an acre had been accepted. The board and its advisers had searched a very wide area for a suitable site for a tuberculosis hospital and the Hillp crest property was the best available. Mr Joseph Price, chairman of the hospital board, gave evidence accordingly. In a final submission, Mr Barnett contended that Mr Jack had not explained why the vendor should receive more money because the purchaser was a hospital board and not a private individual. The Court reserved decision.