Henties Bay valuation roll sent back to valuer
Staff Reporter THE 2025 Henties Bay Valuation Roll has been referred back to the appointed valuer for further corrections and consideration of objections raised during Valuation Court proceedings, following concerns over alleged omissions, valuation methodology and discrepancies in property and ownership records. The decision was handed down by Senior Magistrate Conchita Olivier, who presided over ... The post Henties Bay valuation roll sent back to valuer appeared first on Informanté .
THE 2025 Henties Bay Valuation Roll has been referred back to the appointed valuer for further corrections and consideration of objections raised during Valuation Court proceedings, following concerns over alleged omissions, valuation methodology and discrepancies in property and ownership records.
The decision was handed down by Senior Magistrate Conchita Olivier, who presided over the Valuation Court proceedings.
The court directed the valuer to incorporate and consider all comments and objections raised during the proceedings before the revised roll is presented again for public inspection.
The concerns raised included ownership details relating to various erven, properties recorded as vacant despite structures being present, and the verification and correction of information relating to individual properties.
The court will also require the valuer to consider the applicable processes and statutory requirements, as well as the relevant periods and dates applicable to the valuation process.
Once the necessary amendments and corrections have been made, the revised Valuation Roll must be displayed again for a period of 21 days, in accordance with the applicable requirements.
A detailed schedule of the comments and amendments will be prepared in consultation with representatives who participated in the Valuation Court proceedings. The schedule will then be submitted to the appointed valuer for incorporation into the roll.
The valuation date applicable to the Valuation Court process will also be determined and clearly stipulated before the revised roll is made available for the 21-day public inspection and objection period.
After the revised roll has been displayed and any further objections or representations have been considered, the matter will return to the Valuation Court for a further hearing.
The court’s decision follows a legal challenge by the Hentiesbaai Residents Association (HRA), which questioned whether the valuation roll, containing between 4 400 and 5 700 property entries, complies with the requirements of the Local Authorities Act 23 of 1992.
The HRA raised concerns about the limited time available to the Valuation Court to consider every property on the roll.
The association calculated that a five-day sitting provides about 1 800 minutes of deliberation, meaning the court would have an average of about 24 seconds or less to consider each property.
It argued that even spending 10 minutes reviewing each property would require more than 120 working days.
The HRA submitted 62 written questions to the valuator and the municipality, seeking clarification on various aspects of the valuation roll and the methodology used to compile it.
Among the concerns raised was the alleged omission of a substantial number of surveyed erven from the roll. The HRA claimed that potentially a quarter of the town, including entire extensions, may have no valuation recorded.
The association also questioned whether physical inspections were conducted as contemplated under Section 67(4) of the Act, or whether the valuator relied primarily on existing or desk-based information.
Concerns were further raised about properties recorded with a “nil” improvement value despite having visible developments, as well as discrepancies in ownership information.
One property cited was Sunbay, listed as HB-2661, where the HRA questioned the accuracy of the ownership information.
The proceedings were also disrupted when Danie Wehl, who was representing the municipality, left the hearing without requesting or obtaining permission from Olivier.
The HRA described the departure as disrespectful to the court and expressed concern that Wehl’s absence could affect the court’s ability to obtain answers concerning municipal records, property ownership and potential revenue implications.
The association is also seeking access to the valuation roll in an electronically analysable format, arguing that Section 72(4) provides for access to extracts from the roll.
According to the HRA, statistical analysis is necessary to identify potential outliers and determine whether property valuations are equitable among ratepayers.
The association argued that the integrity of the roll cannot be established through verbal assurances alone and called for an independent assessment of the valuations.
“The issue is not whether the valuator is acting in good faith,” the HRA said. “The issue is whether the Valuation Roll can be independently demonstrated to be complete, accurate, consistent and properly tested.”
The HRA asked the Valuation Court to exercise its powers under Section 68(2) to appoint an independent assessor with valuation expertise to assist in assessing the roll.
With the roll now referred back to the valuer, the process will proceed through the required amendments, a further 21-day public inspection and objection period, and ultimately another Valuation Court hearing.
Picture for illustrative purposes only. Ph
