Submission details
| Submission ID | 9492 |
|---|---|
| Name | Graeme Eagar-Savage |
| Date | 31 March 2026 |
| 1. Do you have any feedback on the IAWAI Water Services Strategy? |
Agree to the growth pays for growth approach
|
| 2a. Do you support a growth pays for growth approach for new residential and commercial developments, including the use of growth charges to help fund growth-related infrastructure and services? |
Yes
|
| 2b. In the current residential growth charges proposal secondary minor dwellings (i.e. granny flats) may be treated as ½ HUE. Do you support treating secondary minor dwellings as ½ HUE? If you have an alternative proposal, please explain. |
Yes,
|
| 3. How would you prefer IAWAI engage you? |
Website, Social media, E-newsletter
|
| 4. Do you support IAWAI’s Significance and Engagement Policy? |
Partially support
|
| 5. Do you have any feedback on the Significance and Engagement Policy? |
My main feedback is more about how it will work in practice, as it is quite dense at the moment and could be hard for people to apply consistently, so it would really help to have a simple one-page summary or decision guide up front that makes it clear how to quickly determine significance, what level of engagement is expected, and who leads it. It would also help to tighten how the low, medium, high ratings actually roll up into an overall decision, as that is not completely clear and could lead to different interpretations across teams, and similarly the engagement section could be a bit more directive about what is expected at each level rather than just listing options. The section on when engagement will not happen is useful, but I think it would benefit from requiring a documented rationale or some level of sign-off to manage risk, and the thresholds for significant contracts are good but could be made more visible so people can find and use them easily. It might also be worth adding a few practical examples to show how the policy would be applied in real situations. Overall, it is in a good place, it just needs a bit of tightening to make it easier to use day to day.
|
| 6. Do you support IAWAI'S Waiver Policy? |
Partially support
|
| 7. Do you have any feedback on the the Waiver Policy? |
My main feedback is again around how this will work in practice, as it is quite long and detailed, particularly in the waiver categories, and it may be hard for staff and customers to navigate quickly, so it would help to have a short front section that clearly sets out the main waiver types, who they apply to, and the key criteria at a glance. There are also quite a few areas where discretion is allowed, for example around “just and equitable” decisions or extraordinary circumstances, and it would be helpful to tighten how that discretion is applied or at least require a consistent rationale or approval level to avoid variability across decisions. The split between WDC and HCC makes sense for now, but it does add complexity and duplication, so anything that can simplify or signal a future move to a more consistent approach would help. The leak waiver section is strong and clear in intent, but quite detailed, and could potentially be simplified while keeping the key thresholds and evidence requirements visible, and similarly the number of specific waiver categories, particularly on the HCC side, may benefit from being grouped or summarised so the overall structure is easier to follow. Overall it is a solid and comprehensive policy, the main opportunity is to tighten and simplify it so it is easier to apply consistently day to day and easier for users to understand what they are eligible for.
|
| Are you giving feedback on behalf of an organisation? |
No, these are my own personal views
|