Submission details
| Submission ID | 9899 |
|---|---|
| Name | Peter Mayall |
| Date | 4 April 2026 |
| 1. Do you have any feedback on the IAWAI Water Services Strategy? |
Water Services Strategy: Conditional support
The $3B capital programme and efficiency savings (Hamilton -$174/yr, WaiDC -$222/yr) are credible. But five governance risks could eliminate the entire rationale: unelected Tainui Forum control, Treaty obligations beyond what the law requires, cultural competency ranked above engineering in the skills clause, water royalty exposure ($5–8M/yr), and the dual treatment infrastructure threat from clause 20.4. Debt tracking to $3.4B by 2036 leaves zero buffer if any of these materialise. |
| 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? |
Partially support
|
| Please provide comment. |
Growth pays for growth: Supported with qualification
Right principle, right mechanism. The $500/yr per HUE for 25 years is fair. One flag: the papakainga exemption is a race-based carve-out from a universal obligation — if the infrastructure still has to be built, someone else pays for it. That's both inequitable and legally exposed. |
| 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. |
Partially support
|
| Please explain. |
Secondary Minor Dwellings at 1/2 HUE: Supported in principle
Four conditions attached: Show your workings — IAWAI should publish the actual consumption data behind the 0.5 figure. If real demand is closer to 0.7–0.8 of a full dwelling, the rate should reflect that. Separate title or meter = full HUE — the moment the unit stands alone on the network, the discount evaporates. The Policy needs to say this explicitly. No reclassification rort — two fully self-contained units marketed independently are two dwellings, not a "main house plus granny flat." Clear size and titling criteria needed to stop developers gaming the definition. Audit at 2027 — if 0.5 HUE is under-recovering, the gap lands on every other ratepayer. Check the numbers at the Strategy review. |
| 3. How would you prefer IAWAI engage you? |
E-newsletter, Allow all ratepayers the ability to vote for all forum members. Ratepayers are and have paid for IAWAI we want the ability to control it. Our vote sends you the message - not the other way round!, Plus written submissions
|
| 4. Do you support IAWAI’s Significance and Engagement Policy? |
Partially support
|
| 5. Do you have any feedback on the Significance and Engagement Policy? |
Significance and Engagement Policy: Partial support
The tiered significance framework is practical. The problems are in the detail. Q5 — S&E Policy feedback: Four specific issues Mana whenua get dedicated engagement channels no other community receives Annual budget exempt from consultation — wrong Significance criteria include iwi impact but not equivalent criteria for other ratepayers The "prior consultation" exemption (clause 5.21) is undefined and too easily abused |
| 6. Do you support IAWAI'S Waiver Policy? |
Partially support
|
| 7. Do you have any feedback on the the Waiver Policy? |
Waiver Policy: Broadly supported
Sensible transition from council remission to IAWAI waiver. Core provisions are solid. Q7 — Waiver Policy feedback: Four practical issues HCC/WDC inconsistency needs a hard harmonisation date (2027 review) Papakainga growth charge waiver is undefined — fix it before charges go live Leak waiver cap shouldn't apply when IAWAI's own infrastructure caused the damage NFP hardship criteria too narrow — excludes organisations with any government funding or paid staff |
| Are you giving feedback on behalf of an organisation? |
No, these are my own personal views
|
| I live in Waikato district, my town is |
Tamahere
|