Submission details
| Submission ID | 9946 |
|---|---|
| Name | Raewyn Chaplow |
| Date | 6 April 2026 |
| 1. Do you have any feedback on the IAWAI Water Services Strategy? |
I support the need for good water infrastructure and investment, but I have serious concerns about aspects of the draft strategy. There are many vagaries and it is difficult to actually come to a conclusion without knowing the details. Some areas of concern are:
1) I am concerned that the proposed water charge increases, even if moderated compared to previous forecasts, will still place a significant burden on many households, especially fixed-income families, retirees, and those on lower incomes. The strategy should include stronger protections or caps to ensure water remains genuinely affordable long-term. 2) The draft does not clearly show how price harmonisation across Hamilton City and Waikato District will affect individual households in practice and will ratepayers in one council are effectively end up subsidising infrastructure in another area. Greater transparency with example household scenarios could help the community provide informed feedback. 3) The strategy talks about efficiencies from the shared CCO model, but it is not clear how much new overhead (staff, systems, governance) will be created or how real savings will be delivered and passed on to ratepayers. There needs to be stronger commitments to minimising costs and regular public reporting these goals. 4) If the large capital investment programme is necessary, there should be clear and sufficient safeguards or limits on future price rises. The strategy needs to be clear on project priorities and have the ability to reprioritise, delay or discard projects so that debt is manageable and minimal. Ratepayers cannot be used as a font of endless provision. In general there needs to be more detail in the proposal so were have a clearer idea of what it all means. “OVER TIME, IAWAI WILL DELIVER WATER SERVICES FASTER, MORE COST-EFFECTIVELY AND MORE AFFORDABLY FOR THE PEOPLE WE SERVE."... how much time? How much more? And just, how? |
| 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. |
How will this affect housing costs and project viability? The strategy is vague on details of this.
|
| 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
|
| 3. How would you prefer IAWAI engage you? |
Website, Social media, Public signage, Letter / Flyer
|
| 5. Do you have any feedback on the Significance and Engagement Policy? |
I could not find the Significance and Engagement Policy to see what opinion I have. In general I think it is better for councils to engage clearly and early and assume the people want to know BEFORE decision are made and actions are taken.
|
| 7. Do you have any feedback on the the Waiver Policy? |
Couldn't find this policy either. Hoping that if it is unchanged ("Nothing changes for ratepayers under the proposed policy — the same waivers will still apply") that is will be ok. But this is not a foregone conclusion.
|
| Are you giving feedback on behalf of an organisation? |
No, these are my own personal views
|