Submission details
| Submission ID | 12116 |
|---|---|
| Name | Horiana Henderson |
| Date | 2 July 2026 |
| Option 1: Complete school zone safety upgrade (1 = completely oppose, 5 = completely support) |
1
|
| Option 2: Targeted school safety upgrade (1 = completely oppose, 5 = completely support) |
1
|
| Option 3: Signalised pedestrian crossing on Peachgrove Road, at Wilson Street (1 = completely oppose, 5 = completely support) |
1
|
| Option 4: Focused on parking and enforcement on Peachgrove Road (1 = completely oppose, 5 = completely support) |
1
|
| Other: Do nothing at all (1 = completely oppose, 5 = completely support) |
5
|
| Please share any comments you have about why you chose to support/oppose the different options. |
Hamilton City Council is in debt and does not have the millions of dollars needed for this project. Yet, given that all four detailed options include enforcement measures, it appears Council's proposed solution is to generate revenue through enforcement cameras, much like Auckland did with bus lane enforcement. In my view, that means residents in surrounding streets, high school students, and families simply trying to live and to get to and from school each day will become a source of revenue. Council should not exploit its community in this way.
I also consider the feedback form to be loaded. It presents the five options in a particular order and labels the status quo as "Do nothing at all," placing it last under the "Other" category. A more neutral description, such as "Do not change" or "Leave as is," would better reflect that option without prejudicing respondents. The form also frames respondents in ways that do not encourage neutral feedback. For example, someone who completely opposes Option 1: Complete school zone safety upgrade is required to give it a one-star rating. That misrepresents their position. They are not rating the quality of the option; they are expressing their opposition to it. The final question continues this pattern by asking respondents to indicate how important—or unimportant—parking was to their choice. In my view, this unnecessarily categorises people as either pro-car or anti-car. Given that Council has already framed the consultation around cars being the safety problem the project is intended to address, the question risks reinforcing that narrative rather than gathering neutral feedback. My feedback is this: Yes, the safety of our children on this stretch of road is paramount. However, this consultation does not enable the community to do anything other than reinforce Council's predetermined position. If Council genuinely wants to know what would work best, it should empower the community to contribute freely to the conversation rather than constrain responses through a loaded consultation process. |
| How important or unimportant was retaining parking spaces on Peachgrove Road when deciding your support/opposition to each of the options? |
Neutral
|
| For Option 1: Do you support adding raised pedestrian and cycling crossings on nearby streets at an additional $600,000, bringing the total project cost to $5.4m? |
No
|
| For Option 2: Do you support adding raised pedestrian and cycling crossings on nearby streets at an additional $300,000, bringing the total project cost to $4.3m? |
No
|
| For Option 3: Do you support adding a raised pedestrian and cycling crossing on Wilson St at an additional $150,000, bringing the total project cost to $1.2m? |
No
|
| Are you giving feedback on behalf of an organisation? |
No, these are my own personal views
|
| Which of the following best describes your relationship to the area? |
I live in the area, I am a parent of a student/future student at Hamilton Boys’ High School
|