Submission details
| Submission ID | 10977 |
|---|---|
| Name | Steve Leaper |
| Date | 3 May 2026 |
| Which option for on-street short-stay parking in the central city do you support? |
Option 1: Two hours free (Council’s preferred option)
|
| Help us understand the reason for your response: |
Parking fees encourage people to move on, opening up a space for the next user. But this needs to be balanced with the needs of the shops who want to encourage people to come into the city. Two hours free seems a good balance.
|
| Do you support Council’s proposal to increase the entry fee for non-Hamiltonians aged 16 and over to enter the enclosed areas at Hamilton Gardens to $27.50 from October 2026? |
Yes (Council's preferred option)
|
| Do you support the proposed Planning Guidance/Urban and Spatial Planning fees and charges? |
No
|
| Help us understand the reason for your response: |
I make these comments based on the Planning Guidance spreadsheet “Planning Guidance and Urban and Spatial Planning fees and charges.” linked from the feedback page.
The spreadsheet says that fees have been increased in alignment with inflation. There is no comment about any work done to verify these figures apart from this “inflation adjustment”. So I can only assume no such work has taken place. So how can council vote to increase these fees without understanding if they are correct? They could be too high or too low. If the work to verify these figures has been done then this should have been published along with the spreadsheet. Such work would include whether the fees were correct or even if the were needed. I would note that when ratepayers were concerned that the recent rate rises were well above inflation, we were told that councils had special needs/costs that were much higher than inflation. On that basis, the increase in fees seems somewhat arbitrary. |
| Are you giving feedback on behalf of an organisation? |
No, these are my own personal views
|