In today’s guest post, former Auckland Councillor Pippa Coom highlights the value of berms in Auckland – and encourages everyone to submit on ongoing consultation!
Greater Auckland is brought to you by a largely volunteer crew and made possible by generous donations from our readers and fans. If you’d like to support our work, you can join our circle of supporters here, or support us on Substack!
Up until about a decade ago most Aucklanders probably didn’t give much thought to the berm – the patch of grass between the kerb and the footpath. By default people generally respected the berm as a no parking zone – a hangover from pre-amalgamation days when councils would ticket drivers using the berm for parking.
The place and value of the berm burst into the limelight during “bermgate” in 2013 when Auckland Council cut the budget to Auckland Transport for the berm mowing service that had been funded from general rates. Suddenly berm maintenance became the responsibility of adjoining home owners (with a few exceptions). It created an opportunity to show our love for the berm beyond just a strip of grass in need of mowing. The first attempts were made at developing berm planting guidelines to recognise the placemaking and amenity value of the berm, rather than Auckland Transport’s set of strict rules intended to discourage planting for “safety” reasons (a cause that continues to be championed by Councillor Julie Fairey).
Berm appreciation has grown further since the inception of Auckland Council’s Urban Ngahere strategy in 2018, resulting in the planting of thousands of mature street trees on the berms, increasing the urban canopy and shade along road corridors. Berms are loved as a place for play, for swings from trees, a safe zone to walk and linger, and a sponge reducing the impact of extreme weather events. The damage, and corresponding cost, that can be caused to the grass, trees, plantings, and to the underground utilities, are one reason the berm is unsuitable for parking. Another, of course, is that when drivers drive and park on the berm, the place is no longer safe for others, nor available for its other uses.
However, the social contract that, for the most part, has kept drivers off the berms (and not driving on footpaths to access berms) has been increasingly strained as drivers seek out free parking and car storage. The responsibility to mow the berm has been taken as licence to use the berm for convenient parking.
The issue has been further exacerbated by AT’s failure to enforce berm parking. Following legal advice in 2015, AT has taken the position, unlike most Metro councils, that signage must be installed before enforcement action can be taken. This is a time consuming and expensive process adding clutter and obstacles to berms. (Attempts to lobby for a law change via LGNZ to clarify that signage is not required to enforce berm parking has previously failed and AT has also not been persuaded by well reasoned analysis outlining why the current law is in fact adequate to protect what should be considered the pedestrian realm).
Currently AT still has a priority list of 230 sites (from over 2500 requests) where parking off the roadway would be prohibited. There are only resources to resolve approximately 10 locations each year with signage at a cost of $3k per location and a process that takes 6 months. This enforcement anomaly puts further pressure on berms and opens the way for more parking and more damage.
There is a fresh opportunity to show our berms renewed love and attention via Auckland Transport and Auckland Council Traffic-related Bylaws consultation. It is a minor change, but feedback is needed to keep the berm love heading in the right direction.
The proposal to define ‘off roadway parking’ more clearly to include berms (and public parks and deliberately planted areas) is intended to increase certainty about where parking is prohibited allowing AT to install signage more quickly without going through a resolution process. Without public support for the new bylaw, there is a risk that parking will be further pushed on to our berms and the behaviour normalised. AT and AC need a strong message that berm parking is not the solution to parking pressures, and it is for AT to take enforcement action rather than wait for a problem to be reported or damage to occur.
Before Wednesday 4th December, use the online feedback form to support AT’s main proposal to create a single joint traffic bylaw: Te Ture ā-Rohe mō te Whakamahinga me te Whakatūnga Waka 2025 / Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025.
Show your berm love under the feedback topic: AT and AC propose supporting changes to 6 topics in the proposed joint Bylaw: Clarifying rules about parking vehicles off a roadway (the general feedback box can also be used).
In the feedback, you can:
- detail why you love the berms and the value you see the berm providing – for placemaking, play, walking, lingering, planting, for mature trees and a place for drivers to access vehicles parked on the road.
- note the harm vehicles can cause by driving and parking on berms.
- request AT and AC take all necessary steps to discourage berm parking (advocating for a law change as necessary)
- and state why AT should not wait for political or community feedback before taking enforcement action.
- In short, AT needs to be managing parking proactively as part of its obligation to deliver a safe, effective and efficient transport system.
Love your berm and the space our green nature strips provide for people, trees and plants.
Processing...
Thanks Pippa!
I agree we might as well support this suggestion to streamline the only way AT will admit they can enforce.
AT barely enforce where they have put in signs, of course. Nor do they enforce parking on the paved footpath, which has no legal ambiguity. Solving the actual problem in a more fundamental way will require a good Council CEO and AT CEO, along with competent governance.
The longer it takes to pull AT into line on the wider topic of parking enforcement, the more erosion of the social contact will occur.
And this is serious, as the research that unenforced and unmaintained environments lead to bigger crime and reduced social congestion is strong.
*cohesion. Lol.
I live out west with a massive circa 5.5m x 9m berm, which is both bigger than my yard and a pain in the ass to mow. So I have planted it out with a variety of dwarf natives I have grown and bought including Ti Kouka, Manuka, Kaka’s Beak, Kowhai, Karo, Hebes etc etc. It looks 10x better, is easier to look after and both the birds and neighbours seem to like it. Fortunately I live on a quieter street and haven’t seemed to have had any issue with AT, but it honestly just seems like a no brainer to me why this is better than it previously was!
I personally love Britomart’s small grass patches, with their clever NO DOG PEE signs. Although I do not believe that we have proved that any dog can be taught to read!
As a city centre dweller, the fact that the same instruments used to protect us from moving vehicles are planted with a variety of beautiful and functional flora, makes the modest apartment lifestyle almost a walk in the park (with a few noxious fumes to attempt not to inhale).
Flowers bring happiness with their variety of colours, as does our Psychedelic Christmas Tree in our main square downtown.
What is lacking in our city is colour! So planting berms with wondrous plants is magnificent, particularly when young kids see them for the first time and can imagine a fantastical jungle wonderland.
Now all we need is better conditions for public transport and apartment living, which may be another act of patience given Wellington’s power brokers are rather anti modern city, and very rural the ninety fifties were so amazing. Unless your were Maaori of course.
I only turned Maaori in 1982, through birth, so I prefer to imagine my life through Te Ao Maaori, eternal, and that although my parent’s fought for the same things we are fighting for now, there are more of us on our side now, and some of us really dislike driving!
bah humbug
A lot of people live in Auckland as if it is a space colony. You have your bubble of habitat at home, some other bubbles like the mall, and you move between those habitats in your space capsule called a “car”. Those berms may just as well exist in outer space. Even if you live somewhere for 10 years, there is a good chance you’ll never see most of your neighbours outside their cars.
Maybe some interesting things in those berms may help to change that. They’re currently just this wasted space on the other side of people’s 1.80m tall fences.
The “safety reasons” because of course. You wouldn’t want anything else than parked cars blocking sight lines right?
lol, only just read this comment, sad, funny but true.
People parking on berms is a problem in smaller centres like Hamilton also. This damages the environment and makes waling harder. The Council there hasn’t made any real effort to alter rubbish collection and parking enforcement to make high density areas like the Knighton-Greensborough area near the university work effectively. This weakens support for urban intensification.
I might add that many of the cars on the berms seem to move very infrequently. It seems like some people in inner city Wellington and high density parts of Hamilton seem to think they need a large car or over-sized SUV that they use at most 1-2 days per week. If they are only using the vehicle some weekends they should be encouraged to find secure off-street parking. Some price signals might result in them thinking about cheaper ways of conducting occasional motoring trips.
Berm parking really has become a problem. The issues of walking on the footpath used to just be being aware of vehicle crossings. This was pretty easy to deal with, as there wasn’t massive blind spots blocking visibility. Now with cars often parking on front and back berms, it’s so hard to see over/around/under them to know if cars are pulling in or out of driveways. Taken children for walks or bike rides becomes another stressful parent moment, rather than the relaxing time it should be.
Has AT installed any kind of barriers (visual or physical) on any berms in Auckland?
It would be interesting to see what, if anything, is applied that doesn’t get in the way of mowers.
Prevention is a better solution than punishment 99% of the time.
We need fewer lawn-grass berms and more planted with native tussocks and shrub-level plants. That would do a better job at detracting lazy drivers from parking. Planted berms could also potentially function as bioswales
As soon as government allows the Council to set infringements at a level that covers the cost of enforcement, AT and therefore may be able to afford effective enforcement – unlike now.
At least covering this in the Bylaw will give a foundation for change of the social contract, alongside affordable PT and safe cycling/walking environment to reduce car storage needs.
Care of frontage berms with planting is difficult to manage with a single set of understandable rules, but anything from groundcover plants to street trees can be successful (a) so long as occupants look after them and (b) so long as people understand what services are underneath them and what visibility they need to avoid obstructing for safety. A shrub is always going to look better and be safer than a ute.
AT can afford enforcement. This hasn’t shown because fingers were too low but because AT refused to take an evidence-based approach.
The costs of what their lack of enforcement has done to Auckland far exceeds any finding they needed to find.
The problem was personnel, approach to risk, and who and what AT values.
Man I will try that again.
AT can afford enforcement. This hasn’t arisen because fines were too low but because AT refused to take an evidence-based approach.
The costs of what their lack of enforcement has done to Auckland far exceeds any funding they needed to find.
The problem was personnel, approach to risk, and who and what AT values.
I’ve had experience of resource consent applications (quite rightly) requiring new driveways and temporary construction activity to avoid soil compaction of berms as this has long term impacts on street tree health. Seems like quite the double standard when berm parking is not actively managed!
Yes. Also, Council used to consider grass to be part of the impermeable area of a property if it was being parked on, because the soil compaction prevented water ingress.
All these incremental decisions to give up on caring have created a city that’s now dominated by cars, with both Council and AT essentially missing in action.
It can change back, but it’s going to take amazing leadership.
This idea of making one more clear law from three is a good idea.
Good post too. Have a fair amount of berm parking around my local area. Often when there are yellow lines form schools, intersections or bus stops nearby. Seems people don’t to leave their cars a bit further from their houses (perceived security risk) and/or too lazy to walk 20 m.
agh typing too fast
*for schools
*don’t want to leave their cars
Let us all be realistic: The reason that people are forced to park on the berm is because there are extra houses built and the roads can’t cope. Infill housing at its best which you lot have all been very supportive of. Infill housing needs to have enough car parks otherwise people will park on the road – or on the berms in some cases. Obvious side effect…
I agree, berm parking is worse in areas where density has increased and the developments don’t have sufficient parking. While in utopia we would have a lot less cars and people would use public transport, in reality a large number of people have vehicles. I use public transport extensively – but I need somewhere to park my car, and as I’m in an older apartment block it does thankfully have offstreet parking. Having better off-street parking also makes biking safer as streets with lots of parked cars are also more dangerous to cycle on, and it isn’t feasible to put cycle lanes everywhere.
Yes the difference between AT’s utopia world and the real world leads to consequences such as this. They seem to need some people who live in the real world to bring them back from their utopian visions.
cool cool and when suburban sprawl from a lack of will to build proper high density takes over the pukekohe growing soils and vegetables go up in price will you still blame AT then? or will you have the intelligence to reflect on the consequences of *your* ideology?
your “real world” compromise is what’s going to fuck the planet over beyond repair, we’re on track for 3.5 degrees warming by mid-century which the mainstream moderate media is of course downplaying to preserve the delusions of the status quo. radical change is needed and unfortunately the only radical change we’re going to get at this rate is our pollution making life and society as we know it impossible
“It’s not my duty as Mayor to make sure you have a parking spot. It’s the same as if you bought a cow, or fridge, and then ask me where you’re going to put them.” ~Miguel Anxo, Mayor of #Pontevedra, Spain
There are more kilometers of free, legal on-street parking in Auckland than there are bike lanes of any sort. Are people really too lazy to use them?
Berm parking near to home reflects the fear of theft and collision, both of which could be reduced with street design.
Since the density has been farmed out from ‘character areas’ to outer ‘burbs, perhaps some of the money can also make its way here to fund the PT and street improvements needed.
You think that the only reason people don’t cycle is because of laziness?!? Completely delusional and idiotic.
We live in Auckland where there are very little cycleways, hills everywhere, terrible weather and large vehicles and roads everywhere. Just because you’d like to think of Auckland as the Netherlands or France where we can all cycle around with a baguette in the front of a bike, it just isn’t realistic for everyone.
I believe Snakey was referring to the laziness of not using the legal on street parking rather than berm parking.
No one is forced to park on the berm. It is a choice based on cost, convenience and lack of consequences.
Berms are not designed for parking so it may be tolerated on the odd occasion (washing a car, a family gathering) but most neighbours don’t want to see the berms destroyed or their children put at risk. If berms become permanent car parks who pays for the damage and who takes responsibility when someone is injured?
Parking pressures are going to create more issues as car ownership continues to grow (currently double the population growth rate). The answer is not to hand over public green space for more “free” parking.
Parking should be considered just like the storage requirements of any other household possession. Or to put it another way: “It’s not my duty as Mayor to make sure you have a parking spot. It’s the same as if you bought a cow, or fridge, and then ask me where you’re going to put them.” ~Miguel Anxo, Mayor of Pontevedra, Spain.
Why doesn’t AT just allow regular public to take photos of offenders and upload it via an app. AT can send fines directly to the vehicle owners. Honestly this is ridiculous.
Perhaps we should take a more Singapore-style approach to vehicle ownership, and require people to prove they have somewhere to park a vehicle that isn’t a public road before they are allowed to own one. While I completely agree not everyone needs a carpark, and there is a place for developments without them, currently that just seems to result in the expectation that rate payers will provide a carpark in the form of roads or berms, making it much less usable for everyone else, and harder to reallocate road space to actual transport (whether by private vehicle, public transport or active means).
SOLUTION:
1. Change the regulations so AT does not need to install NO PARKING signs next to each area of grass berm.
2. Tow any offending vehicle.
3. Fine the owner $2500 per occurance, to be paid within 7 days, or crush the car.
Within a few months the problem will have gone away
There’s nothing so nice that can’t be ruined by driver entitlement.