• 03 Te Rimu sculpture
  • 02 Great North Road Grey Lynn Mural
  • 01 Our Hood

Controversial Arch Hill & Grey Lynn Residential Parking Zone Confirmed

Arch Hill & Grey Lynn Residential Parking Zone
Auckland Transport releases final plan for Arch Hill & Grey Lynn residential parking zone – and it’s not what you thought! Find out how it affects you…

Auckland Transport (AT) consulted widely on the proposed residential parking zone. 30% of submitters fully support the proposal and another 30% indicated support only if changes were made to the proposal.

40% of submitters do not support residential parking zones. 

Arch Hill & Grey Lynn Residential Parking Zone Support

The ayes have it

That’s 60% for and 40% against. Being a democracy, the ayes have it and the residential parking zone will therefore go ahead.

However, AT have taken on board your comments and modified the plans to accommodate your feedback where possible. Full details below but first, here is a map of the new zones…

Arch Hill & Grey Lynn Residential Parking Zone Map

The areas in blue will become an official P120 residents parking zone.

The streets to the west marked with an orange line on one side will not. Instead, one side of those streets will be time restricted to P120 and the other side will be status quo (unrestricted).


A large number of residents to the west of Richmond Road, whose streets were not included in the original proposal, petitioned AT for the zone to be extended west to include their streets.

They had the foresight to recognise the domino effect would impact them if they were not protected by a residents parking zone.

We at Grey Lynn Residents Association and most West Lynn retailers also supported this request.

The nays sway the day

Support, however, was not universal. A significant number of residents from those streets, and the streets in between West Lynn and Grey Lynn Park, objected.

In most cases they say parking in their street is fine as it is now and the residents parking zone is therefore not required.

AT’s compromise was therefore to make those streets time restricted (P120) on one side of the street and status quo (unrestricted) on the other side.

Here it is in AT’s own words…

At this stage, these streets won’t be included in the zone.

However, to help improve parking availability for visitors to local residents and businesses, we’ll be implementing a P120 time restriction on one side of the road in this area. The other side of the road will remain unrestricted for now, to help mitigate the impact on locally employed people.

We will continue to monitor parking availability and can investigate different measures if parking problems arise.

When will it happen?

AT expects to implement the time restricted streets in November 2018. The Arch Hill & Grey Lynn residential parking zone will be implemented early 2019.

Here is a representative sample of submitters’ objections and AT’s responses…

Residents Parking Zones Not Required

Feedback: Don’t implement the proposed residents parking zones, the resident and worker parking is fine as it is now.

AT: We have received a high number of complaints from residents and businesses regarding overcrowded parking and associated problems.

Parking occupancy surveys also confirmed that many of the streets have a regular average occupancy over 85% during peak times, meaning residents and visitors to the area struggle to find parking.

Engagement with people and businesses during the consultation again highlighted these problems.

We understand that there are streets where parking availability isn’t currently a big problem. We have amended the zone’s boundary to decrease the size of the zone in Grey Lynn.

There will be a mix of time-restricted parking on one side of these streets and unrestricted on the other side. This will improve parking availability while still having parking available for people who need to park for longer times.

However, it is important to note that there is a risk that parking could be displaced into these streets after the zones come into effect. [Emphasis added.] We will continue to monitor parking occupancy on these streets and consider further measures.

Public Road Available for All

Feedback: There should be no parking privileges for residents, they have no more or less right to use public space to store their possessions than anyone else. Public roads that we all pay rates to maintain should be available to all the public without restrictions.

AT: As the road controlling authority, we have to balance the often-conflicting needs of all road users, given the limited space available.

When it comes to unrestricted parking on public roads, it is available for anyone to use, until problems arise, at which point we have to intervene, usually in the form of some kind of restriction, like time or paid parking restrictions.

In the case of city-fringe suburbs like Grey Lynn and Arch Hill, demand for parking regularly exceeds the 85% parking occupancy threshold, meaning we have to implement restrictions in peak times.

For more information on the “parking intervention triggers” that guide our interventions, please see page 12 of the AT Parking Strategy:

Additionally, Grey Lynn and Arch Hill both have a high number of heritage properties, which means they are less likely to have off-street parking. Residents in these areas will thus be more severely impacted by overcrowded parking.

Where off-street parking is available, we encourage people to use them, but we cannot force people to. The only way to address the problem of chronic parking unavailability is to implement and enforce some form of parking restriction.

We recognise that whichever approach we take, we are unable to satisfy everyone, and thus have to find a balance between the needs of residents, businesses and visitors to the area.

The proposed RPZs have the support of the Local Board, the Grey Lynn Business Association and the Grey Lynn Residents Association, and the majority of respondents during public consultation.

We expect the RPZs will encourage more people to use their off-street parking, making more on-street parking available.

Residents shouldn’t have to pay to park outside their house

Feedback: Residents are not causing the problem and shouldn’t have to pay to park outside their house. There shouldn’t be an application fee, as this would be an additional council tax.

AT: There is a cost involved with investigating, implementing and enforcing a residential parking zone. Best practice states that those who benefit from the zone should pay for it, otherwise other Aucklanders will effectively be subsidising the zone, which primarily benefits the residents and businesses within the zone. [Emphasis added.]

The $70 charge for permits helps us cover the costs of running the scheme. Without this charge, we would need to find the money elsewhere, e.g. through rates. This would entail other Aucklanders effectively subsidising the cost of implementing and enforcing a residential parking zone that primarily benefits the residents and businesses in Grey Lynn and Arch Hill.

Statutorily we are not allowed to charge more than is reasonable to account for granting and administering the permit.

Amend RPZ Hours/Time Limits

Feedback: Include Saturdays/weekends – employees of Bunnings park in the streets instead of in designated parking in the complex. Extend the time limit until 10pm on Friday and Saturday nights. Make 3-4 hours – it avoids those who park all day and go to work however allows locals to easily visit friends. Two hours would be a bit short for a visit.

AT: Parking occupancy surveys indicate week days to be the main time that parking is overcrowded. Other streets might be busy on week nights or weekends, but parking should still be available in the area.

As part of balancing the needs of all road users, we felt unrestricted night time and weekend parking will allow greater access to the area while not pushing parking occupancy over the 85% mark.

We will continue to monitor parking in the neighbouring areas and consider measures if problems arise.

Please see AT’s Parking Strategy (https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/parking-strategy/) for more information on when we implement restrictions on parking.

If there are specific locations where you think parking is a constantly problem, please let us know:

We have found that 2-hour time limits in peak times strikes a good balance between allowing visitors enough time for their visit, while discouraging all-day parkers. We understand that longer limits would be helpful for some, but this would likely be less effective, making the zone less sustainable.

Parking Behaviour and Enforcement

Feedback: Put effort into enforcement of these and other parking violations. There needs to be ticketing heavily daily. Have consistent and regular monitoring of parking violations that affect residents’ ability to park outside their house.

AT: AT will monitor and enforce the zones. We use number plate recognition technology to enforce the zones. This is a more efficient and effective method of monitoring than doing it manually. AT is confident that it can achieve a reasonable level of compliance in the proposed zone.

Illegal parking enforcement concerns have been passed on to the parking team. We encourage people to report incidents of dangerous or illegal parking to us:

Parking Spill Over

Feedback: The ‘all day commuter parkers’ will just park in the next closest unrestricted areas, increasing parking pressure in areas directly outside the zone.

AT: The displacement of parking that happened after the introduction of the Ponsonby Residential Parking Zone has been factored into this proposal. It’s part of the reason so many residents have been requesting a similar zone in Grey Lynn and Arch Hill.

The reality is that there are simply too many cars in peak times for the available spaces to accommodate. City-fringe suburbs all around the city face the same problem, which is why we have to implement restrictions that improves parking availability for residents and businesses in these areas, while.encouraging people to consider other transport options.

Alternative transport options are available, and we are investing more to improve those options for people that do not currently have adequate provision of services.

There is a risk that the streets in Grey Lynn that currently do not have high occupancy rates will experience an increase after the zones are implemented.

We will continue monitoring parking occupancy in the zones and the impact on surrounding areas. This will give us a better understanding of how demand changes so that we can investigate and consider further measures. The boundaries of the zones can be changed in the future, depending on the impact on parking occupancy.

Visit AT’s project page here:

Download AT’s feedback report here:
(PDF 1.6 MB. Click to open; right click to download.)

If you have questions or want to let us know how you will be affected, leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to answer.


  1. Geoff Houtman says

    I blame the St Marys Bay association- they started this all off.

    And of course the Waitemata Local Cycling Board, proud to make us pay to get not guaranteed parking, when we already had that for free.

    Neoliberalism rules ok?

  2. jennifer Buckley says

    I’m afraid this is not a ‘sensible’ solution for residents of the streets, like Dryden, that will have time limited parking on one side. For those of us who live on that side of these streets and have NO off street parking, it effectively means we can no longer park in front of our own homes during the week. They have come up with a bad solution to a problem that didn’t previously exist. Instead of preventing parking issues, AT has created some. We voted for a RPZ in our area and are prepared to pay for a permit – but e’ve not been given the option. In fairness to residents, AT will need to implement a hybrid version of this plan: offering residents and homeowners on these streets the option of purchasing a permit which would exempt us from the time restrictions.

    • I agree with you Jennifer. Unfortunately a sufficient number of your neighbours voted against the RPZ to quash it in Dryden St, mainly on the basis that they didn’t think there was currently a problem in Dryden St and the RPZ was therefore unnecessary, and they didn’t want to pay. It looks like AT came up with a halfway house solution in an effort to give you some chance of parking in your own street. If parking occupancy leaps up to >85% we can ask AT to revisit it.

  3. Here in Schofield Street is is now impossible to find a park during the day, a real shame that we will not get the RPZ. I suspect that there will be a number of upset people come the end of the year!

    • Yes, it is particularly disappointing streets like Schofield have been left out. Unfortunately you’re in the same boat as Jennifer in that some of your neighbours didn’t think there was a problem and didn’t want to pay. If parking occupancy increases to >85% we can ask AT to revisit the RPZ for your street.

      • Alison Munro says

        Ditto Selbourne Street. I assume those who voted against the zone in Selbourne live further down than we do. Parking in the top couple of blocks is already tight and now we face displacement parking and only half the current availability. As our 110yo villa has no off-street, I’m not relishing the prospect.

  4. DArryl ojala says

    Thank god at last we have action. At and Akl City have dragged the chain on this issue for years, therefore compounding traffic congestion on our roads. Commuters are racing into Crummer Rd from 0700 grabbing places, parking over driveways. Now we will have our streets back and encourage the use of public transport.

  5. I imagine the revenue gained from ticketing will be quite substantial.

    Why couldn’t this not be used to pay for the administration costs for the scheme in stead of charging residents $70 per permit.

    • AT say there is a cost involved with investigating, implementing and enforcing a residential parking zone. Somebody has to cover that cost. Best practice states that those who benefit from the zone should pay for it, otherwise it has to come out of rates which means other Aucklanders will be subsidising the zone – which primarily benefits the residents and businesses within the zone. I know it’s annoying having to pay but it is fair, and it’s part of living so close to the city. I’d rather pay $70 and live here than move out to the ‘burbs!