The Renfrewshire Council (Disabled Persons Parking Places) (Various Locations Renfrewshire)
Renfrewshire Council · 27 August 2025
Back to Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board — 27 August 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
To: Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board On: 27 August 2025 Report by: Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure Heading: The Renfrewshire Council (Disabled Persons’ Parking Places) (Various Locations, Renfrewshire) Number Eight Order 202*, Sustained Objections 1. Summary 1.1. In terms of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, the making of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is delegated to the Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure after consultation with the Convener of the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board and the local ward Members. 1.2. This proposal allows Renfrewshire Council to fulfil its duties under the Disabled Persons’ Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009 by making disabled drivers’ parking bays enforceable. 1.3. On the 25th September 2024 this TRO relating to new Disabled Persons’ Parking Places was advertised, three objections were received and not withdrawn. The objections are set out in full at Appendix A to C of this report. 1.4. Sustained objections were received in relation to the following items. Objection 1 Hollows Crescent Paisley Objection 2 Baron Street Renfrew Objection 3 Milliken Drive Kilbarchan
Page 2
1.5. Officers recommend: • For objection 1; removal of the disabled bay • For objection 2; implementation of the disabled bay as proposed • For objection 3; implementation of the disabled bay after agreeing its adjusted location. 1.6. In accordance with the ‘Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedures) (Scotland) Regulations 1999’ and the Council’s procedures, the Board may now decide how to proceed; to either make the order, make the order in part or not make order. The type of proposed restriction does not automatically require the appointment of an independent Reporter to decide on the objections. The Board is therefore free to choose either to decide on the objections itself or to appoint a Reporter to do so. _________________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board: 2.1. Considers and decides on the objections made and not withdrawn, in relation to the Renfrewshire Council (Disabled Persons’ Parking Places) (Various Locations, Renfrewshire) Number Eight Order 202* at the meeting of this Policy Board rather than appointing an independent Reporter. 2.2. Subject to recommendation 2.1 and the objections not being upheld, approves the implementation of the Traffic Regulation Order as recommended in section 1.5 and authorises the Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure in conjunction with the Convener of the Infrastructure, Land & Environment Policy Board to make the Traffic Regulation Order. 3. Background 3.1. This Order is considered necessary for the Renfrewshire Council to fulfil its duties under the Disabled Persons’ Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009 by making disabled driver’s parking bays enforceable. 3.2. Disabled bays are marked as advisory, as a courtesy to the applicant, while the traffic order consultation process is undergone.
Page 3
3.3. The proposal went through a single stage public consultation process for a 28- day period ending 23rd October 2024. Proposals were also issued to emergency services, public utilities, local road user groups, local community groups and all local Members. The TRO was advertised in the Paisley and Renfrewshire Gazette on Wednesday 25th September 2024 and notices displayed on-street in the vicinity of the proposals at that time. 3.4. The consultation details were published on Renfrewshire.gov.uk and via the TellmeScotland website, where information on the proposed items within the order was provided in text format and in map form via Renfrewshire Council’s Geographic Information System (GIS) portal. 3.5. As a result of the consultation, three separate objections were received. The objections remain in place as they have not been withdrawn. The objections concern these locations: • Hollows Crescent, Paisley. • Baron Street, Renfrew. • Milliken Drive, Kilbarchan. The objections are set out in full at Appendix A to C of this report. 3.6. Objector 1 maintains the applicant does not have a car registered at their address. Our investigations prove this to be correct and the disabled bay will be removed. Legislation requires that a vehicle must be registered at the property. It is not intended to be used to provide a drop off / pick up space, particularly in locations where parking is already an issue. 3.7. Objector 2 objects to the installation of the necessary sign and sign pole. The bay cannot be enforced without the sign. 3.8. Objector 3 maintains the disabled bay road markings obstruct their driveway. An offer to adjust the bay has been accepted by the objector. 3.9. Officers recommend: • For objection 1; removal of the disabled bay • For objection 2; implementation of the disabled bay as proposed • For objection 3; implementation of the disabled bay after agreeing its adjusted location.
Page 4
3.10. The disabled bay road markings are lined shortly after being requested as a courtesy to the applicant. This advisory disabled bay is available for use while the Order undergoes its consultation procedure. Should the Policy Board approve the recommendations, officers will arrange for the works required. In the case of the agreed disabled bays, this will include the installation of the appropriate sign to accompany the existing road lining. 4. Consideration of the objections 4.1. The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 state that before making the order, the Council must consider all objections made and not withdrawn. In this respect, the terms of the Regulations state that the Council may consider the objections itself in fulfilment of its statutory obligation to give due consideration to all objections made and not withdrawn. Alternatively, the Council may choose to appoint an Independent Reporter to hold a public hearing to consider the objections. 4.2. If the Board decides to exercise its discretion and not appoint an Independent Reporter, then it must consider the objections and either uphold them, in which case the proposal shall be dropped, or consider the objections and then approve the implementation of the restrictions as advertised, as a whole or in part, and authorise the Director of Environment & Infrastructure to make the Order. 4.3. If the Board decides to choose the public hearing, it should be recognised that the Reporter’s deliberations could take approximately 15 weeks. Thereafter, the Board has an obligation to consider the report and recommendation made by the Reporter and to decide on whether to proceed with the order. 4.4. The cost of arranging an independent Reporter to hold a public hearing is estimated at £5000. Therefore, it is recommended that the Board considers the objections itself. ___________________________________________________________________ Implications of the Report 1. Financial - the nominal capital and revenue costs of implementing and maintaining the proposed disabled bay lines can be accommodated within existing budgets. 2. HR & Organisational Development – None 3. Community/Council Planning - None 4. Legal – Statutory process is set out within the board report. None.
Page 5
5. Property/Assets – N/A 6. Information Technology – N/A 7. Equality & Human Rights - (a) The Recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report. If required following implementation, the actual impact of the recommendations and the mitigating actions will be reviewed and monitored, and the results of the assessment will be published on the Council’s website. 8. Health & Safety – None 9. Procurement – N/A 10. Risk - None 11. Privacy Impact – N/A 12. Climate Risk – None 13. Children’s Rights – None. 14. CoSLA Policy Position – N/A List of Background Papers - None Author: Laura Anderson, Traffic Regulation Order Officer laura.anderson@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 6
No embedded text on this page.
Page 7
Appendix A Objection 1 Objector 1 indicates that the disabled bay shown above is used by a resident who does not have a car registered at the address. The bay is used for visitors and pick up, drop off facilities. The objector states that there are already parking issues on the street and the bay being made enforceable would only add to these issues. Response to Objection 1 Objector 1 sustains this objection. Our investigation has shown that the applicant no longer meets the criteria as they do not have a car registered at the address. The bay is no longer valid, and we will take the steps to remove this bay on street.
Page 8
No embedded text on this page.
Page 9
Appendix B Objection 2 Objector 2 is unhappy about the installation of poles and signage in connection with the disabled bays lined on street. The objector believes that the lining alone is enough to know it is a disabled parking bay, for use of a blue badge holder. They are unhappy at the costs relating to this work and the need for holes to be dug in a footway they already believe to be below standard. Response to Objection 2 An email response was sent to the objector to advise that Renfrewshire Council is fulfilling its obligations set out in the Disabled Persons’ Parking Places (Scotland) Act 2009 to make disabled bays enforceable and stop the misuse of the bay. This is only possible when lining and signing are both in place. Officers also assured the objector that the council would avoid putting poles in when it can use existing street furniture or traffic poles. Also, if bays are positioned together the council would look at erecting one pole and plate to serve both bays. Objector 2 has not been back in touch to advise if they are happy with this response.
Page 10
No embedded text on this page.
Page 11
Appendix C Objection 3 Objector 3 is unhappy with the positioning of the disabled parking bay. They feel that the disabled parking bay is causing obstruction to their driveway, as the space is not positioned with enough room for a vehicle to safely park in front of the bay and also encourages pavement parking. They have asked that the bay be moved a couple of metres towards the path as it is the upstairs neighbour who uses the bay and this will maximise parking and also discourage parking that blocks Objector 3’s driveway. Response to Objection 3 An email response was sent to Objector 3 to advise that the council would look at relocating the disabled parking bay (the red bay above shows the new location, the grey shows where the bay is marked at present) to maximise the use of the available road space. Objector 3 has agreed to this course of action however wishes their objection to stand until this has been completed on street.