The Renfrewshire Council (Prohibition and restriction of waiting loading and parking places)
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.
Page 1
___________________________________________________________________ To: Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board On: 27 August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: The Renfrewshire Council (Prohibition and restriction of waiting, loading and parking places) (Consolidation & Amendment Order 1005 & 1005a) Order 202*, Ref TRO 1005 & 1005a ___________________________________________________________________ 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 The proposed TRO allows Renfrewshire Council to complete its proposals to protect the public roads around the Council area, some of which suffer from inconsiderate, congestive and in some cases dangerous parking. 1.3 The proposed Amendment Order is the fourth waiting, loading and parking places consolidation and amendment digital order; the previous order being approved by this Board on 19 March 2025. This order covers requests for revisions and additions received since the cut-off date of that digital order consultation. 1.4 TROs 1005 and 1005a were advertised for comment by 12th June 2025 and 9th July 2025 respectively. Each propose to impose restrictions on the roads listed in Section 3.3.
Page 2
1.5 Of the 29 separate items within the TRO 1005 and 1005a proposals, there were no objections in relation to 27 items. 1.6 Sustained objections were received in relation to the following items: 477 George St Paisley 1 objection 456 Laymoor Ave / Kenley Rd Renfrew 9 objections Four representations in support were received, two in general and two specifically for item 456, Laymoor Avenue/ Kenley Road. 1.7 Officers recommend: o George St implementation of the restrictions as proposed because the objector mistakenly thought parking restrictions were being made longer, whereas they were being made shorter. o Laymoor Ave/ Kenley Rd a compromise to limit the restriction to the junctions, bend and vehicle access points only. This provides improved access yet retains parking space for the residents. 1.8 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 in full, make the order in part, or not make the order. The Board is free to choose to decide on the objections itself, or, to appoint a Reporter to do so. 1.9 A plan of the proposed TRO 1005 and 1005a can be found at these links: https://ren.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/sidebar/index.html?appid=7c1f0325b4b34251aef cd7527a586dfa https://ren.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/sidebar/index.html?appid=a8fb964296f04fed91e f6cae74209751 ___________________________________________________________________
Page 3
2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board: 2.1 Considers and decides on the objections made and not upheld in relation to The Renfrewshire Council (Prohibition and restriction of waiting, loading and parking places) (Consolidation & Amendment Order 1005 & 1005a) Order 202* at the meeting of this Policy Board rather than appointing an independent reporter. 2.2 Subject to recommendation 2.2 and the objections not being upheld, approves the implementation of The Renfrewshire Council (Prohibition and restriction of waiting, loading and parking places) (Consolidation & Amendment Order 1005 & 1005a) Order 202*, which includes the roads as listed at Section 3.3, and authorises the Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure in conjunction with the Convener of Infrastructure, Land & Environment Policy Board to make the Traffic Regulation Order. ___________________________________________________________________ 3. Background 3.1 The TRO 1005 and 1005a proposals went through a single stage consultation process for a 28-day period ending 12 June 2025 and 9 July 2025 respectively. 3.2 The purpose of the consultation was to satisfy the statutory consultation process which allows residents of Renfrewshire to provide comment on the proposals at each specific location. 3.3 The locations are shown in the table below and on the maps at: https://ren.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/sidebar/index.html?appid=7c1f0325b4b34251aef cd7527a586dfa https://ren.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/sidebar/index.html?appid=a8fb964296f04fed91e f6cae74209751 Item Road Settlement Restriction TRO 1005 352 Abbotsinch Road/ Netherton Ave/ Arran Ave/ Barnwell St/ Wright St Paisley/ Renfrew No waiting and no loading at any time/ No waiting at any time
Page 4
Item Road Settlement Restriction 364 Argyll Ave/ Meadowside St Renfrew No waiting and no loading at any time 412 Bridge St/ High St/ Seedhill Rd Paisley Coach parking only/ drop-off/ pick-up 418 Glasgow Rd Paisley No waiting at any time 470 Kilmacolm Rd/ Houston Rd Bridge of Weir No waiting at anytime 436 Inchinnan Rd Paisley No waiting and no loading at any time/ limited waiting 471 Main St Howwood Limited waiting 472 Old Sneddon St Paisley No waiting Mon - Sat 8am - 6.15pm 473 Old Sneddon St Paisley No waiting at any time/ No waiting Mon - Sat 8am - 6.15pm 474 Renfrew Rd Paisley No stopping except local buses 475 Gauze St Paisley No waiting at any time 476 Candren Rd/ Bridge St Linwood No waiting and no loading at any time 477 George St Paisley No waiting at any time/ Limited waiting/ No waiting Mon - Sat 8am - 6.15pm 478 Laighcartside St/Russell St Johnstone No waiting Mon - Sat 8am - 6pm 479 Neilston Rd Paisley No waiting Mon - Fri 8 - 9.15am, 4 - 6pm / No loading Mon - Fri 8 - 9.15am, 4 - 6pm 480 Fulbar St Renfrew No waiting at any time 481 Queen St Renfrew BUS STAND No stopping Mon - Fri 8.30 - 9.15am, 2.30 - 4pm except buses 482 Hallhill Rd Johnstone School Keep Clear/ No stopping Mon - Fri 8am - 5pm on entrance markings 483 Broadloan/ Cambridge Rd/ Muirpark Ave Renfrew No waiting Mon - Sat 8am - 6pm/ No waiting and no loading at any time 484 Glasgow Rd/ Gartmore Rd Paisley No waiting at any time 485 Quarrelton Rd/ Kilbarchan Rd/Hagg Rd Johnstone No waiting at any time / No loading Mon - Fri 8 - 9.15am, 4 - 6pm 486 Alice St/ Brodie Park Gdns Paisley No waiting at any time 489 Abbey View Paisley No waiting at any time 490 High St Johnstone Limited waiting Mon - Sat 8am - 6pm 30 mins No return within 1 hour 491 High St Renfrew Disabled badge holders only 492 Poplar Ave Bishopton No waiting at any time
Page 5
Item Road Settlement Restriction 493 Dimity St/ Walkinshaw St Johnstone Pedestrian crossing TRO 1005a 364(i) Renfrew Bridge Renfrew No stopping at any time 456 Laymoor Ave/ Kenley Rd Renfrew No waiting at any time 3.4 The consultation details were published in the local press, 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. In addition, notices were placed on lampposts at each of the specific locations where the orders were proposed. 3.5 A total of 15 pertinent responses were received. 10 objections, 1 acknowledgement, 2 in support of item 456 and 2 in general support. Details of the objections and responses in support are given in Appendix 1. 3.6 Sustained objections were received in relation to the following items: Item Road Settlement Restriction Objections 477 George St Paisley No waiting at any time/ Limited waiting/ No waiting Mon - Sat 8am - 6.15pm 1 456 Laymoor Ave/ Kenley Rd Renfrew No waiting at any time 9 3.7 Item 477 George St received 1 objection concerning the proposed no waiting at any time restriction at the corner of Maxwellton St/George St on the mistaken understanding that the proposal was increasing the restriction here. The proposal removes a length of restriction and makes it easier to deliver goods and for customers to park on George St. 3.8 Officers recommend implementation of the restrictions as proposed. 3.9 Item 456 received 9 objections to the proposed no waiting at any time restrictions designed to improve driver and pedestrian safety and visibility at bends and junctions on the internal roads of Ferry village. These roads are particularly busy being close to the major access to the area from the Kings Inch Road roundabout.
Page 6
3.10 The objections are largely concerned with the perceived lack of parking in Ferry Village and the removal of on-street spaces that the restrictions would cause. The roads authority’s duty is to ensure a safe road network for vehicle movement. Parking can be allowed but not at the expense of safety or access. Appropriate parking provision is built into housing development at planning stage and is decided by national guidance standards. The roads authority is not empowered to provide more private parking spaces after a development is built. 3.11 Other objections point to works vehicles associated with the development of Laymoor Circle and visitors to XSite Braehead being responsible for the inconsiderate parking. Regardless of who is responsible, the road authority’s obligation is to keep roads clear and safe. 3.12 It has been suggested that the restrictions impact unfairly on the elderly, disabled and families with young children who need to be able to park close to home. The council has a disabled person’s parking bay scheme, for those without private parking, which can place a bay as close as possible to home for those with a Blue Badge. 3.13 The questions were asked, how would residents get deliveries and have alternatives such as traffic lights and one-way systems been considered. Delivery vans will be able to stop on the restrictions for as long as the delivery takes (but long-term parking is not allowed). Traffic signals and one-way streets are not able to keep the road clear and safe. 3.14 Residents consider the proposal unfair, but they are reminded that the proposal came about as a result of resident complaints about the congestive parking being experienced on these roads. 3.15 Another criticism is that no improvement has been made to public transport access or active travel infrastructure (e.g. cycle lanes or walking routes) in the affected area. Reducing street parking without viable alternatives contradicts the goal of encouraging more sustainable forms of transport. The Ferry Village development sits alongside Kings Inch Road with its purpose-built cycle paths, now connecting to the Paisley to Renfrew route and the route across the Renfrew Bridge. Ferry Village’s internal roads are designed with traffic calming to be low speed environments where it is safe to cycle. Buses 26B and 77 have stops on Kings Inch Road and the nearby Braehead Shopping Centre has its own bus station.
Page 7
3.16 Residents suggest that grass verges should be converted to parking or spaces in nearby public car parks be allocated to residents. The roads authority is not empowered to provide private parking spaces and the nearby car park available to the public is owned by XSite Braehead. The council cannot allocate spaces in this car park. 3.17 Responses also complain about the displacement of parking and the long walk to home which would result. It should be remembered that the proposed yellow lines take up a small proportion of the total road length in Ferry Village, in front of houses which already have a private car park to the rear. 3.18 Others support some yellow lines but only at bends and junctions or where accident data would suggest. The yellow lines are meant to prevent accidents and were not justified on accident data but rather the risk that hazardous parking presents. 3.19 Officers recommend implementation of the restrictions at junctions and bends but removing those from the northwest side of Laymoor Avenue between house numbers 10 and 28 and the northeast side of Kenley Road opposite numbers 170 to 174, to allow roadside parking. 3.20 When objectors were asked if this change was sufficient to remove their objections, one withdrew their objection. Three continue to sustain their objections while three respondents who were in support, now object to the relaxation. Officers continue to recommend the relaxation.
Page 8
4. Consideration of Objections 4.1 The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 state that before making the order, the Council (in the form of its Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board) must consider all objections made and not withdrawn. In this respect, the terms of the Regulations state that the Board may consider the objections itself in fulfilment of its statutory obligation. Alternatively, the Board may choose to appoint an independent Reporter to hold a 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, Housing & 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. 5. Implementation 5.1 Should the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board approve the implementation of The Renfrewshire Council (Prohibition and restriction of waiting, loading and parking places) (Consolidation & Amendment Order 1005 & 1005a) Order 202*, officers will arrange for the required lining and signing works to make the Order enforceable. ___________________________________________________________________
Page 9
Implications of the Report 1. Financial - the nominal capital and revenue costs of implementing and maintaining the proposed lines and signs can be accommodated within existing budgets. 2. HR & Organisational Development - The restrictions marginally increase the enforcement duties of the Council’s Parking Attendants which will be accommodated within current staffing levels. 3. Community/Council Planning – Our Renfrewshire is thriving / Reshaping our place, our economy and our future – Low speed residential environments improve living conditions for Renfrewshire’s residents. 4. Legal - The relevant legislation is the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1999. 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. Some negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified and not all can be fully mitigated. Despite the potential for adverse impact it is believed that it is reasonable and proportionate to take the action recommended in the report. A full copy of the Equality Impact Assessment undertaken is attached. 8. Health & Safety - The primary reason for the order is to clear congestive parking on roads to maintain general safe access. 9. Procurement –N/A. 10. Risk - no risks have been identified in relation to the proposal. 11. Privacy Impact – N/A 12. Climate Risk – no risks have been identified in relation to the proposal.
Page 10
13. Children’s Rights – This report demonstrates compliance with Article 6 (life, survival and development) and Article 24 (health, water, food, environment) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child enter details or not applicable. 14. Cosla Policy Position – N/A. _______________________________________________________ Author: Mark Higginbotham, Transportation and Active Travel Manager Email: mark.higginbotham@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 11
Appendix 1 Responses to the proposals. Information which could personally identify the respondents has been removed. Responses objecting to the proposals Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review 477 George St Paisley I write to formally confirm our objection to the notification posted outside our premises at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Paisley (Ref TRO 1005) We have been trading at the location for over ten years as a xxxxxxxxxxxx. We have limited parking outside which allows us to load and unload for xxxxxxxxxxxx purposes with a further wait available while xxxxxxxxx take place at the xxxxxxxxx room. We also receive deliveries of flowers and other items for xxxxxxx at this location. The limited parking also allows xxxxxxxx clients, some of which have mobility issues, to access our premises without being parked further away than necessary. If the council intends to a reduced the wait time or impose a no parking restriction, this will have a big effect our clients and our business. We would have no option for loading and unloading our xxxxxxxx. No option for clients to park with ease when visiting xxxxxxxx, attending a xxxxxxx or arranging a xxxxxxx. Where would it be proposed for this to take place? Currently there is ample space for turning into George Street from the junction of Maxwellton Street. This junction also has a dedicated left turn lane heading from George Street into Maxwellton St (heading to RAH) meaning only one lane continues straight on along George Street. I see no real issue with the current set up of the junction. Although it’s a busy junction, it moves well, and I don’t see how parking restrictions would provide a positive benefit which outweighs the harm it will do to residents and businesses. There is also a church where mass is celebrated daily and a nursery which relies on the limited parking already available. Where would children be collected from? Where would the elderly park when attending morning mass? The proposal shortens the length of no waiting restriction to allow loading/unloading and parking while keeping the corner of the junction clear of parked cars. Recommend Implement the restrictions as proposed
Page 12
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review I hope you can fully understand our concerns and take these into account when making these decisions. Any feedback would be most welcomed before the deadline on Thursday 12th June 2025. 456 Laymoor Avenue/ Kenley Rd Renfrew I would like to make a representation regarding the proposed parking restrictions on Laymoor Avenue renfrew. I have lived here for over 10 years in the original BEST houses and watched as the estate has being continually developed around us with more houses and less and less street parking. It has been purpose built with the new home owners in mind who have drive ways and visitor parking bays however little to no parking areas for original residents in the old style houses. The existing car park is not adequately sized to allow for the amount of houses/cars per household and/or any visitors. Following this, at the time of the proposed development on waste ground at corner of Laymoor Ave and Kenley road, Ashberry Grove. I expressed my concerns that the roadway was not fit for purpose with a sharp bend and the previous passing place now acting as the only access road to the new estate. However this was not taken into consideration and went ahead as planned with no consideration to initial concerns raised. On commencement of the building site there has been parking issues/restricted views of the road which have been a hazard caused by work vans/builders for the new site parking on blind corners and a danger to road users and pedestrians and has NOT been caused by residents who use Laymoor Ave to park their private vehicles with consideration. The proposed parking restrictions will leave inadequate parking spaces for the original residents with no alternative places to park with no street parking in the nearby vicinity. I would be interested to know where you suggest residents park our cars. The proposed parking restrictions will affect the elderly, disabled and families with young children with nowhere safe to park within close proximity and nowhere in walking distance. It will also cause “parking wars” causing unnecessary stress to residents who will get parked near their home in a first come first served basis. There has been no alternative suggestions or options made available such as traffic lights, one way systems or other options that could reduce the amount of vehicular traffic/ parking issues. The planning authority gives planning consent based on parking provision meeting appropriate standards set out in national guidelines. The bend is designed specifically to slow speeds. The ‘passing place’ was the beginning of the access road built in advance to fix the road layout. Regardless of who is parking here, measures are required to keep the road clear and safe. The duty of the Roads Authority is to provide clear, safe roads for travel. Parking on the road is allowed only where it is safe and does not congest the road. The choice of where to park a car is down to the individual. The council provides disabled parking bays close to home to Blue Badge holders. One-way roads and traffic signals will not keep the road clear and safe from inconsiderate parking.
Page 13
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review With “no waiting restrictions” in place how will home owners receive food deliveries, parcels or delivering of any kind. This can impact on medication, food, essential items, unable to drop items off without risk of unnecessary fines. I feel that as an original resident here that we are being penalised and not fairly treated due to the new developments taking presidency and not taking our needs into consideration. As the minority we have been left with no representation against large house building companies. For the past 8 years this estate has been under constant construction and maintenance including roads/ streets/ sewage repairs paid by us via factors. The first interactions/ works carried out by the council is to impose parking restrictions? .This feels very unfair when they have taken no ownership of our estate in any shape or form until now. I also feel that this is unfair as other housing estates with parking issues are not imposed with parking restrictions such as Kirklandneuk or other areas of renfrew with similar overcrowding issues. I would also like to add that there has only been one sign discreetly put up on a lamppost that is dated March 2023. The sign is barely visible and unclear what part of Laymoor Avenue if not all will be restricted parking, could you please provide some clarity on this? The No waiting at any time restriction still allows deliveries. No comment No comment The council can only adopt roads when requested by the developer and then only when they are built to an acceptable standard and complete. The restrictions have been proposed following requests from residents. Following national guidance, a number of Notices were displayed in the area with details on them of how to obtain more details on the proposal. Recommend Implement the restrictions at junctions and bends but remove those from the northwest side of Laymoor Avenue between house numbers 10 and 28 and the northeast side of Kenley Road opposite numbers 170 to 174, to allow roadside parking. 456 Laymoor Avenue/ Kenley Rd Renfrew I am writing to object to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order (TRO/1005 Item 456), which seeks to prohibit and restrict waiting, loading, and parking on Laymoor Avenue and Kenlay Road in Renfrew.
Page 14
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review While I understand the Council’s intention to enhance road safety and manage traffic flow, this proposal fails to address the underlying cause of congestion — namely, the significant increase in traffic and parking demand resulting from recent housing developments in the area. The existing infrastructure was never designed to cope with the level of density and vehicle usage now present. Key Grounds for Objection: 1. Impact of Recent Housing Developments The root cause of increased traffic and parking pressure is the expansion of nearby residential developments. Planning permission appears to have been granted without adequate consideration of the impact on surrounding infrastructure. This contradicts the principles of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), which emphasise the importance of aligning infrastructure capacity with development. 2. Inadequate Infrastructure Upgrades Despite a rise in housing density, there have been no meaningful improvements to local infrastructure — including road widening, enhanced parking provision, or traffic management measures. Simply imposing new parking restrictions, without such upgrades, penalises residents rather than resolving the problem. 3. Displacement of Vehicles & Resident Impact If implemented, the TRO will displace parked vehicles to nearby streets, creating new problems and increasing parking stress for long-term residents. This undermines the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, which supports inclusive and sustainable transport solutions and discourages measures that disproportionately affect those with limited alternatives. 4. Lack of Viable Alternatives No improvement has been made to public transport access or active travel infrastructure (e.g., cycle lanes or walking routes) in the affected area. Reducing street parking without viable alternatives contradicts the goal of encouraging more sustainable forms of transport. The planning authority gives planning consent based on parking provision meeting appropriate standards set out in national guidelines The internal roads in the area are designed to adequately meet the demands for travel. Unrestricted parking is only allowed where it is safe and does not congest the road The choice of where to park a car is down to the individual The Ferry Village development sits alongside Kings Inch Road with its purpose-built cycle paths, now connecting to the Paisley to Renfrew route and the route across the Renfrew Bridge. Ferry Village’s internal roads are designed with traffic calming to be
Page 15
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review 5. Limited Public Consultation & Transparency It appears that affected residents were not meaningfully consulted before this order was proposed. According to good practice as advised by Transport Scotland, communities should be actively involved in shaping local transport and parking decisions — especially when they impact day-to-day living. As a long-term resident of over 10 years in one of the original BEST houses, I have witnessed the estate being gradually expanded with increasing numbers of houses and a noticeable reduction in available street parking. New homes have been built with private driveways and visitor bays, but there has been little to no provision for residents of the original homes, which do not have such facilities. The existing shared car park is insufficient for the number of vehicles per household and does not accommodate guests. When the development at the corner of Laymoor Avenue and Kenlay Road (Ashberry Grove) was proposed, residents raised concerns about the unsuitability of the access road — particularly the sharp bend and the loss of the original passing place. Despite these objections, development proceeded without adjustments or mitigation measures. During construction, the main parking issues and road safety hazards have been caused by builders and work vans obstructing blind corners — not by residents, who generally park their vehicles considerately. I can provide evidence of how Ashberry Grove builders have parked in an inconsiderate manner. It is therefore unfair to impose blanket restrictions that will primarily affect those who live here and have limited parking options. For the past eight years, our estate has been under almost constant construction, with roads, utilities, and street maintenance being managed and paid for through factoring charges. It is low speed environments where it is safe to cycle. Buses 26B and 77 have stops on Kings Inch Road and the nearby Braehead Shopping Centre has its own bus station The restrictions have been proposed following requests from residents. Following national guidance, a number of Notices were displayed in the area with details on them of how to obtain more details on the proposal The planning authority gives planning consent based on parking provision meeting appropriate standards set out in national guidelines The bend is designed specifically to slow speeds. The ‘passing place’ was the beginning of the access road built in advance to fix the road layout. Regardless of who is parking here, measures are required to keep the road clear and safe. The council can only adopt roads when requested by the developer and then only when they are built to an acceptable standard and complete.
Page 16
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review frustrating and unjust that existing residents now face further restrictions as a result of inadequate forward planning. Suggested Alternatives: • Conduct a full infrastructure impact assessment of recent housing developments. • Redesign local streets or provide designated parking bays to safely increase capacity. • Consider traffic management options such as traffic lights or one-way systems to ease congestion and improve safety. I would also like to add that there has only been one sign discreetly put up on a lamppost that is dated March 2023. The sign is barely visible and unclear what part of Laymoor Avenue if not all will be restricted parking, could you please provide some clarity on this? I respectfully urge the Council to reconsider this proposal and engage with local residents to develop a fairer and more sustainable solution. The burden of planning oversights should not be placed on the shoulders of long-standing residents. Thank you for your time and consideration. No comment The roads authority is not empowered to provide private parking spaces One-way roads and traffic signals will not keep the road clear and safe from inconsiderate parking Following national guidance, a number of Notices were displayed in the area with details on them of how to obtain more details on the proposal The restrictions have been proposed following requests from residents. Recommend Implement the restrictions at junctions and bends but remove those from the northwest side of Laymoor Avenue between house numbers 10 and 28 and the northeast side of Kenley Road opposite numbers 170 to 174, to allow roadside parking. 456 Laymoor Ave/ Kenley Rd Renfrew Subject: Formal Objection to Proposed Parking Restrictions on Laymoor Avenue, Renfrew Dear Gordon, I am writing as a resident of Laymoor Avenue in Renfrew to formally object to the proposed parking restrictions being considered for implementation on our street.
Page 17
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review The proposal to ban parking outside residents’ homes would cause considerable disruption, as there are currently no viable alternative options available nearby. The only car park within a reasonable distance is already at full capacity, and many households on Laymoor Avenue, own more than one vehicle and/or work vehicles. Furthermore, most houses on this street do not have driveways or private parking, making on-street parking essential for daily living. I fully understand and support the council’s aim of improving road safety and preventing accidents — this is a shared concern for all of us. However, the complete removal of parking without providing alternative arrangements will disproportionately affect residents and lead to increased frustration, congestion in the area, and possible safety concerns elsewhere. As a constructive alternative, I would ask the council to consider the following options: • Converting existing grass verge areas on Laymoor Avenue into designated parking bays, helping to accommodate parking needs on Laymoor Avenue without impacting on road safety. • Allocating reserved spaces in nearby public car parks specifically for residents affected by the restrictions, to ensure fair access to parking without forcing residents to park long distances from their homes. These solutions would go a long way in balancing road safety improvements with the practical needs of residents. I urge the council to work in consultation with the local community to find a fair and sustainable resolution before moving forward with these changes. Thank you for your time and consideration of this objection. I would welcome further engagement on this matter and trust that residents’ concerns will be meaningfully taken into account. The choice of where to park a car is down to the individual The duty of the Roads Authority is to provide clear, safe roads for travel. Parking on the road is allowed only where it is safe and does not congest the road. The roads authority is not empowered to provide private parking spaces The nearby car park available to the public is owned by XSite Braehead. The council cannot allocate spaces in this car park. The restrictions have been proposed following requests from residents Recommend Implement the restrictions at junctions and bends but remove those from the northwest side of Laymoor Avenue between house numbers 10 and 28 and the northeast side of Kenley Road opposite numbers 170 to 174, to allow roadside parking. 456 Laymoor Ave/ Kenley Rd Renfrew I am writing to formally object to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order TRO/1005 (A), specifically Items (456) and (364(i)), which introduce "No Waiting at Any Time" and "No Stopping at Any Time" restrictions in the Laymoor Avenue, Kenley Road, and Renfrew Bridge areas.
Page 18
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review As a resident of 22 Laymoor Avenue, I am extremely concerned that these restrictions will leave me—and others living nearby—with nowhere to park near our homes. Parking is already very limited, and removing further availability will significantly impact daily life for residents who rely on it. I would also like to highlight that much of the current dangerous or inappropriate parking in the area has been caused by construction workers and contractors involved in the nearby Ashberry development. This should not be used as justification for permanent restrictions that will disproportionately affect residents once construction is complete. While I understand the need to ensure road safety and access, I urge the Council to reconsider these proposals or at the very least consult further with local residents to explore alternative solutions that do not negatively impact our ability to park at our homes. Please accept this as my formal objection, and I ask that it be recorded as part of the consultation process. The choice of where to park a car is down to the individual Regardless of who is parking here, measures are required to keep the road clear and safe The restrictions have been proposed following requests from residents Recommend Implement the restrictions at junctions and bends but remove those from the northwest side of Laymoor Avenue between house numbers 10 and 28 and the northeast side of Kenley Road opposite numbers 170 to 174, to allow roadside parking. 456 Laymoor Ave/ Kenley Rd Renfrew Just wanting to voice my objection to the extent of the proposed TRO/1005 Item 456. Whilst i do agree that there are issues with parking on Kenley Road, I would argue that it would be better suited addressing the number of camper vans / works vans that are parked on the street, and quite often parked adjacent to the junctions onto Kenley Road, be it other roads or access into the parking associated with the flats. I have a number of queries relating to the extent of the proposals as follows: • Can you please confirm the basis for extending the proposals so far up Kenley Road. If it is to address an issue at the junction between Kenley Road and Laymoor Avenue, the extent seems excessive. Regardless of who is parking here, measures are required to keep the road clear and safe Site inspection has defined the extents
Page 19
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review • What is the basis for the consideration of inappropriate parking? • Can you provide details of accident statistics to demonstrate that the danger on Kenley Road, as suggested by the notice, is higher than surrounding streets where anti social parking can be observed but is not being addressed. • What is the reasoning behind stopping the proposals where indicated on the Tellme website and not continuing all the way up Kenley Road, particularly when parking is still evident. • Why are the gaps between the Ashberry houses driveways not being double yellowed? If there is a concern with parking on Laymoor avenue, not applying these would just shift the cars to the other side of the road and the problem will remain. • Does this proposal include the removal of the double yellows on the incoming side (coming from Braehead) on Laymoor Avenue up to the junction with Kenley Road? Some of the double yellow lines have been covered by a ramp to access house number 1. There are no visitor parking spaces available for my house (178 Kenley Road, at the junction with Laymoor Avenue) and should the proposal go ahead it would mean that any visitors, including elderly parents, would have a significant distance to walk when they visit, which is quite often, on the assumption that they can get a space. The restrictions have been proposed following requests from residents The restrictions are meant to prevent accidents and were not justified on accident data but rather the risk that hazardous parking presents The restrictions deal with unsafe on- road parking not all on-road parking The council tries to propose the least restrictions necessary. If this becomes an issue, more restrictions can be proposed. No, these yellow lines remain. The choice of where to park a car is down to the individual Recommend Implement the restrictions at junctions and bends but remove those from the northwest side of Laymoor Avenue between house numbers 10 and 28 and the northeast side of Kenley Road opposite numbers 170 to 174, to allow roadside parking. 456 Laymoor Ave/ Kenley Rd Renfrew I refer to the Renfrewshire Council (Prohibition and restriction of waiting, loading and parking places) (Consolidation & Amendment) Order 202* Ref TRO 1005A, specifically Item 456 covering Laymoor Avenue, Kenley Road and environs, Renfrew, published on 11 June 2025.
Page 20
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Before setting out my objections to the proposed order, I must comment that I found it utterly bizarre that it was bundled together with item 364(i) and published in a manner inconsistent with other orders, not explicitly setting out the affected streets in the title, almost as if to not draw attention to it and to avoid scrutiny. Item 364(i) is in respect of Renfrew Bridge, which has absolutely no connection whatsoever to Laymoor Ave, Kenley Road, etc, so the logic for bundling these orders eludes me. My objections in respect of item 456 are thus: 1. Renfrewshire Council have not set out in any manner a clear explanation, with conclusive evidence, of what the actual traffic issues are around Laymoor Avenue, Kenley Road, etc, that have led to the Order. It appears to be based upon something speculative and hypothetical. 2. 3. Culpability for any alleged issues with traffic lies jointly with Renfrewshire Council and Akela/Ashberry. My previous objection to the development in and off Laymoor Avenue on the basis of likely increased traffic was ignored. The root cause is contractors/subcontractors parking in front of residents’ homes and on corners without any consideration, merely for their own convenience (photos enclosed as evidence clearly showing commercial vehicles along with non- residents' cars). By allowing the original planning permission, as well as a subsequent amendment increasing the number of properties to be built, Renfrewshire Council are complicit in the cause of any alleged traffic issues. I tried speaking with Akela/Ashberry sites representatives about this previously, but they arrogantly responded that they could park anywhere, even although there was ample space on the building site. That same arrogance was prevalent when I complained about damage their building works had caused to my property, something they flatly denied. I copied in Renfrewshire Council to that e-mail on 10 May 2023, acknowledged by the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Department on 22 May saying it had been passed to Planning to reply directly to me, but I have never heard back from Planning. 4. 5. There was never a problem for, or by, residents before the Akela/Ashberry development works. The alleged issue will resolve itself once the nuisance Akela/Ashberry contractors/subcontractors remove themselves from the development site. There is also an The restrictions have been proposed following requests from residents and follow up site visits Regardless of who is parking here, measures are required to keep the road clear and safe The planning authority gives planning consent based on parking provision meeting appropriate standards set out in national guidelines Site inspection has defined the extents
Page 21
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review abandoned car parked in front of 26 Laymoor Avenue which, if removed by the appropriate authorities, would further clear the road. Therefore, the Order is disproportionate and unnecessary. In fact, all that is required are restrictions around the bends on the road and junctions which is where any true obstruction currently occurs due to inconsiderate parking by Akela/Ashberry contractors/subcontractors. 6. 7. To completely prohibit residents from parking on Laymoor Avenue would actually increase the risk of speeding as there would be no reason for drivers to slow down i.e. parked cars. There is also likely to be an increase in traffic using the road as a shortcut (“rat run”). 8. 9. There is insufficient parking in the area behind certain blocks of houses on Laymoor Avenue with households typically owing two or even three vehicles. So where are residents meant to park if the Order is passed? I have had a legitimate expectation that I can park on Laymoor Avenue in front of, or near, my home since I purchased it 10 years ago, and now Renfrewshire Council plans to deprive me of that on a whim without even offering an acceptable alternative solution. I need to park in front of my house for easier access as I have a heath condition covered by the Equality Act 2010, but don’t qualify for a Blue Badge. I need my car nearby, not somewhere further down the street out of my sight. 10. 11. The Order is inconsistent with Renfrewshire Council’s approach to other roads in the region which are just as narrow, much busier, but with no such permanent or even temporary restrictions. Therefore, residents of Laymoor Avenue, Kenley Road, etc are being singled out by Renfrewshire Council for punitive action when they are not the perpetrators of any alleged issues. 12. 13. As previously mentioned, Renfrewshire Council are culpable, could and should have rejected the plans for the entire estate around Laymoor Avenue, Kenley Road, etc at inception and insisted on wider roads and no tight “S” bends such as in Bleasdale Road at the junction with Laymoor Avenue. This alleged issue is the joint creation of Renfrewshire Council and The duty of the Roads Authority is to provide clear, safe roads for travel. Parking on the road is allowed only where it is safe and does not congest the road. The planning authority gives planning consent based on parking provision meeting appropriate standards set out in national guidelines The choice of where to park a car is down to the individual The restrictions have been proposed following requests from residents The planning authority gives planning consent based on parking provision meeting appropriate standards set out in national guidelines The bend is designed specifically to slow speeds
Page 22
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Akela/Ashberry, but seemingly with no accountability of either. Yet Renfrewshire Council is determined to penalise blameless residents. The Order is illogical, irrational and perverse. 14. It is not unreasonable to ask that common sense be applied to a situation that, once Akela/Ashberry and their contractors/subcontractors finally remove themselves from our lives, will not exist. The only solution required is restrictions at bends and junctions, nothing more. Recommend Implement the restrictions at junctions and bends but remove those from the northwest side of Laymoor Avenue between house numbers 10 and 28 and the northeast side of Kenley Road opposite numbers 170 to 174, to allow roadside parking. 456 Laymoor Ave/ Kenley Rd Renfrew I am writing to formally object to the proposed prohibition and restriction of waiting at any time on Laymoor Avenue and Kenley Road, Renfrew, under the referenced Consolidation & Amendment Order (Ref 202. TRO1005(a) Items 456). As a resident of the original Strathclyde Homes development on Laymoor Avenue for the past 11 years, I have witnessed—and endured—the significant increase in traffic and strain on local infrastructure due to successive housing developments approved by Renfrewshire Council. These include the Bellway Homes and Ashberry Homes estates, which were explicitly highlighted as exacerbating traffic volumes on Laymoor Avenue. Councillor John Shaw (SNP, Renfrew North and Braehead) raised these very concerns regarding road capacity in November 2022, and I shared similar objections with the Council at the time. It is deeply frustrating to now face further restrictions that penalise long-standing residents for the Council’s failure to adequately plan for the consequences of these developments. While I acknowledge the rationale for parking restrictions at road corners to ensure clear visibility for drivers, the blanket prohibition outside residents’ homes is unreasonable and disproportionate. The notice cites "avoiding danger" as justification, yet there is no evidence provided to demonstrate that parked vehicles have contributed to road safety issues. I request data on the number of recorded road traffic collisions on Laymoor Avenue where parked cars were a causative factor. Without such evidence, this measure appears punitive rather than preventative. The planning authority gives planning consent based on parking provision meeting appropriate standards set out in national guidelines The restrictions are meant to prevent accidents and were not justified on accident data but rather the risk that hazardous parking presents
Page 23
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Moreover, the cumulative impact of these developments—coupled with the proposed restrictions—will disproportionately inconvenience residents who rely on on-street parking. The Council’s failure to address the root cause of congestion (i.e., unchecked development without parallel infrastructure upgrades) should not result in further burdens on those who have already endured years of disruption. I urge the Council to reconsider this proposal and instead focus on: 1. **Evidence-based measures:** Restrict parking only where proven safety risks exist. 2. **Resident consultation:** Engage meaningfully with those directly affected. 3. **Infrastructure investment:** Address the traffic increases caused by approved developments, rather than penalising residents. I trust you will give this objection due consideration and would appreciate confirmation of its receipt, as well as any data supporting the cited safety concerns. The choice of where to park a car is down to the individual The restrictions have been proposed following requests from residents and follow up site visits Following national guidance, a number of Notices were displayed in the area with details on them of how to obtain more details on the proposal The internal roads in the area are designed to adequately meet the demands for travel. Unrestricted parking is only allowed where it is safe and does not congest the road Recommend Implement the restrictions at junctions and bends but remove those from the northwest side of Laymoor Avenue between house numbers 10 and 28 and the northeast side of Kenley Road opposite numbers 170 to 174, to allow roadside parking. 456 Laymoor Ave/Kenley Rd Renfrew We wish to object to the proposed TRO/1005 item 456. We feel the extent of the parking proposals seems extreme. We agree that the junctions, particularly between Laymoor Avenue and Kenley Road, can be hazardous and can be difficult to see round by motorists. However, the proposed no parking plans do seem excessive. This would The duty of the Roads Authority is to provide clear, safe roads for travel. Parking on the road is allowed only
Page 24
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review mean there would be no visitor parking outside our home. Also, our elderly/disabled relatives would then have to park further away and then walk, which be very difficult for them. We do have a resident only car park at the rear of our house, however this is currently always full. It already being used by non-residents and if these plans go ahead as proposed, more non- residents would park there making it more difficult for us to find a car parking space. where it is safe and does not congest the road. Private car parks can be protected against use by outsiders by providing a lockable gate or similar. Recommend Implement the restrictions at junctions and bends but remove those from the northwest side of Laymoor Avenue between house numbers 10 and 28 and the northeast side of Kenley Road opposite numbers 170 to 174, to allow roadside parking. 456 Laymoor Ave/ Kenley Rd Renfrew I am sending this email in response to the proposal to implement double yellow lines outside my home on Laymoor Ave, within Ferry Village. Firstly, i completely understand and appreciate the concerns raised regarding the safety at the corners of our street. I must highlight that i've lived here for 11 years and this has never been a concern until the new Ashberry development started with the contractors working within the site parking their vans on the corners blocking the whole view around. Residents parking on street understand this to be a hazard and never themselves park their cars here. We understood that the estate would become busier with the new developments underway but these homes are being built with parking included so we feel penalised that our parking will be removed from us only to cause friction and upset with the residents of our street when it comes to us trying to find somewhere to park our vehicles. Where do you suggest we go? Yes, we have carparks behind our homes but these are already full. With this i would like to formally object as the proposed double yellow lines as it appears will run directly outside my home. This will have a significant impact on my household, particularly as my husband requires access to parking his van outside our property. Regardless of who is parking here, measures are required to keep the road clear and safe The planning authority gives planning consent based on parking provision meeting appropriate standards set out in national guidelines The choice of where to park a car is down to the individual
Page 25
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review He owns a works van which contains thousands of pounds of tools and equipment and proximity to our home is essential for both the security and daily functioning of his work. Unfortunately, there are no suitable alternative parking options nearby as his van doesn't fit through the underpass to the carpark. News of these yellow lines have caused strain and worry within our home as being unable to park could pose both a practical and financial risk to us. I kindly ask the council to reconsider the length and placement of the proposed yellow lines. While I support restrictions on the dangerous corners may i ask if ONLY the corners be lined, this would still allow cars to giveway to oncoming cars. I would appreciate if an alternative solution be found that improves the road safety without removing the only accessible parking spaces to us. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. Recommend Implement the restrictions at junctions and bends but remove those from the northwest side of Laymoor Avenue between house numbers 10 and 28 and the northeast side of Kenley Road opposite numbers 170 to 174, to allow roadside parking. 456 Laymoor Ave/ Kenley Rd Renfrew I would like to submit an objection to TRO 1005a item 456 relating to the no waiting at any time on sections of Laymoor Avenue and Kenley Road. As a resident of Kenley Road on the affected area I am well aware of the safety issues for both vehicles and pedestrians and whilst I agree that something should be done I don’t believe there is a need for the whole proposed area to be enforced with no waiting at any time. By facilitating no waiting on the corners of Laymoor Avenue and Laymoor Avenue at its junction with Kenley Rd this would allow better sight lines and safety for both vehicles and pedestrians and still allow some of the people who live in the affected houses to park outside their own houses. This block of housing is the one of the few on the estate which are not provided with driveways, yes there is car parking available to the rear of the houses, however this is not private and I believe not adequate for the amount of housing. Parking spaces are provided at the rear of the houses affected; however, this is not private land - it is unlikely you would pull into someone else's driveway to park your car but plenty of people park their vehicles who are not homeowners in the area the carpark is for. I also believe there is not enough parking spaces provided. While the Roads and Development Guidelines Parking Standards document states there should be 1 space per dwelling + 0.3 visitor spaces per dwelling - of which there is - 23 houses with 34 spaces, it also states that "Greater provision may be required in areas of high car ownership" . Of these 23 houses 12 are 4 bedroom The planning authority gives planning consent based on parking provision meeting appropriate standards set out in national guidelines Private car parks can be protected against use by outsiders by providing a lockable gate or similar.
Page 26
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review withe the majority of homes owners owning multiple vehicles. Almost all other 3 and 4 bedroom houses in the vicinity of the affected area have driveways with 2 parking space and sometimes a garage in addition to this, as well as additional parking bays for visitor parking. If you would care to take a walk round the proposed no waiting area on an evening or weekend when the majority of homeowners are actually at home you will find there is simply not enough parking spaces for the amount of cars - and this is even without any visitors. I have lived at this address for 7 years and there have never been any known issues up to this point. Now the council have approved the building of more housing with the only accessible point from Laymoor Avenue and also with driveways opening out onto Laymoor Avenue. When planning permission was submitted I know myself and other local residents submitted our concerns about the volume of traffic for the road and also made suggestions that either the road should be widened or parking bays provided. Neither of these considerations were taken into account. Now all these new houses have been built which have ample parking and it is us the existing residents who will now suffer and no longer be able to park in front of our own houses. I'm pretty sure when every home owner around the square of housing affected, bought their house no one ever considered that they would be unable to park outside their own home, that elderly people or people with mobility issues would need to park away from their own house and manage for some distance on foot. Whilst others around the area may be in support due to safety concerns they simply do not need to deal with the consequences of being unable to park outside there house and the stress of having to find a parking space when there is not enough provided and I think you need to place higher weight on any objection you receive from anyone who lives in the houses in the area which will be affected. I strongly recommend if you do go ahead with the proposed plans, you contact the factors in order to provide additional parking bays for the homes affected and to maintain the car park areas with lines and allocated parking. I would also say that this should be at no additional cost to home owners, as it is you the council who are changing the parking conditions after more than 12 years of the houses being built. The roads authority is not empowered to provide private parking spaces The internal roads in the area are designed to adequately meet the demands for travel. Unrestricted parking is only allowed where it is safe and does not congest the road The council provides disabled parking bays close to home to Blue Badge holders. The duty of the Roads Authority is to provide clear, safe roads for travel. Parking on the road is allowed only where it is safe and does not congest the road. Homeowners are at liberty to arrange alternative private parking. Recommend Implement the restrictions at junctions and bends but remove those from the northwest side of Laymoor Avenue
Page 27
Item Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review between house numbers 10 and 28 and the northeast side of Kenley Road opposite numbers 170 to 174, to allow roadside parking.
Page 28
Responses in support of the proposals Item Road Settlement Support Not Specified I acknowledge receipt, and having looked at the items in areas I am very familiar with, they will definitely be improvements. Not specified Strong show of support for this area to have no street parking. The sooner this happens the better. 456 Laymoor Ave/ Kenley Rd Renfrew I am writing to express my support for the proposed changes in Kenley/Laymoor as outlined in the consultation document as above. I believe these changes will reduce congestion and improve road safety. Specifically I support the double yellow lines on Kenley Road. I have been in regular contact with Lorraine Paterson - see attached regarding the parking especially across from the mews entrance/exit at our address. Can you advise if "keep clear" signage will be at the mews or are the double yellow lines going to be on both sides. 456 Laymoor Ave/ Kenley Rd Renfrew This is to record my full support for the double yellow line restrictions for: Item 456 No waiting at any time The Order is considered necessary: for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising by prohibiting inappropriate parking along Laymoor Avenue,
Page 29
Kenley Road and environs, Renfrew and for preserving and improving the amenity of the area through which the I would express my further support for double yellow lines on both sides of Laymoor Avenue as the cars which current park on the area marked for double yellows will simple cross to the other side of the road which dosen’t have planned double yellows and in doing so the restriction becomes ineffective. By introducing double yellows on both side of the road this will simple adjustment to the plans will reduce all likelihood of people parking on the other side of the road.