Agenda Document Pack - Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board - 27/08/2025
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
21/08/2025 Notice of Meeting and Agenda Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board Date Time Venue Wednesday, 27 August 2025 10:00 Council Chambers (Renfrewshire), Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1AN Membership Councillor Michelle Campbell (Convener): Councillor Audrey Doig (Depute Convener): Councillor Jennifer Adam: Councillor Stephen Burns: Councillor Jacqueline Cameron: Councillor Carolann Davidson: Councillor Eddie Devine: Councillor Chris Gilmour: Councillor Gillian Graham: Councillor John Hood: Councillor James MacLaren: Councillor Janis McDonald: Councillor Iain McMillan: Councillor John McNaughtan: Councillor Iain Nicolson: Councillor John Shaw: Councillor Andy Steel: Hybrid Meeting Please note that this meeting is scheduled to be held in the Council Chambers. However, it is a hybrid meeting and arrangements have been made for members to join the meeting remotely should they wish. Further Information This is a meeting which is open to members of the public. A copy of the agenda and reports for this meeting will be available for inspection prior to the meeting at the Customer Service Centre, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley and online at http://renfrewshire.cmis.uk.com/renfrewshire/CouncilandBoards.aspx For further information, please email democratic-services@renfrewshire.gov.uk MARK CONAGHAN Head of Corporate Governance Page 1 of 96
Page 2
21/08/2025 Members of the Press and Public Members of the press and public wishing to attend the meeting should report to the customer service centre where they will be met and directed to the meeting. Webcasting of Meeting This meeting will be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site – at the start of the meeting the Convener will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. To find the webcast please navigate to https://renfrewshire.public-i.tv/core/portal/home Page 2 of 96
Page 3
21/08/2025 Items of business Apologies Apologies from members. Declarations of Interest and Transparency Statements Members are asked to declare an interest or make a transparency statement in any item(s) on the agenda and to provide a brief explanation of the nature of the interest or the transparency statement. 1 Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring 2025/26 at 27 June 2025 Joint report by Directors of Finance & Resources and Environment, Housing & Infrastructure. 5 - 18 2 Service Update Report Report by Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure 19 - 34 3 514 Bus Service - Dargavel to Braehead Report by Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure. 35 - 42 4 The Renfrewshire Council (Disabled Persons’ Parking Places) (Various Locations, Renfrewshire) Number Eight Order 20*, Sustained Objections Report by Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure. 43 - 54 5 The Renfrewshire Council (Prohibition and restriction of waiting, loading and parking places) (Consolidation & Amendment Order 1005 & 1005a) Order 202*, Ref TRO 1005 & 5a Report by Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure. 55 - 84 6 Surplus Land - Gallowhill Cycle Route Report by Chief Executive. 85 - 90 7 Lease Extension at 41 Hallhill Road, Johnstone Report by Chief Executive. 91 - 96 Page 3 of 96
Page 4
21/08/2025 Exempt Item Exempt documents are no longer available in print format. You will require to log in to the Infrastructure, Land & Environment Exempt Items to access documents. Please note that access to exempt documents is now restricted. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC The Board may by resolution exclude the press and public from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business as it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that if members of the press and public are present, there could be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph 9 of Part I of Schedule 7A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 8 Lease Extension at Sanctuary House, 15 Abercorn Street, Paisley Exempt report by Chief Executive. 9 Paisley Grammar School Site - Proposed Sale of Site Exempt report by Chief Executive. Page 4 of 96
Page 5
___________________________________________________________________ To: Infrastructure, Land & Environment Policy Board On: 27 August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Director of Finance and Resources Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring 2025/26 at 27 June 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 At the close of reporting Period 3 on 27 June 2025, the projected revenue outturn at 31 March 2026 for those services reporting to the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board is an overspend position of £0.290m (0.7%) against the revised budget for the year. 1.2 The projected capital outturn at 31 March 2026 for projects reporting to the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board is a break-even position. 1.3 This is summarised over the relevant services in the table below and further analysis is provided in the report and appendices. Revised Annual Budget £000 Projected Outturn £000 Budget Variance (Adv)/Fav £000 Budget Variance % Revenue Environment & Infrastructure 38,817 39,107 (290) (0.7%) Total 38,817 39,107 (290) (0.7%) Capital Environment & Infrastructure 16,650 16,650 0 0.0% Item 1 Page 5 of 96
Page 6
2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board: 2.1 Note the projected Revenue outturn overspend position of £0.290m; 2.2 Note the projected Capital outturn break-even position; and 2.3 Note the budget adjustments in appendix 1 and 2. 3. Revenue Budget Projection – overspend of £0.290m by 31 March 2026 3.1 The tables in Appendix 1 and 2 present the projected year-end position for all services reporting to this board, by both objective analysis (which division is spending the budget – appendix 1) and subjective analysis (what the budget is spent on – appendix 2). Material variances affecting the projected position are analysed further below. 3.2 It should be noted that the projected outturn position reported here is based on the latest information available, which is subject to change during the financial year. The impact of any change on this projection will be updated at each board cycle until the close of reporting period 10. Budget holders are obliged to seek mitigating action to minimise significant budget variances. 4. Objective Analysis – Significant Variances 4.1 Environment, Housing, and Infrastructure – (£0.290m) overspend Waste Services – (£0.171m) overspend by 31 March 2026 This reflects the financial position for Refuse Collection, Refuse Disposal and Household Waste Recycling Centres. The overspend for Refuse Collection in the main relates to an estimated overspend in employee costs (£0.221m) as a result of overtime being required to cover absence and vacancies. However this will be partially offset by income from special uplift collections. At present, the Trade Waste income budget is forecast to break even. A review is currently underway to assess income relating to trade waste and once the review is complete the outcome will be reported to the Board. Page 6 of 96
Page 7
Social Transport – (£0.155m) overspend by 31 March 2026 The current projected overspend is due to employee-related costs. This is largely a result of the need to hire agency staff to cover for long-term sickness absence and vacancies. Transport and Development – (£0.173m) overspend by 31 March 2026 The projected overspend is primarily relates to staffing costs and an overspend within work by contractors of £0.102m, which is in line with last year’s outturn, with increased maintenance requirements on traffic signal assets. Due to the reactive nature of the service, the projections will continue to be closely monitored for the remainder of the financial year. 5. Subjective Analysis – Significant Variances 5.1 Transport Related – (£0.480m) overspend by 31 March 2026 The current projected overspend of 5.8% is mainly driven by a substantial rise in the cost of replacement parts for equipment and vehicles (£116k), along with vehicle hire expenses (£0.239m) required to meet service demands. In addition, there is an anticipated overspend within Non-Fair Wear and Tear of £0.159m, this is partially offset by an £0.080m underspend within Fair Wear and Tear repairs. 5.2 Supplies and Services – (£0.731m) overspend by 31 March 2026 The projected overspend in Supplies and Services is concentrated across four key service areas: Fleet (£0.336m), Neighbourhood Services (£0.090m), Parking (£0.098m), and Transport and Development (£0.103m). In each of these areas, inflation is the primary driver, with rising costs for contractor work, materials, and related services. However, the overspends in Fleet and Parking are offset by higher than anticipated income recovery (£0.122m). 5.3 Income – £1.021m over-recovery by 31 March 2026 The majority of the over-recovery is attributed to Fleet Services, primarily due to recharges for external vehicle hire and costs associated with non-fair wear and tear, amounting to £0.676 million. Additionally, as previously noted above, there are income over-recoveries within Refuse Collection (£0.170m), Parking (£0.122m) as noted in above. Page 7 of 96
Page 8
6. Revenue Budget Virements 6.1. Under the Council’s financial regulations, Directors and their nominated officers, in consultation with the Director of Finance and Resources, have certain delegated authority to transfer sums between subjective budget headings within a service division to enable budget management throughout the financial year. This is known as ‘budget virement’. 6.2. Transfers between divisions of the same service / department in excess of £100,000, and transfers between services / departments must be authorised by the respective service Director and the Director of Finance and Resources for submission to the relevant policy board for approval. 6.3. Budget holders are obliged to seek mitigating action to minimise significant budget variances. The Board is therefore asked to approve the following virements, which are not currently applied to the budget: Revenue Budget Adjustments Service Subjective Heading Amount (£m) Reason Fleet Services Transport Related 0.676 Alignment of the non fair and tear costs budget and income budget for Fleet recharges Fleet Services Income (0.676) Total 0 7. Capital Budget Projection – break-even position by 31 March 2026 7.1 The Capital Investment Programme 2025/26 to 2029/30 was approved by the Council on 27 February 2025. For Infrastructure Land & Environment the revised capital spend for 2025/26 is £16.650m. 7.2 The in-year Capital budget is forecast to break even by 31 March 2026 however, this will be monitored as the projects progress. Further details of the programme can be found in the Capital Monitoring report at Appendix 3. 7.3 A number of budget adjustments between years have taken place, to reflect revised programming of some capital projects. Details of these adjustments, which amount to £3.859m, are as follows: Page 8 of 96
Page 9
Project Amount (£m) Budget increase due to grant award from Transport Scotland Active Travel Funding Tier 1 0.598 People and Place: Local Authority Direct Award (LADA) 0.147 Bus Infrastructure Fund 0.105 Budget carried forward from 2024/25 into 2025/26 Vehicle Replacement Programme 0.182 Bridge Assessment/Strengthening 0.054 Roads/Footways Upgrade Programme 1.037 Lighting Columns Replacement 0.240 Improvements to Outdoor Access and Play Area Programme 0.068 Total Active Travel Transformation Fund 0.090 Multi-Purpose Bins 0.056 Nature Restoration Fund 0.190 Underwood Depot Improvements 0.238 Public Realm – Abbey 0.300 Recycling Improvement Fund 0.271 Strathclyde Partnership Transport 0.300 Total 3.859 Implications of the Report 1. Financial The projected budget outturn position for the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Revenue budget is an overspend of £0.290m. Income and expenditure will continue to be monitored closely for the rest of the financial year and as far as possible, steps will be taken to mitigate any overspend. The projected outturn position for the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Capital budget is a break-even position. 2. HR & Organisational Development While staffing budgets form a significant proportion of the Council’s revenue budgets, there are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. Page 9 of 96
Page 10
3. Community/Council Planning Community Plan Our Renfrewshire is thriving The Council’s revenue and capital spend ensures that its facilities are fit for purpose and safe for the community, to maximise accessibility. Our Renfrewshire is well Our Renfrewshire is fair Our Renfrewshire is safe Council Plan Reshaping our place, our economy, and our future The Council’s revenue and capital spend ensures that its facilities are fit for purpose and safe for the community, to maximise accessibility. Building strong, safe, and resilient communities Tackling inequality, ensuring opportunities for all Creating a sustainable Renfrewshire for all to enjoy Ongoing revenue and capital budget monitoring is a tool to enable good financial management so that the Council has resources now and in the future for continued service delivery. Working together to improve outcomes 4. Legal There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 5. Property/Assets The capital expenditure noted in this report will result in lifecycle maintenance improvements to existing properties and replacement of ICT assets and infrastructure. 6. Information Technology There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 7. Equality & Human Rights There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 8. Health & Safety There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. Page 10 of 96
Page 11
9. Procurement While Procurement is an important consideration prior to the council incurring any revenue or capital spend, there are no direct implications arising from this report. 10. Risk The potential risk that the Council will overspend its approved budgets for the year will be managed at a Council-wide level by the Chief Executive and Directors. 11. Privacy Impact There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 12. Climate Change The Council aims to reduce its carbon and other emissions to net zero by 2030, however there are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 13. Children’s Rights There are no direct implications arising from the recommendations in this report. 14. Cosla Policy Position N/A List of Background Papers • The Capital Investment Programme 2025/26 to 2029/30, Council 27 February 2025 Authors: Lisa Dickie, Finance Business Partner, Gordon McNeil, Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure and Linsey Mcgregor, Senior Accountant (Capital) Page 11 of 96
Page 12
Page 12 of 96
Page 13
Appendix 1 Objective Summary Approved Annual Budget Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 3 Projected Outturn £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % Directorate and Service Co-ordination 1,400 25 1,425 1,410 15 1.1% Refuse Collection 5,457 277 5,734 5,837 (103) (1.8%) Household Waste Recycling Centres 1,369 23 1,392 1,407 (15) (1.1%) Refuse Disposal 7,624 0 7,624 7,677 (53) (0.7%) Neighbourhood Services 7,118 164 7,282 7,175 107 1.5% Fleet Services 79 326 405 401 4 1.0% Social Transport 1,182 28 1,210 1,365 (155) (12.8%) Roads Operations 5,705 47 5,752 5,752 0 0.0% Infrastructure and Assets 2,929 42 2,971 2,931 40 1.3% Transportation & Development 777 (45) 732 905 (173) (23.6%) Parking of Vehicles (38) 2 (36) (46) 10 27.8% Street Lighting Maintenance Work 535 7 542 485 57 10.5% Energy Management Unit 361 44 405 405 0 0.0% Strathclyde Partnership for Transport Requisition 3,379 0 3,379 3,403 (24) (0.7%) NET EXPENDITURE 37,877 940 38,817 39,107 (290) (0.7%) RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING STATEMENT 2025/26 1 April 2025 to 27 June 2025 Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable POLICY BOARD : INFRASTRUCTURE, LAND AND ENVIRONMENT Page 13 of 96
Page 14
Page 14 of 96
Page 15
Appendix 2 Subjective Summary Approved Annual Budget Budget Adjustments Revised Annual Budget at Period 3 Projected Outturn £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 % Employees 25,033 822 25,855 25,804 51 (0.4%) Premises Related 1,335 18 1,353 1,416 (63) (6.1%) Transport Related 7,753 568 8,321 8,801 (480) (8.0%) Supplies and Services 14,497 1,029 15,526 16,257 (731) (4.1%) Third Party Payments 3,447 225 3,672 3,695 (23) (7.2%) Transfer Payments 168 (4) 164 214 (50) (30.5%) Support Services 700 (2) 698 713 (15) (2.1%) Depreciation and Impairment Losses 2,180 0 2,180 2,180 0 0.0% GROSS EXPENDITURE 55,113 2,656 57,769 59,080 (1,311) (2.3%) Income (17,236) (1,716) (18,952) (19,973) 1,021 (5.4%) NET EXPENDITURE 37,877 940 38,817 39,107 (290) (0.7%) POLICY BOARD : INFRASTRUCTURE, LAND AND ENVIRONMENT Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable Page 15 of 96
Page 16
Page 16 of 96
Page 17
Appendix 3 Prior Years Approved Budget Revised Projected Expenditure Budget Adjustments Budget Outturn Total Approved Projected to 31/03/2025 2025-26 2025-26 2025-26 Budget Outurn Project Title to 31-Mar-30 to 31-Mar-30 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE Active Travel Funding Tier 1 0 813 598 1,411 1,411 0 0% 4,611 4,611 0 0% LADA 49 0 147 147 147 0 0% 196 196 0 0% Bus Infrastructure Fund 0 0 105 105 105 0 0% 105 105 0 0% Vehicle Replacement Programme 0 2,200 182 2,382 2,382 0 0% 12,102 12,102 0 0% Bridge Assessment/Strengthening - 6XN004 0 293 54 347 347 0 0% 1,547 1,547 0 0% Roads/Footways Upgrade Programme -6XN004 0 6,975 1,037 8,012 8,012 0 0% 59,437 59,437 0 0% Lighting Columns Replacement - 6XN004 0 600 240 840 840 0 0% 3,240 3,240 0 0% Improvements to Outdoor Access and Play Area Programm 393 0 68 68 68 0 0% 461 461 0 0% Total Active Travel Transformation Fund 331 0 90 90 90 0 0% 421 421 0 0% Multi Pupose Bins 0 0 56 56 56 0 0% 56 56 0 0% Renewal of Play Parks 0 1,167 0 1,167 1,167 0 0% 1,967 1,967 0 0% Nature Restoration Fund (Biodiversity) 578 140 190 330 330 0 0% 908 908 0 0% Underwood Depot Improvement 12 150 238 388 388 0 0% 400 400 0 0% Public Realm - Abbey 0 0 300 300 300 0 0% 300 300 0 0% Recycling Improvement Fund 486 0 271 271 271 0 0% 757 757 0 0% Open Spaces Infrastructure 0 200 0 200 200 0 0% 200 200 0 0% Strathclyde Partnership Transport 0 0 300 300 300 0 0% 300 300 0 0% TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE, LAND & ENVIRONMENT BOARD 3,637 12,791 3,859 16,650 16,650 0 0% 89,032 89,032 0 0% *Rolling programmes have a prior year year expenditure of £0 as the expenditure is not directly linked from one year to the next as a singular project. RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY - NON-HOUSING SERVICES 1st April to 27th June 2025 POLICY BOARD: INFRASTRUCURE, LAND & ENVIRONMENT Current Year 2025-26 Full Programme - All years Budget Variance (Adverse) or Favourable Budget Variance (Adverse) or Page 17 of 96
Page 18
Page 18 of 96
Page 19
To: Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board On: 27 August 2025 Report by: Director of Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Heading: Service Update Report 1. Summary 1.1 This report provides an overview of key service activities since the last Policy Board report on 21 May 2025 and an update on the services and key projects delivered during this period. 2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board: 2.1 Notes the wide range of activities provided in the service update. 2.2 Notes and approves the enhanced provision proposed for Renfrewshire’s warden service set out in paragraph 5.1.3 of this report. 3. Background 3.1 Environment, Housing & Infrastructure provides essential services to every household in Renfrewshire and works in partnership with the local community, other service areas and Community Planning Partners, to deliver key Council priorities and initiatives. A progress update on the main activities delivered by the services in respect of the areas of activity delegated to this Policy Board, is detailed below. Item 2 Page 19 of 96
Page 20
Updates for Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board 4. Climate Change 4.1 Energy Management District Heating Network Outline Business Cases 4.1.1 Work is ongoing with the Council and external consultants to develop the Outline Business Cases for the extension of the District Heating Network at AMIDS and the creation of a new network in Paisley Central. As part of this work, we continue to explore the various delivery options through detailed review and identify preferred delivery option(s) and we are continuing to engage with the key stakeholders across the network to take forward for AMIDS and Paisley Central. It is expected that the business cases will be concluded late 2025. Clean Energy - Capital Funding 4.1.2 The Council has received capital funding of £1.167m from the Scottish Government to support projects which reduce our carbon emissions. Several potential projects have been identified which are considered to be most impactful in terms of the associated benefits balanced with the investment required to implement. Initiatives are currently underway including the installation and upgrade of building management systems within our public building estate. Work is also underway investigating options to expand our existing solar PV arrays on public building roofs. The programme of work has been approved by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board but as the work cuts across both Boards we will also ensure regular updates are brought before the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board. Carbon Management Plan 4.1.3. A new Carbon Management Plan (CMP) is being written and will include both Renfrewshire Council and OneRen. The plan will have a baseline year of 2023/24 and will cover the years 2025/26 to 2027/28 and will set annual milestones based on a project register, and carbon emissions reduction targets within: • Electricity in public buildings • Gas in public buildings • Water in public buildings • Street lighting • Waste services • Transport Fleet • Staff mileage The CMP will be submitted to the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board in November 2025. Page 20 of 96
Page 21
ECO4 Flex 4.1.4. ECO4 Flex will allow the Council to approve funding to Renfrewshire’s private sector, fuel poor households that do not meet criteria for other schemes, as well as low- income households that are vulnerable to the effects of cold weather. The scheme is part of the UK Government Energy Company Obligation and is managed by Ofgem. The qualifying criteria for ECO-Flex, as set by Ofgem, is published on our website in a document called a Statement of Intent. Renfrewshire’s Statement of Intent can be found here: https://www1.renfrewshire.gov.uk/media/15354/ECO4-flex-statement-of- intent/pdf/Renfrewshire_Council_Statement_of_Intent_for_ECO4_flex.pdf?m=167568 7584337. ECO-flex does not apply to Council Housing or Registered Social Landlords. 4.1.5. The energy efficiency measures being installed within Renfrewshire include boilers, loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, air source heat pumps, solar panels, heating controls, first time central heating etc. 4.1.6 The table below highlights the savings ECO4 Flex has achieved to date based on annually recurring savings: Financial Year Value of Grant Funding Requested (£) Total Annual Consumption Saving (kW) Total Annual CO2 Saving in Kg Total Annual Cost Saving (£) 2023/24 £ 3,583,940 £ 1,310,162 £ 648,617 £ 231,789 2024/25 £ 2,803,787 £ 1,389,095 £ 452,462 £ 163,009 2025/26 £ 333,863 £ 314,656 £ 74,082 £ 30,154 Total £ 6,721,590 £ 3,013,913 £ 1,175,161 £ 424, 952 5. Community Development 5.1 Team Up to Clean Up/ Environmental Taskforce 5.1.1 Team Up to Clean Up was recognised as having recorded the highest number of litter picks during ‘Keep Scotland Beautiful’ Big Spring Clean 2025 campaign. Of the 2,763 litter picks carried out across Scotland by 34,027 participants, 262 took place in Renfrewshire, with 312 local volunteers taking part. The Chief Executive of ‘Keep Scotland Beautiful’ visited Renfrewshire to present the award, which was warmly welcomed on-site by the relevant personnel, and by the Team Up to Clean Up online community. 5.1.2 Renfrewshire also delivered its own Big Spring Clean from 22 April (following the Easter school holidays) to 30 May. During this period, 601 volunteers took part in 505 events, collecting 1,587 bags of litter and vegetation. Participants included 23 schools and six local businesses. Page 21 of 96
Page 22
5.1.3 The new warden service model plans to create 3 new Environmental Crime Officer posts which will result in the service having a greater emphasis and resource availability to focus on Environmental crime issues such as littering and flytipping. This new model will allow for increased resources to be available to tackle issues such as dog fouling and pavement parking across towns and villages in Renfrewshire. This increased focus on environmental and road safety activities through additional resources enables the warden service to have an enhanced focus on supporting community safety activities across Renfrewshire 7 days a week, with extended hours of operation with availability on a 24/7 basis through an out of hours provision which is an enhancement to current provision. It is proposed that the new service arrangements will be in place in the coming months, with the recruitment of 12 new full time permanent positions within the service, with a further update being provided to the board at its next meeting. 6. Fleet, Roads, and Transportation 6.1 Fleet Services 6.1.1 Fleet Services has recently taken delivery of 8 new medium range electric cars and placed an order for 3 long range ones. These vehicles will operate within the Pool Car Service based at Renfrewshire House, supporting the Council’s commitment to sustainable transport while modernising and improving the existing scheme. 6.1.2 In addition to the pool cars, a new jetting/drainage van has been delivered and allocated to Building Services to support and enhance operational delivery, and a fully electric Panel Van has also been received and will have Dog Wardens equipment installed, to support the delivery of dog control services across Renfrewshire. Roads & Transportation 6.2 Roads Capital Investment Programme 6.2.1 The Roads Capital Investment Programme for 2025/26 with 59 carriageway resurfacing schemes commenced on 7 April. Thirty schemes have been completed as of 10 August. 6.2.2 Three footway resurfacing schemes were completed over the summer near to schools including Brediland Road Paisley, Beith Road Johnstone and Meadside Avenue Kilbarchan. The footway resurfacing programme consisting of 31 footway schemes will recommence in September 2025 and will run to March 2026. 6.2.3 The surface treatment programme consisting of 28 surface dressing and 10 micro surfacing schemes took place in August and focused on rural roads in Bishopton, Bridge of Weir, Brookfield, Elderslie, Erskine, Houston, Howwood, Johnstone, Kilbarchan, Langbank, Linwood, Lochwinnoch and Paisley. 6.2.4 Drainage improvements for Old Mill Road Paisley are expected to be completed in August 2025 prior to carriageway resurfacing. Designs for Magnus Road, Forehouse Road, Auchengreoch Road and Stepends Road have been completed. Works will be programmed by our Road Operations team over the next few months. 6.2.5 The water pumping Station at Rankine Street in Johnstone is being fully refurbished over a 16-week period with completion in September 2025. Page 22 of 96
Page 23
6.2.6 Renfrewshire Council have worked with Velocity Ltd during July 2025 to pilot a technique of Jet patching, also known as spray injection patching, for repairing potholes and damaged road surfaces using a specialised machine that combines several steps into a single process. The process involves cleaning the damaged area, applying a binding agent, filling it with an aggregate and asphalt emulsion mix and the patch is then sealed. Locations were:- Paisley - Bankfoot Road, Craigielea Drive, Woodland Avenue, Potterhill Avenue, Lammermuir Drive, Grampian Avenue, Glenarklet Drive, Arkleston Road, Penilee Road, Cotton Street, Netherhill Road, Greenock Road. Johnstone - Floorsburn Crescent, Spateston Road, Auchengreoch Road. Linwood - Bridge of Weir Road, Darluith Road, Clippens Road Lochwinnoch - Corsefield Road, Knowes Road. Howwood - Belltrees Road Elderslie - Main Road Hillington Park - Montrose Avenue Bishopton - Barochan Road, Houston Road, Old Greenock Road Bridge of Weir - Houston Road, Ranfurly Place, Montrose Terrace, Torr Road, Locher Road Brookfield - Bridge of Weir Road Houston - Main Street Langbank - Station Road The initial results of the trial have been successful, however, our Roads Inspectors will monitor durability over the coming months. 6.3 Ready for Winter 6.3.1 As advised at the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board meeting on 21 May 2025, the review of grit bin provision has commenced with the view of reprovisioning, through the number of smaller grit bins with an increase in the number of larger Community Grit bins. 6.3.2 Over the coming weeks, a period of stakeholder engagement will commence to provide an opportunity to give feedback on the options under consideration. Page 23 of 96
Page 24
6.3.3 As a result of lessons learned from our winter maintenance arrangements in 2024/2025, the service will undertake a new approach to communications in advance of adverse weather. The “Ready for Winter” communications will outline how we will work with residents and communities to pre-grit in advance of adverse weather when the treatment is more effective. 6.4 Street Lighting Capital Investment Programme 6.4.1 A new street lighting installation for Easwald Bank, Kilbarchan commenced on site in April 2025. The street lighting supply connection by Scottish Power Energy Networks is due to be completed in August with the removal of the old columns taking place thereafter. 6.4.2 The contract for new street lighting installation on Main Street Lochwinnoch has been awarded. Works are planned to start in Autumn 2025. 6.4.3 The first phase of street lighting column replacements has seen over 200 columns installed and over 60 underground cabling loop replacements completed throughout Renfrewshire. A second phase of lighting column replacements has been drafted and will be tendered shortly. 6.5 Renfrew Bridge Update 6.5.1 The new Renfrew Bridge opened to the public in May 2025 and has been a very popular attraction with active travel users and motorists. A WhatsApp channel was launched in June 2025 with over 9,000 followers receiving regular updates when the bridge is unavailable for vehicles, cyclists and walkers. This has been a very useful communication tool especially during essential dredging works in July which resulted in around 5 to 6 bridge movements daily. 6.5.2 The opening of the bridge has attracted many walkers and cyclists to use the associated purpose-built, traffic-segregated routes to travel into Renfrewshire. Monitors are now in place to measure usage that the bridge attracts, over the period from 1st July – 31st July 2025 saw a daily average of 472 pedestrians and 273 cyclists. 6.5.3 Traffic monitoring is taking place at the current time and the bridge is being well utilised with an average of over 10,000 traffic movements taking place over the bridge every day. 6.6 Active Travel & Infrastructure Improvement Update 6.6.1 The construction contract package is in preparation for the Red Smiddy roundabout to Erskine active travel route. It is intended to begin tendering shortly for a start date later in the year. The route is intended to provide a much-needed link from the existing sustainable travel network to Erskine as well as creating a segregated cycling route from Erskine to Paisley town centre, connecting with AMIDS and Inchinnan Business Park. Page 24 of 96
Page 25
6.7 Traffic Signal Upgrade 6.7.1 The replacement of life-expired traffic signal equipment continues as funding becomes available. Recent junction upgrades include; Maxwellton/Broomlands, Morrisons Johnstone, Weir/Incle, Lawn/Incle, Glasgow/East, Glasgow/Lacy, Glasgow/Penilee. 6.8 Elderslie for Everyone Project 6.8.1 We are now in the third of five project stages, having updated the designs to reflect feedback in February from the community engagement on the concept design. To showcase the design, we met with the Elderslie for Everyone Community Advisory Group on Tuesday 10 June from 4.00-5:30pm. We also held a public design update on Thursday 19 June, 3:30-6.00pm, at a drop-in at Elderslie Village Hall and released an update on the design progress on the ‘Commonplace’ website. We continue to gather feedback on the design from the community and prepare more technical information such as utilities and drainage solutions, to inform the detailed design. 6.8.2 Subject to confirmation of grant funding from Transport Scotland, the project will progress to detailed design stages later this year. 6.9 Local Transport Strategy 6.9.1 The second public engagement on ‘Travel Renfrewshire 2035’ ran from 16 June 2025 to 28 July 2025. After extensive analysis of the responses to the initial engagement, the draft final version of Renfrewshire’s LTS was made available for inspection and comment on its dedicated webpage. 6.9.2 The page hosted a summary of the strategy, the full document, its accompanying impact assessments and an online feedback form for anyone to make comment by 28 July 2025. In person contact has been made with Fairer Renfrewshire and other major stakeholders to ensure their inclusion. 6.9.3 Posters advertising the engagement were issued to all OneRen outlets and Renfrewshire’s libraries, with paper copies of the strategy also available which gave people a further channel to provide comment if they wished. 6.9.4 Officers intend to collate responses and bring the final ‘Travel Renfrewshire 2035’ report to Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board for approval in November. 6.10 20 mph speed limit proposals 6.10.1 Officers are in discussion with Transport Scotland regarding funding a programme of actions towards introducing 20mph speed limits on all appropriate roads in Renfrewshire. Transport Scotland has approved funding to Glasgow City Council on the basis of their implementation of trial speed limits under a temporary traffic order. The temporary traffic order remains in place for a year, during which time the public can provide feedback and comments which will help inform a final decision on whether the order should become permanent. 6.10.2 Officers propose to follow this model in order to enhance our funding proposals with Transport Scotland. Agreements have been reached on the treatment of roads which cross the Renfrewshire/Glasgow boundary in order to minimise driver confusion. Page 25 of 96
Page 26
7. Neighbourhood Services 7.1 Gleniffer Braes Update 7.1.1 Works to clear fell the plantation at the Braehead Road car park have now been completed by SP Energy Networks (SPEN). The site has been mulched in preparation for the planting of wildflowers. Once the land regenerates next year, a partnership replanting programme with SPEN will see the site restored with 800 Scottish native broadleaf trees. 7.2 Weed Control 7.2.1 Renfrewshire has now received two out of three scheduled weed sprays as part of the proactive weed management programme. The second spray began mid-July and is targeting regrowth across the region, with the third scheduled spray planned for September. The Service continues to review the areas covered within the spraying contract to establish what needs enhanced or adding hard landscape areas where required. 7.3 14-Day Grass Cutting Programme 7.3.1 The 14-day grass cutting programme is progressing. We have successfully maintained the "strimming only" policy for grass panel edges while upholding high standards in overall grass cutting. This has helped to reduce the use of Glyphosate based chemicals on the edges of grass panels. The team has also supported key events such as the Pipe Band Championships, Barshaw Gala, and Renfrew Gala. 7.3.2 The Service has continued to support AMEY with road sweeping on the A737 to coincide with their scheduled grass maintenance of the trunk road. 7.4 Play Park Update 7.4.1 Playpark renewals for 2024–2025 and the removal and return-to-nature programme are both complete. Phase 1 of the 2025–2026 renewals programme is underway, with the tendering process expected to be completed by the end of August 2025. Phase 2 will begin later in the year and will include tenders for an additional four play parks and the BMX track in Barshaw. 7.5 Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park 7.5.1 Several recreational, conservation and health and wellbeing services continue to be delivered over the summer period. This included a successful day for Spinal Injury Scotland, with around 130 people with a spinal cord injury taking part in a sport and activity day at Castle Semple. In addition, Branching Out (Positive Mental Health through Nature) Programmes have been delivered by the countryside rangers, and these have been very well received by the participants. Page 26 of 96
Page 27
7.6 Cemetery Update 7.6.1 The Friends of Hawkhead Cemetery held a successful clean up weekend at the start of June. The cleanup event was supported by Neighborhood Services and Waste Services. 7.6.2 The arbor team carried out remedial tree works within Hawkhead Cemetery in July and planted additional sapling trees to assist with long term canopy recovery and tree diversity within the cemetery. 7.6.3 Path resurfacing works were carried out within Arkleston Cemetery in May along with minor repairs to enhance and improve accessibility within the cemetery. 7.7. PAGGS Youth Camp Tree Planting Project 7.7.1 Neighborhood Services supported the PAGGS scouting group to plant 200 trees across Barshaw Park and Gennifer Braes. The PAGGS group is an international twin town cooperation involving 200 children from partnership countries including Paisley (Scotland), Apeldoorn (the Netherlands), Gladsaxe (Denmark), Sutton (England), and Poland. The international camp was held in Paisley this year with the group taking part in several cultural, environmental and educational activities. 8. Waste Services 8.1 Route Management Software and In-cab Technology 8.1.1 New route management software including in-cab devices was successfully launched in June 2025. The new digital route management system has replaced the paper-based system with all collection routes now live and accessible via the in-cab technology. The technology is still in the early stages of implementation however the service are already seeing a positive impact, particularly in relation to improved information and data capture which previously wasn’t available to the service. The new information and data from the system is being utilised by the service to drive forward improvements, particularly in relation to reducing missed bins with the service now able to identify the reason a bin was missed e.g. crew error, mis- representation or access issues and put measures in place to address this. The route management software will also be linked to our vehicle CCTV system providing the service with an additional resource to further analyse e.g. missed bin reports. 8.1.2 The in-cab technology provides a platform for crews to collect and report collection information or any issues in real time including information in relation to Assisted Collections. The service are using this information to review the Assisted Collection Service to ensure all registered households are eligible to receive this service. Page 27 of 96
Page 28
8.1.3 The service has also received positive feedback from the Customer Services Unit in relation to the quality of information now available to them. The CSU have access to the system and are able to check the status of collections e.g. they can see when a collection vehicle was in the street and the time a bin was serviced, or if there were any issues reported by the crew that resulted in the bin not being collected. The CSU are able to use this information when responding to resident enquiries. 8.2 Waste Collection Method Update 8.2.1 As reported at the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board in May 2025, the Service has completed the de-coupling of grey bins presented on a Saturday collection. From 21st April 2025 grey bins for properties on a Saturday collection were moved to a Monday collection. Following a transition period the de-coupling model is now embedded within the service and has delivered a range of benefits including a more efficient and resilient collection service, a reduction in the number of bins presented on pavements improving accessibility for residents e.g. for pram access and wheelchair users and promoting positive recycling behaviour by separating recycling and non-recycling collections. 8.2.2 Building on the de-coupling of Saturday collection routes, the service are using the new route management software and in-cab technology to collect route data for collections delivered across Renfrewshire. The data captured will be used to develop new fully optimised collection routes and to expand the de-coupling of grey bins to properties across Renfrewshire. The data will be collected over the next 2-3 months with implementation of new collection routes in November 2025. 8.2.3 New collection routes will be modelled for 82,000 standard kerbside collected properties. Residents may experience changes to their collection day, however, there will be no change to the frequency of collection for the vast majority of residents. A small number (1,425) of properties that received updated bin infrastructure during the Recycling Improvement Fund project, will transfer to the standard collection frequency to align with collection services delivered across Renfrewshire. 8.2.4 Before new collections start, households will receive a letter explaining what the collection changes mean for them and details of any collection changes over the festive period. As well as the letter, households will receive a printed collection calendar showing their collection dates for the next 12 months. The service will also prepare information for elected members to keep them updated on the changes and how they can support them across their wards. 8.2.5 The service will provide a further update at the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board in November 2025. Page 28 of 96
Page 29
8.3 Waste Service Website Update 8.3.1 The new route management system will be integrated with multiple systems including the new Renfrewshire Council website which is currently in development. From the website, residents will have access to a new online bin collection calendar which will show accurate dates, including festive changes and rescheduled collections. Other formats including 12-month PDF downloads, email reminders, and iCalendar files for phone calendars will also be available, providing residents with information which was not previously available to them. 8.4 Changes to Waste Management Consultation 8.4.1 Waste Services responded to the Scottish Government consultation on provision of textile recycling, highlighting the high cost of kerbside collections and the detrimental impact that mandatory kerbside collections would have on existing reuse of secondhand clothes. It was suggested that enhanced bring facilities, offered in partnership with the third sector, offered a better approach. 9. #YouDecide 9.1.1 Lochwinnoch – A fence around Lochwinnoch play area has been installed with new outdoor gym equipment planned for installation later in the year. 9.1.2 Lighting in parks – Connections are complete in Lochwinnoch park, Kintyre park, Kilbarchan park and Millfield view, Erskine. 9.1.3 Johnstone – Installation of outdoor gym equipment is planned for Poplar Avenue and will coincide with play area renewal later in the year. 9.1.4 Bishopton – A tree sculpture will be installed on Barrangary roundabout and a horse sculpture on Chestnut roundabout in late 2025. 9.1.5 Kilbarchan – Work continues on the village activity trail with “Kilbarchan Smile” community group leading on gathering content for the boards. It is hoped that content and design can be finalised within the coming months with planned installations in early 2026. Further engagement with the Community Council continues to discuss and agree on the most suitable option for the roundabout, taking into consideration the available budget and ongoing maintenance. One proposal previously put forward was the installation of a piece of artwork. There are a couple of options under consideration and reaching a community consensus is essential before proceeding. 9.1.6 Inchinnan – Work on the village activity trail is ongoing and Inchinnan Historical Group have provided some content. Proposed site locations have been identified however further engagement is needed to finalise content and design with community groups in August. 9.1.7 Howwood – the community has suggested additional projects and after evaluation of these the most viable projects and will be presented to the next policy board. Page 29 of 96
Page 30
9.1.8 Improvements to the appearance of the roundabout at Glasgow Road and Kings Inch Road have still to be agreed. The scale of the roundabout presents challenges in terms of what can feasibly be delivered within budget, provide benefit, and not require ongoing maintenance. We intend to engage with the community to explore viable options during August. 9.1.9 Paisley Gleniffer – Works are ongoing to improve paths and signage in Gleniffer Braes County Park and the Glen car park, off Glenfield Road will be resurfaced as soon as underground sewage pipe maintenance is complete. 10. EV Charging Infrastructure Update 10.1.1 Renfrewshire Council continue to work with Glasgow City region partners to award a contract in 2026 with a commercial Charge Point Operator as a partner who will be required to both migrate around 600 existing charge points and install around 3,000 to 3,500 new EV chargers. The contract consists of financing the installations, maintenance of the charging infrastructure and back office services. 10.1.2 The initial selection of potential EV charging sites has been passed to Scottish Power Energy Networks to review electrical grid capacity and check if the potential sites are viable options. Procurement documents should be available in December 2025 with anticipated contract award date in May 2026. 11. School Crossing Patrollers 11.1.1 The refreshed policy for the assessment of locations for school crossing facilities was agreed at the March meeting of the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board. The criteria for the assessment of potential school crossing points used within the policy follows the national School Crossing Patrol Service Guidelines (2016 Revision) provided by Road Safety GB in conjunction with RoSPA. 11.1.2 The service has been reviewing all school cross patrol locations and there are a number that no longer meet the policy criteria and have been assessed as safe crossing points in regard to the policy. These locations with a PV2 score between 4 and 11 where signalised/controlled crossing infrastructure has been installed, and those locations which have a low PV2 score. The locations referred to in this paragraph are detailed in the table below: Closest School Crossing Positions Council Ward Improvements planned Rationale St Charles PS Rowan St/Thrushcraigs Cres Paisley Southeast Advance warning School Crossing signs both ways / refresh road markings Light Controlled Crossing in place therefore doesn’t meet the criteria for a SCP Low number of vehicles during assessment Williamsburgh PS/St John Ogilvie PS Arkleston Rd/Regent St Paisley Northeast & Ralston Advance warning School Crossing signs both ways / refresh road markings Light Controlled Crossing in place therefore doesn’t meet the criteria for a SCP Low number of pupils crossed during assessment East Fulton PS/Linwood High Clippens Rd/Stirling Gate Houston, Crosslee & Linwood Advance warning School Crossing signs both ways / refresh road markings Light Controlled Crossing in place therefore doesn’t meet the criteria for a SCP Page 30 of 96
Page 31
Closest School Crossing Positions Council Ward Improvements planned Rationale West Johnstone Shared Campus Beith Rd/Craigenfeoch Ave Johnstone South & Elderslie Advance warning School Crossing signs both ways / refresh road markings Historical crossing (servicing previous primary schools) which is no longer required with alternative light- controlled crossings in place at both Johnstone High and West Johnstone Campus 2 pupils assisted during assessment St Margarets/ Thorn PS Campbell St/Canal Rd Johnstone South & Elderslie Advance warning School Crossing signs both ways / refresh road markings/ school crossing sign imprint in carriageway, surface type permitting. Position has been vacant for over a year with no known accidents No pupils crossed during assessment Thorn PS Beith Rd/Fraser Ave Johnstone South & Elderslie Advance warning School Crossing signs both ways / refresh road markings Alternative light- controlled crossing in place at Thorn Inn and therefore, doesn’t meet the criteria for a SCP No pupils crossed during assessment Howwood PS Bowfield Rd Johnstone North, Kilbarchan, Howwood & Lochwinnoch Advance warning School Crossing signs both ways / refresh road markings/ school crossing sign imprint in carriageway, surface type permitting. Traffic calming infrastructure in place (raised table at each side of crossing) Bridge of Weir PS Houston Rd/Warlock Rd Bishopton, Bridge of Weir & Langbank Advance warning School Crossing signs both ways / refresh road markings Position vacant and no known accidents. Light Controlled Crossing in place therefore doesn’t meet the criteria for a SCP Low number of pupils crossed during assessment Inchinnan PS Old Greenock Rd Erskine & Inchinnan Advance warning School Crossing signs both ways / refresh road markings/ school crossing sign imprint in carriageway, surface type permitting. Traffic calming infrastructure in place (raised table at each side of crossing) Page 31 of 96
Page 32
11.1.3 Under the Council’s Scheme of Delegated functions, the Director of Environment, Housing and Infrastructure has the following delegation: To withdraw an existing school crossing patrol service point which does not comply with Council policy, following a reassessment by Environment & Infrastructure against Council policy and after discussion and communication with the Head Teacher and local primary parent council. 11.1.4 In addition to the above, Officers will be advising local ward members of any changes in their ward, including the road safety enhancements detailed below. 11.1.5 At all 9 crossing points, road marking lines will be refreshed, advanced warning (School Crossing) signs will be erected in both directions to advise drivers of school children crossing and for some of the crossing points, a school crossing sign imprint will be displayed on the carriageway (surface type permitting). 12. Association of Public Service Excellence – Service Awards 2025 12.1.1 Neighbourhood Services Renewal of Playparks Project has been shortlisted as a finalist for the Best Community and Neighbourhood Initiative at the APSE Service Awards 2025. The award recognises frontline service teams and the positive impact they have on our communities. Winners will be announced on 11th September. Implications of the Report 1. Financial – Any financial elements referenced in this report will be progressed through the Council’s financial & budget planning process. 2. HR & Organisational Development – Within Renfrewshire, there are currently 92 school crossing patrol locations with associated SCP positions, 21 of the positions are currently vacant. Recruiting crossing patrollers remains a challenge to attract personnel to the role. Whilst initial discussions with staff have taken place, officers will work with staff to discuss other School Crossing Patroller posts, and / or further opportunities within Soft FM and the potential for VR/VER will also be considered. 3. Community/Council Planning – The report details a range of activities which reflect local community and council planning themes. 4. Legal – None 5. Property/Assets – None 6. Information Technology – None Page 32 of 96
Page 33
7. Equality & Human Rights - 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. 8. Health & Safety – None 9. Procurement – None 10. Risk – None 11. Privacy Impact – None 12. Climate Change – there are a range of actions and activities throughout the Service Update Report which support the Council’s Plan for Net Zero. 13. Children’s Rights – None 14. Cosla Policy Position – None List of Background Papers: None Author: Gordon McNeil, Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure Email: G ordon.mcneil@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 33 of 96
Page 34
Page 34 of 96
Page 35
To: Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board On: 27 August 2025 Report by: Director of Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Heading: Bus Service 514 – Dargavel to Braehead 1. Summary 1.1 As part of the Section 75 agreement between BAE and Renfrewshire Council, BAE was responsible for providing £350,000 in funding for the delivery of a bus service. 1.2 Prior to the commencement of this service in April 2024, officers from the Council and SPT had put forward options for services which would connect Dargavel and Bishopton with services in Erskine that would then have onward travel options for Braehead. 1.3 Engagement sessions were hosted with community representatives with feedback being these options were not favoured by the community and they would require a direct service to Braehead. 1.4 Officers revised the options to develop one with a direct route. At the time it was highlighted that whilst the previous options could be delivered for a period of 3 years within the £350,000 funding envelope, it was unlikely that a direct route could be delivered for 3 years with that funding. 1.5 The 514 Service came into operation on 14 April 2024 and a summary of service performance is outlined at section 3 of the report below. 1.6 As a result of low patronage numbers with the current service provision the service will be due to cease operation at the end of January 2026. 1.7 Officers from SPT and the Council have held discussions about what alterations could be made to the route to prolong the length of time the service is operating and the options are set out at section 6 below. Item 3 Page 35 of 96
Page 36
2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board: 2.1. Notes the Service 514 will cease operation on 31 January 2026 unless alternative routing or timetable options are explored, and 2.2. Agrees that officers from SPT and the Council will develop a proposal to maximise the duration that the service 514 can continue within the existing agreed funding envelope. 3. Background 3.1 Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) is the regional transport authority which manages bus provision across 12 local authorities in the west of Scotland, including Renfrewshire. 3.2 The deregulated bus market operates ca. 90% of all registered local bus mileage in the west of Scotland, determining matters of route, fares and days of operation. SPT, on behalf of the 12 local authorities, let contracts to private operators through tendered processes for ca. 200 local bus services which are not commercially viable but deemed socially necessary and in line with their framework for supporting local bus services. 3.3 The bus service 514 came into operation on 14th April 2024 with a defined end date of 10th April 2027 or whenever the section 75 funding of £350,000 had been utilised after the service was tendered with the service being carried out by McGills. 3.4 Officers from SPT have been in discussion with Council officers in relation to the performance and viability of the service continuing in its present format. Should there be no changes to the service it is anticipated that the service will utilise the available funding of £350,000 by the end of January 2026. 4. Financial Implications 4.1 The service started on 14th April 2024 and to the 31 March 2025 had drawn down £193,474 of the £350,000 available, whilst during that period taking in £46,171 in income. Page 36 of 96
Page 37
4.2 Based on the weekly operating costs of around £4,300 and average income of £700 the service would likely require to conclude around the end of January 2026. 4.3 There are a number of options which exist in relation to the delivery of the service 514 • No action or changes to service provision (service ends 31st January) • Remove low / lower use journeys (pro-rata reduction to operating cost) • Reduce operating days (pro-rata reduction to operating cost), and • Suspend service and reallocate funding. 5. Current Service Performance 5.1 The review period for service performance was April 2024 to the end of June 2025, giving a total of 66 operational weeks of service. During that time the service 514 has been used by 26,398 passengers, at an average of 400 passengers per week or 57 passengers per day. 5.2 A focussed 12 week review of data has also been carried out from the period January 2025 – end of June 2025, avoiding periods like school and public holidays to provide as representative a sample as possible. 5.3 This 12 week sample has highlighted that there were 4,524 passengers over this time, at an average of 377 passengers per week, or 53 passengers per day, which is broadly in line with the total service statistics outlined at section 5.1 above. 5.4 The service currently operates on a Monday to Sunday basis with a slightly later start time and earlier finishing time on a Sunday. 5.5 SPT has also reviewed notifications from McGills in relation to service disruption and in the period January 2025 to end June 2025 there were 21 recorded service disruptions due to a number of factors including roadworks, police incidents or vehicle breakdowns affecting the service timetable. 5.6 The demographic of the passengers is shown in the figure on the next page. Page 37 of 96
Page 38
5.7 Officers from SPT have reviewed the service performance, particularly patronage numbers and have highlighted below a number of journeys where the passenger numbers are exceptionally low which does not make the route a commercially viable operation in its present form. 5.8 The journeys highlighted in red above are where a journey has been carried out with an average of less than 3 passengers per journey. The peak busy period for the route is consistently the afternoon and early evening of Saturdays. Page 38 of 96
Page 39
6. Future Service Delivery 6.1 As outlined at section 4.3 above there are a number of options currently being considered to extend the duration of the 514 service, including; • No action or changes to service provision o Taking no proactive action will result in the service concluding at the end of January 2026. • Remove low / lower use journeys (pro-rata reduction to operating cost) o There are opportunities to review the low patronage journeys to engage with McGills over how this would impact the longevity of the service beyond January 2026. • Reduce operating days (pro-rata reduction to operating cost) o Removal of the Sunday service could allow further extension of the route beyond the anticipated timeline • Suspend service and reallocate funding o The funding could be allocated elsewhere, however this is not considered a viable option in light of the specific requirements of the section 75 agreement with BAE. 6.2 Council officers will engage with local ward members and community representatives in the coming weeks in advance of changes being made to ensure the issue is raised in the community and will work jointly with SPT on communications and marketing of the route to raise the profile of the service. 7. Long Term Solution 7.1 In addition to assessing the options for extending the duration the route will run for, consideration is being given to what the permanent solution for public transport on the route will be, given that it is currently proving not to be a commercially viable route. 7.2 The figure below shows the alternative public transport options that exist in the surrounding area and consideration will be given as to how the current service can link with these existing services so that a permanent public transport solution can be delivered. Page 39 of 96
Page 40
Page 40 of 96
Page 41
Implications of this Report 1. Financial –There are no costs to the Council as a result of any proposals in the report. 2. HR and Organisational Development – none 3. Community Planning Our Renfrewshire is thriving / Reshaping our place, our economy and our future – Finding an alternative solution for the route will assist public transport arrangements for local communities. 4. Legal – none 5. Property/Assets – none 6. Information Technology – none 7. Equality & Human Rights - 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. 8. Health and Safety – None. 9. Procurement – none. 10. Risk – none. 11. Privacy Impact – none. 12. Climate Risk – reducing private car journeys with effective public transport systems has a positive impact on the climate agenda. 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. 14. CoSLA Policy Position – N/A List of Background Papers - none Author Gordon McNeil, Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure e-mail: gordon.mcneil@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 41 of 96
Page 42
Page 42 of 96
Page 43
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 Item 4 Page 43 of 96
Page 44
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 44 of 96
Page 45
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 45 of 96
Page 46
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 46 of 96
Page 47
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 47 of 96
Page 48
Page 48 of 96
Page 49
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 49 of 96
Page 50
Page 50 of 96
Page 51
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 51 of 96
Page 52
Page 52 of 96
Page 53
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. Page 53 of 96
Page 54
Page 54 of 96
Page 55
___________________________________________________________________ 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. Item 5 Page 55 of 96
Page 56
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 56 of 96
Page 57
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 57 of 96
Page 58
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 58 of 96
Page 59
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 59 of 96
Page 60
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 60 of 96
Page 61
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 61 of 96
Page 62
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 62 of 96
Page 63
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 63 of 96
Page 64
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 64 of 96
Page 65
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 65 of 96
Page 66
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 66 of 96
Page 67
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 67 of 96
Page 68
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 68 of 96
Page 69
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 69 of 96
Page 70
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 70 of 96
Page 71
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 71 of 96
Page 72
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 72 of 96
Page 73
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 73 of 96
Page 74
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 74 of 96
Page 75
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 75 of 96
Page 76
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 76 of 96
Page 77
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 77 of 96
Page 78
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 78 of 96
Page 79
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 79 of 96
Page 80
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 80 of 96
Page 81
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 81 of 96
Page 82
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 82 of 96
Page 83
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. Page 83 of 96
Page 84
Page 84 of 96
Page 85
___________________________________________________________________ To: Infrastructure, Land & Environment Policy Board On: 27 August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Surplus Land - Gallowhill Cycle Route ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 This report seeks to obtain the Boards agreement to the declare council owned land surplus, required to facilitate the construction of an access ramp for the Gallowhill Cycle Route to connect direct to Gallowhill Road. __________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations It is recommended that the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board: 2.1 Agree to declare the property outlined in red on the attached plan (Land Parcel SDL 114 00 PL 3_ (005) surplus). 3. Background 3.1 The Gallowhill Link active travel infrastructure forms part of the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District Scotland (AMIDS) South programme. It is an extension to the southern end of the Paisley to Renfrew active travel route that uses a section of the disused railway line to connect the scheme to the Gallowhill residential area of Paisley passing under Renfrew Road at the existing road bridge at the north end of the Renfrew Road retail development. Once installed the infrastructure will facilitate high quality safe mainly off-road cycling, walking and wheeling provision between residential areas such as Gallowhill and Renfrew, educational facilities such as West College Scotland and the new Paisley Grammar School Community Campus (PGSCC) and Item 6 Page 85 of 96
Page 86
employment centres and retail opportunities e.g, AMIDS and Paisley Retail Park. Constructing an active travel connection to the new PGSCC which is inclusive to all is vitally important in the next phase of works to improve the councils active travel network as it will encourage and allow everyday journeys to be made in a sustainable way as the council works towards the realisation of its plan to be Net Zero by 2030. 3.2 Planning consent for the Project was granted by Renfrewshire Council on 30th January 2024. 4. Land 4.1 Blackcroft (Holdings) Limited received planning permission for the “Erection of hot food takeaway with internal and external seating areas and associated access, parking and cycle path link” at a vacant site at end of Gallowhill Road at the junction of Renfrew Road. This includes an existing single storey shop unit abutting the Eastern boundary of the site. 4.2 The planning application was granted on the 29th of April 2025. 4.3 The Council require land from Blackcroft over which to construct the permanent cycleway and for future maintenance. Blackcroft are agreeable to this but have requested that as compensation that the Council transfers a small area of (potentially) surplus land to them. 4.4 The areas highlighted in red on attached plan Land Parcel SDL 114 00 PL 3_ (005) shows the areas sought. 4.5 Officers have carried out the necessary checks with the Council’s Estates Team and can confirm there are no objections to these proposals. 4.6 Assuming the Board approves this land as surplus, the values of the land to be transferred would fall under the delegated powers of the Head of Economy and Development and so this agreement with Blackcroft can be concluded quickly enabling the construction of the access ramp to commence in the coming weeks. _________________________________________________________________________ Implications of the Report 1. Financial and Legal – None. 2. HR & Organisational Development – Not Applicable. 3. Community/Council Planning – The project will facilitate high quality safe mainly off-road cycling, walking and wheeling provision between residential areas such as Gallowhill and Renfrew, educational facilities such as West College Scotland and the new Paisley Grammar School Community Campus (PGSCC) and employment centres and retail opportunities e.g, AMIDS and Page 86 of 96
Page 87
Paisley Retail Park. Improved connections between key educational and health centres would also improve educational and health opportunities for people within the local communities as well as aiding employees to access these major employment centres. Constructing an active travel connection to the new PGSCC which is inclusive to all is vitally important in the next phase of works to improve the councils active travel network as it will encourage and allow everyday journeys to be made in a sustainable way as the council works towards the realisation of its plan to be Net Zero by 2030. 4. Legal - None. 5. Property/Assets – As per this report 6. Information Technology – None. 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 – None. 10. Risk – None. 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Cosla Policy Position – Not Applicable. 13. Climate Risk – project has been designed in line with Cycling by Design, Designing Streets and Inclusive Design for Town Centres and Busy Streets guidance documents. The project also encourages active travel which contributes to the Council’s Net Zero Agenda. _________________________________________________________ Author: Barbara Walker, City Deal and Infrastructure Programme Director. Email Barbara.walker@renfrewshire.gov.uk Page 87 of 96
Page 88
Page 88 of 96
Page 89
Areas of Land to be transferred to Blackcroft (Holdings) Limited – Land Parcel SDL 114 00 PL 3_ (005) Page 89 of 96
Page 90
Area of land Council require from Blackcroft (Holdings) Limited GAT-AMEY-LLO- SWI-DR-BL-000004.P02 (005) Page 90 of 96
Page 91
2 ___________________________________________________________________ To: Infrastructure Land & Environment Policy Board On: 27 August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Subject Lease Extension at 41 Hallhill Road, Johnstone ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval for a lease extension at 41 Hallhill Road, Johnstone to Salwan Pharmacy Limited for a period of 15 years, running from 27th February 2026. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Infrastructure Land & Environment Policy Board approve a lease extension of 41 Hallhill Road, Johnstone to Salwan Pharmacy Limited for a period of 15 years from 27th February 2026 based on the contents of this report. ___________________________________________________ 3. Background 3.1 The property was newly constructed, and the tenants moved in and opened the pharmacy in 2016. They are looking to extend their lease to secure funding. 3.2 Officers consider Salwan Pharmacy have been good tenants for Renfrewshire Council, and it is recommended to conclude a lease on the following main terms and conditions. o The lease extension shall be for a period of 15 years from 27th February 2026 and shall be on the Council’s standard full repairing and insuring lease. Item 7 Page 91 of 96
Page 92
3 o The rent shall be £7,500 pa payable monthly in advance. o There will be 5 yearly reviews. o The tenant is responsible for obtaining all appropriate planning and statutory consents required in connection with the proposed use. o The Tenant shall meet the Council’s reasonable legal expenses and outlays incurred in concluding the lease. o Any other reasonable terms and conditions considered necessary by the Head of Corporate Governance. ___________________________________________________________________ Implications of the Report 1. Financial - Annual rental of £7,500 to be received for this commercial property unit. 2. HR & Organisational Development - None. 3. Community Planning - Secures long term tenancy. 4. Legal - Lease documentation required. 5. Property/Assets - As per this report. 6. Information Technology – None 7. Equality & Human Rights - 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 because no groups or individuals have any involvement currently at the property. 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 - Not applicable. 10. Risk - None. 11. Privacy Impact - Not applicable. 12. Climate Risk – Not applicable 13 Children’s Rights – Not applicable Page 92 of 96
Page 93
4 14. Cosla Policy Position - Not applicable. _______________________________________________________ List of Background Papers - None ___________________________________________________________________ Chief Executive’s AW 24 July 2025 Author: anne.wilson@renfrewshire.gov.uk; 07811 056 721 Page 93 of 96
Page 94
Page 94 of 96
Page 95
Page 95 of 96
Page 96
Page 96 of 96