Disabled Persons’ Parking Places Order 9
Renfrewshire Council · 27 May 2026
Back to Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board — 27 May 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
PUBLIC To: The Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board On: 27 May 2026 Report by: Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure Heading: The Renfrewshire Council (Disabled Persons’ Parking Places) (Various Locations, Renfrewshire) Number Nine 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 4th March 2026 this TRO relating to new Disabled Persons’ Parking Places was advertised, eight objections were received and not withdrawn.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 Inverglas Avenue Renfrew Objection 2 Inverglas Avenue Renfrew Objection 3 Inverglas Avenue Renfrew Objection 4 Inverglas Avenue Renfrew Objection 5 Blackstoun Road Paisley Objection 6 Blackstoun Road Paisley Objection 7 Spiers Place Linwood Objection 8 Forth Place Johnstone Objection 9 Semple Place Linwood
Page 2
PUBLIC 1.5. Officers recommend implementation of all the disabled bays as originally proposed. 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 the 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 Nine 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 advertised 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. 3.3. The proposal went through a single stage public consultation process for a 28-day period ending 1st April 2026. 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 4th March 2026 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.
Page 3
PUBLIC 3.5. As a result of the consultation, nine separate objections were received. The objections remain in place as they have not been withdrawn. The objections concern these locations: Inverglas Avenue, Renfrew (4 Objections). Blackstoun Road, Paisley (2 Objections). Spiers Place, Linwood. Forth Place, Johnstone Semple Place, Linwood The objections are set out in full at Appendix A to E of this report. 3.6. The disabled bay road markings are lined shortly after 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 implementation of the restrictions as advertised, officers will arrange for the works required to make the disabled bay enforceable. This will include the installation of the appropriate sign to accompany the existing road lining. 3.7. Officers recommend implementation of the seven disabled bays as proposed. 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.
Page 4
PUBLIC 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. 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 - 13. Children’s Rights - 14. COSLA Policy Position – N/A. List of Background Papers - none Author: Laura Anderson, Traffic Regulation Order Officer laura.anderson@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 5
PUBLIC Appendix A Objection 1 I'm writing to object to the disabled parking bay located in Inverglas Avenue, Renfrew, PA4 0XR. Renfrewshire Council's web page states "You can apply for a disabled parking space outside your home if you do not have a driveway or other off-road parking area next to your property, such as a garage or lock up". In this instance, the applicant in question owns a garage close to their property for their sole use. I question whether Renfrewshire Council's has gone against its own policy when researching the needs, and the availability of off road parking for this applicant. The parking bay has also been positioned in a designated turning area where parking is not permitted. This has resulted in neighbouring driveways being used for vehicle manoeuvres which is unacceptable. As I visit this location regularly, the positioning of this bay is adversely affecting manoeuvrability and safety as the turning point in the cul de sac is in effect unusable due to this unwarranted bay being in place. Officers’ Review of Objection 1 Where an applicant has existing private off-road parking, applications are assessed based on whether those off-road facilities can be safely accessed by the applicant e.g. is it close enough to be useable, is it wide enough to be useable, are there any other physical constraints that mean it is not useable etc. Where off-road facilities cannot be safely accessed by the applicant, this is viewed the same as an application from someone with no private off-road parking. Our assessment of this application concludes that it meets the criteria for provision of an on-street bay which is located in close proximity to the applicant’s home.
Page 6
PUBLIC The disabled bay has been marked in a turning head however, there is ample room to complete a turning manoeuvre with this bay in place, without using a neighbouring driveway. The bay location mirrors the natural parking habit of the street, where cars are normally parked here. As part of the assessment of a disabled bay application, officers consider if the applicant has suitable, accessible off street parking that suits the needs of the disabled applicant and if not, officers are obliged to consider on-street parking. The circumstances of this case have meant that an on-street disabled bay has been accepted as necessary. The roads authority does not decide on the legitimacy of the disabled blue badge, it purely insists on proof of the issue of a blue badge to the applicant before proceeding with the disabled bay application. Objection 2 I would like to take this opportunity to object to Renfrewshire Council's proposal to make the Traffic Regulation Order 56 (TRO56) in relation to the disabled parking bay in Inverglas Avenue, Renfrew, PA4 0XR. With reference to Renfrewshire Council's web page, under "Who can apply for a disabled persons' parking space?" it clearly states that you can apply for a disabled parking space outside your home if you "do not have a driveway or other off-road parking area next to your property, such as a garage or lock up". The applicant in this instance, has a garage for their sole use and therefore is not eligible for a disabled space in line with council policy. I have also taken the time to look at the application form on you website and note that there is a box that the applicant must check to acknowledge "If you have a private driveway or off-road parking area, you can't apply for a disabled parking space". I am unsure how the applicant was able to proceed with their application without checking this box as you cannot move to the next step on the form without doing so. If said box was checked, the applicant is clearly aware that they are not eligible for a disabled bay. The area where the bay has been positioned is a turning head for vehicles and therefore no parking is permitted and the bay should not be allocated there, even if it were legitimate. Neighbouring driveways, including my own, and garage access areas are now being used by vehicles turning which, I'm sure you will agree, is unacceptable. Officers’ Review of Objection 2 Where an applicant has existing private off-road parking, applications are assessed based on whether those off-road facilities can be safely accessed by the applicant e.g. is it close enough to be useable, is it wide enough to be useable, are there any other physical constraints that mean it is not useable etc. Where off-road facilities cannot be safely accessed by the applicant, this is viewed the same as an application from someone with no private off-road parking. Our assessment of this application concludes that it meets the criteria for provision of an on-street bay which is located in close proximity to the applicant’s home. The disabled bay has been marked in a turning head however, there is ample room to complete a turning manoeuvre with this bay in place, without using a homeowner's driveway. The bay location mirrors the natural parking habit of the street, where cars are normally parked here. As part of the assessment of a disabled bay application, officers consider if the applicant has suitable, accessible off street parking that suits the needs of the disabled applicant and if not, officers are obliged to consider on-street parking. The circumstances of this case have meant that an on-street disabled bay has been accepted as necessary. The roads authority does not decide on the legitimacy of the disabled blue badge, it purely insists on proof of the issue of a blue badge to the applicant before proceeding with the disabled bay application. Currently the disabled bay is marked as a prospective bay on the road. This in effect gives advance warning of the consultation on the governing traffic order to come. We cannot remove the disabled bay without going through the Traffic Order process to decide if any objections have adequate grounds. If it is decided that the disabled bay should be removed, it will be removed after that decision is taken. Objection 3 I would like to object to the disabled parking bay that has been positioned in Inverglas Avenue, PA4 0XR for the following reasons: * Applicants who have a driveway or other off-road parking area such as a garage or lock up, do not qualify for a disabled space. This is stated on both Renfrewshire Council's website and the parking space application form. The applicant in this instance owns a garage close to their home that is for their sole use.
Page 7
PUBLIC * The disabled space has been marked out within a turning head where parking is not permitted. Officers’ Review of Objection 3 Where an applicant has existing private off-road parking, applications are assessed based on whether those off-road facilities can be safely accessed by the applicant e.g. is it close enough to be useable, is it wide enough to be useable, are there any other physical constraints that mean it is not useable etc. Where off-road facilities cannot be safely accessed by the applicant, this is viewed the same as an application from someone with no private off-road parking. Our assessment of this application concludes that it meets the criteria for provision of an on-street bay which is located in close proximity to the applicant’s home. The disabled bay has been marked in a turning head however, there is ample room to complete a turning manoeuvre with this bay in place, without using a homeowner's driveway. The bay location mirrors the natural parking habit of the street, where cars are normally parked here. As part of the assessment of a disabled bay application, officers consider if the applicant has suitable, accessible off street parking that suits the needs of the disabled applicant and if not, officers are obliged to consider on-street parking. The circumstances of this case have meant that an on-street disabled bay has been accepted as necessary. The roads authority does not decide on the legitimacy of the disabled blue badge, it purely insists on proof of the issue of a blue badge to the applicant before proceeding with the disabled bay application. Currently the disabled bay is marked as a prospective bay on the road. This in effect gives advance warning of the consultation on the governing traffic order to come. We cannot remove the disabled bay without going through the Traffic Order process to decide if any objections have adequate grounds. If it is decided that the disabled bay should be removed, it will be removed after that decision is taken. Objection 4 As a resident of the area, I would like to object to the above TRO relating to the disabled bay positioned in Inverglas Avenue, PA4 0XR. In line with Renfrewshire Council's policy, you are unable to apply for a disabled bay if you have a driveway or other off-road parking area next to your property. This is clearly stated on your website and on the parking bay application form. The applicant owns a garage for their sole use and therefore is not eligible for a disabled space. The garage is located just metres from their home. The bay has been positioned in a designated turning area where parking is not permitted. Officers’ Review of Objection 4 Where an applicant has existing private off-road parking, applications are assessed based on whether those off-road facilities can be safely accessed by the applicant e.g. is it close enough to be useable, is it wide enough to be useable, are there any other physical constraints that mean it is not useable etc. Where off-road facilities cannot be safely accessed by the applicant, this is viewed the same as an application from someone with no private off-road parking. Our assessment of this application concludes that it meets the criteria for provision of an on-street bay which is located in close proximity to the applicant’s home. The disabled bay has been marked in a turning head however, there is ample room to complete a turning manoeuvre with this bay in place, without using a homeowner's driveway. The bay location mirrors the natural parking habit of the street, where cars are normally parked here. As part of the assessment of a disabled bay application, officers consider if the applicant has suitable, accessible off street parking that suits the needs of the disabled applicant and if not, officers are obliged to consider on-street parking. The circumstances of this case have meant that an on-street disabled bay has been accepted as necessary. The roads authority does not decide on the legitimacy of the disabled blue badge, it purely insists on proof of the issue of a blue badge to the applicant before proceeding with the disabled bay application. Currently the disabled bay is marked as a prospective bay on the road. This in effect gives advance warning of the consultation on the governing traffic order to come. We cannot remove the disabled bay without going through the Traffic Order process to decide if any objections have adequate grounds. If it is decided that the disabled bay should be removed, it will be removed after that decision is taken.
Page 8
PUBLIC Appendix B Objection 5 I am writing to raise an objection regarding the proposed introduction of disabled parking bays at Blackstoun Road, specifically referencing UPRN 123039190 & 123039195. While I recognise the necessity of accessible parking, I believe this specific proposal is poorly executed and will have a detrimental impact on the safety and amenity of the street. The primary concern is that the formalization of these bays will lead to significant parking displacement. By removing general use space of residential demand, the Council is effectively forcing other residents and visitors to engage in "pavement parking" to attempt to keep the disabled bay and road partly clear. This directly contradicts the Council's statutory obligations under the Transport Act 2019 to eliminate pavement parking and maintain safe footways for pedestrians and wheelchair users. While the road may accommodate a single line of parked car(s), the introduction of fixed, enforceable bay will hinder the flow of two-way traffic during peak times. Furthermore, the removal of this space leaves zero provision for essential residential activities, such as the delivery of shopping, tradespeople access, or the safe pick-up and drop-off. This will result in additional congestion as vehicles are forced to double park. I would like to specifically highlight that the Council has failed to consider more sustainable alternatives that would satisfy the applicant's needs without penalizing the rest of the community. There are clear opportunities for 'Environmental Improvements' that could create new parking capacity. Specifically, the conversion of the underutilized grass verges outside properties No.5 and No. 13-15, including the removal of the tree and the repurposing of the pavement area between the bollards, would provide ample space for disabled bays without reducing the existing communal parking area. Finally, there is a concern regarding the practicality of this Order. Given the current under resourcing of the Council's parking warden service, this bay is unlikely to be monitored effectively, as I'm sure other areas in Renfrewshire will be impacted by the lack of service. A TRO that cannot be consistently managed fails the test of 'expeditious and convenient' road management required under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I request that this proposal be withdrawn pending a full site-specific assessment of the land-conversion options I have proposed above. Please acknowledged receipt of the objection and advise when the matter will be brought before the relevant board. Officers’ Review of Objection 5 Whilst the designation of a disabled parking bay limits the flexibility with which kerbside parking space can be used, the space is designated to provide parking opportunity in close proximity to the Blue Badge holder‘s residence at whose address a vehicle is kept i.e. no new parking demand is generated. It is recognised that the impact of the pavement parking ban may mean that, in some locations, established parking patterns have to change. It remains the responsibility of individual motorists to park in a manner that complies with the ban and any other local restrictions whilst maintaining through-vehicle access.
Page 9
PUBLIC Utilising existing road infrastructure is more sustainable than creating new road infrastructure. More specifically, removal of grass verges to create car parking has a detrimental environmental impact in terms of visual amenity, sense of place and carbon emissions. Notwithstanding this, the designation of a residential disabled parking bay at an area of existing uncontrolled kerbside space creates no additional kerbside parking activity where there was none before. It is therefore appropriate for a disabled bay to placed in the existing road space. The Council’s Parking Attendants undertake enforcement activities and in addition to scheduled visits can be contacted via the Council’s website / contact centre. Objection 6 I am writing to formally object to the recent installation of a disabled parking bay in the parking area between 5 and 9 Blackstoun Road in Paisley. While I fully understand and support the need for accessible parking for those with mobility issues, the introduction of this bay had removed one of the few available spaces in an already limited residential parking area. This has made parking increasingly difficult for residents. I am an old person myself, and although I do not currently have a blue badge I still find it physically demanding to carry in shopping and manage day to day tasks specially when there are no available spaces nearby. With fewer parking options now, other people are left with no choice but to park nearside kerb/pavement or on the road. I would kindly ask the council to reconsider the placement of this disabled bay or to review possible alternatives that take into account the needs of all residents, including older individuals like myself who also face mobility challenges but do not qualify for designated parking. Officers’ Review of Objection 6 The Blue Badge and Disabled Persons' Parking Places schemes are available to qualifying individuals who require access to parking opportunities in close proximity to their home. The disabled bay has been lined at the closest safe position available for the disabled applicant’s needs. Should you wish to apply for a Blue Badge, information is available at https://www1.renfrewshire.gov.uk/article/12576/Blue-Badges.
Page 10
PUBLIC Appendix C Objection 7 I email to raise my concerns and oppose the proposal for an enforced disabled parking space within Spiers Place, Linwood. Ref: TRO 526. I had previously emailed a complaint when the road was painted and space marked as disabled but never received a response. The proposed disabled parking space is for the one and only car parking space that sits directly in front of 11 Spiers Place. I oppose this for a number of reasons - I currently have a 10 year old, diesel engine car and looking at lowering my emissions and upgrading to an electric car. Having researched, I would require the use of a car parking space outside my house to safely charge an electric vehicle, which may even include a planning request to have the pavements lowered and a driveway into my garden. The car parking space becoming a disabled space would therefore prevent me from having the option of an environmentally friendly vehicle. The proposed disabled space is directly in front of a Scottish Power walled electricity exchange point, the gates open directly into the disabled parking space. And the sign stating "24 hour access required" can be seen now thrown into the area. Should an emergency occur, a disabled person's response time could be longer, delaying any reparative action. Personally, I think the question of whether this disabled person is still capable of driving is more appropriate. Respectfully, we have always left this car parking space free for them. There is not a demand for the car parking area outside our houses, the car park can comfortably park 8 cars for a total of 7 properties, in which only 4 have cars. The disabled person had spray painted parking bay lines and stated it was to help them park as their family find their reverse parking funny, it's no laughing matter, it's scary and dangerous from what I see. The rain kept washing away the spray paint, so is this request for disabled parking all just a parking aid? With all due respect, the positioning of the disabled person’s property means there are no car parking spaces directly in front and they have a distance to walk to get to their car, regardless. There are other car parking spaces a few steps away that would be more appropriate and safer for disabled parking. Officers’ Review of Objection 7 The disabled bay has been lined at the closest position available for the disabled applicant, with a hatched area to keep clear for the gate to Scottish Power point to open. In relation to any plan to install a driveway at any given property, the location of a disabled bay would be assessed again when an application for a crossover permit is received. Should a footway crossover be permitted and work planned, we would look at
Page 11
PUBLIC moving the disabled bay. Lastly, should you have any concerns regarding anyone’s fitness to drive this should be reported to the DVLA.
Page 12
PUBLIC Appendix D Objection 8 I would like to lodge a formal objection to a recently created disabled parking space in Forth Place Johnstone, Renfrewshire, outside number 18. I don't believe it meets the criteria as stated on my gov Scotland, as the applicant has both the space to able to construct an (additional) driveway or other hardstanding area next to the property, but also an existing parking space next to the property. Officers’ Review of Objection 8 Where an applicant has existing private off-road parking, applications are assessed based on whether those off-road facilities can be safely accessed by the applicant e.g. is it close enough to be useable, is it wide enough to be useable, are there any other physical constraints that mean it is not useable etc. Where off-road facilities cannot be safely accessed by the applicant, this is viewed the same as an application from someone with no private off-road parking. Our assessment of this application concludes that it meets the criteria for provision of an on-street bay which is located in close proximity to the applicant’s home.
Page 13
PUBLIC Appendix E Objection 9 I would like to object to the three disabled parking bays directly outside 1 Semple Place, Linwood, PA3 3RT. Residents of the street were not notified or consulted prior to the installation of the disabled bays. This a small residential street that already experiences significant parking pressure and this has disproportionally impacted on the availability for parking for residents and visitors. I am concerned that the cumulative effect of these bays in and around the street has not been properly assessed. On a personal note there is no need for these bays to be directly outside 1 Semple Place could one of these bays not be moved to the other end of the street where the resident concerned lives actually closer too, I realise yes there is a need in certain cases for these bays having a disability myself however I feel this is abused by certain residents who have the same parking issues as myself and want to secure a parking spot, the resident concerned is able to walk their dog for substantial walks per day so having the parking bay further down the street should not be an issue. The houses in this area were built in the 1960s and where not as many households had cars should the council not consider creating more parking bays on the grass verges that would alleviate the parking issues. Officers’ Review of Objection 9 The disabled bays have been placed in the safest available space to the residents there who require them. We cannot line at the other end of the street as this is a turning head. Whilst the designation of a disabled parking bay limits the flexibility with which kerbside parking space can be used, the space is designated to provide parking opportunity in close proximity to the Blue Badge holder‘s residence at whose address a vehicle is kept i.e. no new parking demand is generated. It is recognised that the impact of the pavement parking ban may mean that, in some locations, established parking patterns have to change. It remains the responsibility of individual motorists to park in a manner that complies with the ban and any other local restrictions whilst maintaining through-vehicle access. Utilising existing road infrastructure is more sustainable than creating new road infrastructure. More specifically, removal of grass verges to create car parking has a detrimental environmental impact in terms of visual amenity, sense of place and carbon emissions. Notwithstanding this, the designation of a residential disabled parking bay at an area of existing uncontrolled kerbside space creates no additional kerbside parking activity where there was none before. It is therefore appropriate for a disabled bay to placed in the existing road space. The roads authority does not decide on the legitimacy of the disabled blue badge, it purely insists on proof of the issue of a blue badge to the applicant before proceeding with the disabled bay application. Currently the disabled bay is marked as a prospective bay on the road. This in effect gives advance warning of the consultation on the governing traffic order to come.