ILE Renfrewshire Council (Pavement Parking Exemption) Order 2025
Renfrewshire Council · 22 January 2025
Back to Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board — 22 January 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
___________________________________________________________________ To: Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board On: 22 January 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Renfrewshire Council (Pavement Parking Exemption) Order 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Exemption Order allows Renfrewshire Council to grant exemptions at specific roads from the nationwide pavement parking ban as per The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. This will maintain emergency and refuse vehicle access while maintaining an appropriate footway width for pedestrians and wheelers. 1.3 On the 14th August 2024 the above Exemption Order, was advertised for public consultation which proposed to exempt the roads listed at Appendix 1 from the provisions of the pavement parking ban. 1.4 There were 85 responses in relation to the proposed areas for exemption from the Pavement Parking Ban and a further 71 responses in relation to requests for extra sites that were not included as part of the proposed Exemption Order.
Page 2
1.5 From the 85 responses, 82 of these were in relation to locations where responses included requests that the extent of the exemptions be increased in the Craighead Estate, Bishopton (Yarrow, Morar, Cawdor, Ettrick and Teviot), Low Barholm Kilbarchan, Burns Drive Johnstone and Kintyre Avenue Linwood. For ease of administration and future enforcement, the proposed Order removes the relevant sections from this Exemption Order with a view that (elements of) the requested extensions will be included in a subsequent Exemption Order. These locations will not be considered for enforcement whilst the subsequent order is being developed. 1.6 The remaining three objections to the Exemption Order at Glenpatrick Road, East Avenue and Greenock Road have been considered and not upheld. Objections to the proposals at Low Barholm and Kintyre Avenue have been considered, with some elements not upheld. Details are outlined at section 4.8 of this report. 1.7 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 type of proposed exemption does not automatically require the appointment of an independent Reporter to decide on the objections. The Board is therefore free to choose to decide on the objections itself, or, to appoint a Reporter to do so. 1.8 A plan of the proposed exemption areas can be found at this link. https://ren.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=5a1a2a5273 f043e4b89071c7fdee60b1 1.9 The enforcement of the Pavement Parking Ban requires the ILE Board to approve an amendment to the Council’s scheme of delegation to enable the Council’s Senior Community Support Officers, Community Support Officers and Community Support Assistants to issue PCNs, which is outlined at section 7.2 of this report. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 (Pavement Parking Exemption) Order 2025 at the meeting of this Policy Board rather than appointing an independent reporter.
Page 3
2.2 Subject to recommendation 2.1 and the objections not being upheld, approves the implementation of an amended Exemption Order, which includes the roads as listed at Appendix 1, 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. 2.3 Approves the commencement of enforcement activity associated with the national pavement parking ban as per The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 by Renfrewshire Council’s Parking Attendants. As a result it approves the amendment to para 20 on page 92 of the scheme of delegation shown in para 7.2 of this report and that the amendment be implemented with immediate effect, and 2.4 Notes that this is the first in a series of exemption reports that are likely to be considered by the Board as additional areas for exemption are to be considered. _________________________________________________________ 3. Background 3.1 Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 prohibits pavement parking, double parking (defined as parking more than 50 cm from the edge of the carriageway) and parking at dropped kerbs at known crossing points. For the purposes of the pavement parking legislation, a motor vehicle is defined as parked on a pavement if it is stationary and one or more of its wheels (or any part of them) is on any part of the pavement. From 11 December 2023, local authorities have had the tools they require to enforce the parking prohibitions by issuing a Penalty Charge Notice of £100 (reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days) (Transport Scotland, 2023). 3.2 There are exceptions for certain vehicles, including those that have been parked to save a life or respond to a similar emergency, as well as parking for up to 20 minutes if vehicles are delivering, loading or unloading goods; as long as the 1.5m minimum footway width is maintained. 3.3 This proposed order is for exemptions to the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 pavement parking ban. It has been agreed that a one size fits all approach will not work everywhere and that is why the Act provides local authorities with the opportunity to grant exemptions from the national ban on individual roads in line with the criteria outlined in the Pavement, Double & Dropped Kerb Parking Standards Guidance, (Transport Scotland, 2021) as outlined at 3.4 and 3.5 below.
Page 4
3.4 Point 1(a) allows a local authority to consider an Exemption Order for an area of footway where there is deemed to be sufficient space to maintain non- vehicular traffic flow whilst still allowing space for vehicles to park safely on the footway. The above directions state that a minimum of 1.5 metres of footway must be left unobstructed. 3.5 Point 1(b) would allow a local authority to exempt an area of footway from the prohibition to allow the safe passage of emergency vehicles on a carriageway. For example, this could be in relation to historic/narrow streets where there are existing footways of insufficient width and access for emergency services needs to be considered. 3.6 Within the Renfrewshire Council area there were 22 locations which were proposed for exemption following a study comprising of desktop analysis and on-site surveys. Each location was supported by an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) which considered specific safety and accessibility issues. _________________________________________________________ 4. Traffic Regulation Order Process 4.1 The proposal went through a single stage consultation process for a 28 day period 14th August to 11th September 2024. 4.2 The purpose of the consultation was to satisfy the statutory consultation process which would allow residents of Renfrewshire to provide comment on the proposed exemptions from the nationwide pavement parking legislation, permitting pavement parking in isolated locations. 4.3 The consultation details were published in the local press, on Renfrewshire.gov.uk and via the TellmeScotland website, where information on the exemption orders was provided in text format and in map form via Renfrewshire Council’s Geographic Information System (GIS) portal. Further to this, notices were placed on lampposts at each of the specific locations where the exemption orders were proposed.
Page 5
4.4 The online survey received 156 responses, with 85 of them being in relation to the proposed exemptions as outlined in the table below. Road Settlement Response Count Yarrow Crescent Bishopton 24 Craighead Estate Area Bishopton 17 Morar Crescent Bishopton 13 Cawdor Crescent Bishopton 12 Ettrick Drive Bishopton 5 Low Barholm Kilbarchan 4 Kintyre Avenue Linwood 3 Teviot Drive Bishopton 2 Burns Drive Johnstone 2 Glenpatrick Road Elderslie 1 East Avenue Renfrew 1 Greenock Road Bishopton 1 4.5 As a result of the consultation process, officers are recommending proceeding with the approval of the roads subject to exemption as outlined in Appendix 1 to this report. 4.6 Following consultation and discussions with the objectors on some of these locations, the decision was made to amend the Exemption Order and remove the proposed exemptions at the Craighead Estate area (includes Yarrow Crescent, Morar Crescent, Cawdor Crescent, Ettrick Drive and Teviot Drive), Low Barholm Kilbarchan, Burns Drive (from Nos 2 to 42) and Kintyre Avenue Linwood. 4.7 It is proposed to include these sections in a second Exemption Order which will propose to exempt both sides of the above roads in the Craighead Estate, extend the proposed exemption on Low Barholm up to the gable of No. 26, extend the proposed exemption on Burns Drive to include outside No. 44 and extend the proposed exemption on Kintyre Avenue to include the buildouts on the north section of the road.
Page 6
4.8 This second Order will also include any additional roads required to be exempt, following further surveys of roads that have been identified from the consultation exercise, that did not form part of the proposed Exemption Order. A subsequent 28-day consultation period on the second Exemption Order will be required. This will again involve publication in the local press, street notices and a web notice. 4.9 The areas proposed at the Craighead Estate, Low Barholm, Burns Drive, and Kintyre Avenue in the second Exemption Order will be lined at the same time of the first Exemption Order implementation in order to permit residents to park on the exempt sections of footway. Signs formalising the exempt sections will only be installed once the second Exemption Order is made and implemented. Like our disabled bay procedure, this allows residents to gain the benefit of the exemption while awaiting the conclusion of the administration of the second Order.
Page 7
4.10 The objections in relation to the other locations are detailed below. Information which could personally identify the objectors has been removed. Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Kintyre Avenue Linwood At 109 Kintyre Ave which is not exempt yet there is no space to park unless you go on pavement. From 109, 113, 111 and Davaar Court there is not even 1 space per household. Where can people with mobility issues park? Exemptions to be extended to include the buildouts on the north section of the road. All other sections of footway require to be kept clear to maintain pedestrian access. Kintyre Avenue (Same objection received from two objectors) Linwood I am writing to you regarding the proposed pavement parking exemption within Kintyre Avenue (numbers 25 to 73.) As a homeowner and a driver within the proposed area, I am aware of and acknowledge the difficulties of parking within the street. Additionally, I also recognise the need for such parking restrictions with regard to pedestrian safety and the reduction of accidents. However, and whilst I do not entirely object to the proposal, I feel, it necessary as a homeowner and owner of a vehicle to engage in this consultation/review period in order to ensure all possible considerations have been evaluated prior to any final decision made. As stated above, whilst I do acknowledge the problem of pavement parking within the street; I believe that singularly reducing, restricting and financially penalising drivers within the street, whilst failing to offer a suitable alternative is not a viable solution. In conjunction with this, I do not feel that a thorough analysis of parking within Kintyre Avenue has been completed as there are additional areas which arguably are significantly more unsafe and require some reconsideration. With the above in mind, I would like to draw your attention to areas which the council ironically are not proposing to make exempt from parking (house numbers 1-7.) Cars and bins obstruct a smaller pavement for pedestrians than the areas you have acknowledged- which makes it almost impossible for prams, the disabled, or most adults to pass. Additionally, these cars are parked very close to the turn into Kintyre Avenue and are often quite obstructive and make turning into the street quite dangerous- especially considering Exemptions to be extended to include the buildouts on the north section of the road. All other sections of footway require to be kept clear to maintain pedestrian access.
Page 8
Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review there is a child play park in proximity. I am unsure how this has not been acknowledged or recognised, but should now however reinforce the necessity for further discussions and alterations to the plans prior to any final decision. I would also Like to propose that the council seek to reduce the size (depth) of the pavement, in order to create additional space for parking. This space is a large additional pavement superfluous to requirements, which should they be removed (and which does not reduce the size of the actual pavement) would make space for 2 cars to park legally at each point. These "additional pavements" are spaced throughout the proposed area and by being removed would provide additional parking for potentially 8-10 cars. I am concerned that the lack of alternative solutions and compromise, paired with a sheer punitive approach is demonstrative of a "money-making exercise” for the Council; and whilst I am not disputing there is an issue which requires management within Kintyre Avenue, nor objecting to the need for parking exemptions, I believe it essential that the right solution be found; and the rights, lives and circumstances of residents within the street be respected and considered in order to reach equilibrium and ultimately the success and aims of the exemptions. East Avenue Renfrew I have a drive, but several times, I've not been able to gain access to the road, due to vehicles parking across my drive or parking directly opposite on the pathway and when my neighbour has two cars on the drive, it means I'm blocked in. I have seen disabled visitors in wheelchairs have to use the road, due to the parking. I have seen families with young children, have to use the road because of the parking. I have spoken to many neighbours and there's a general concern that if there was a fire in a house, the fire brigade could not at times (particularly at night) gain access. Even ambulances, have been known to have trouble gaining access. We also have parking on the corners of exit to the street, which means that when you are leaving the street, you have a restricted view. A couple of times I've witnessed (Almost accidents because of this). Considered appropriate to provide one clear footway and some opportunity to park close to residences yet still allow emergency vehicle access to the short cul-de-sac. Retain proposed exemption.
Page 9
Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Glenpatrick Road Elderslie With regard to the proposed pavement parking exemption on Glenpatrick Road. I would urge you to reconsider the section that extends south of 69 Glenpatrick Road, adjoining the Golf Course boundary. Because of vegetation being allowed to overgrow the boundary of the golf course here, the pavement is reduced to almost half its original width at points. Combine that with inconsiderate parking from those dropping children at Wallace Primary, and parking of large work vehicles belonging to residents. I don’t believe there is justification for pavement parking to exist here, for the following reasons: -There are no residential properties on the eastern side of the road -The properties on the western side all have driveways. -The road is wide and unobstructed at this point Adding pavement parking at this point also increases the danger associated with the signposted blind summit at the crest of the hill. Regardless of whether the pavement parking at this section does go ahead, the council should work with the golf course to ensure the removal of the excess vegetation. The vegetation has been cut back to maximise the footway width. The marking of the parking spaces will control the positioning and size of vehicles able to use the spaces. It is considered important to maintain the existing facility. Retain proposed exemption Greenock Road Bishopton I have been directed to yourselves via the email below. I am looking for information on what the council are planning to do in light of the upcoming "kerb parking" regulations that are due to be enforced from November time. In particular, the A8 (Greenock Road) in Bishopton between Lorimers and Angie Campbell Hair Salon (cross roads). This has been an area that has always had cars parked on the pavement, but the traffic on the road has still, on the whole, been able to flow. With the new regulations coming through, my concern is that a number of vehicles will be parked on the road, causing utter chaos to traffic flow on this very busy part of Bishopton. The controls provided by marking out the parking spaces to limit the areas available and to leave sufficient space for pedestrians are sufficient to meet the objector's requirements. Retain proposed exemption.
Page 10
Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Are the council looking at proactive measures to stop this from happening? Eg. traffic safety measures, double yellow lines, no parking measures, keep clear road markings etc?? Low Barholm Kilbarchan The information that I have read suggests that this will not directly affect No20, but in reality others that are affected on the southern side of Low Barholm (and visitors and those on the other side of the road) would then impact on the ability to park outside No20. There is no access to parking behind these properties and if I am reading this correctly parking will not be allowed on the stretch between No20 and the railway bridge where on the whole there is ample wide pavement parking available. While as neighbours as a general rule we get on well with each other and have no “designated” parking slots, this doesn’t sound like a very well thought out proposal – and where would your suggestion be to park when the pavements are taken up between the Trust Inn and the property at No20 Exemptions to be extended to the gable end of no. 26 Low Barholm. There are no properties fronting the south side of the road beyond no. 26 where the carriageway reduces in width towards the rail bridge. There are also vehicle accesses and a bus stop situated between the gable of no. 26 and the rail bridge. Low Barholm Kilbarchan I am sending this email in relation to the Renfrewshire Council (Pavement Parking Exemption) Order 202, in relation to the publication with reference TRO1003, to show my support and appreciation for the application of the exemption to the new law on pavement parking to Low Barholm, Kilbarchan. At the same time I would like to ask you to consider the extension of this exemption to the pavement area from no.22 to no. 26 and, more in general, to the old gas works wall as, I believe, it is wide enough to allow both parking and a comfortable passage for pedestrians, prams or wheel chair. For that part of the pavement, even a soft pavement marking (e.g. paint) to show the area where parking would be allowed, in a sort of split between car parking and pedestrian passage, could help guarantee a sensible solution for residents. Finally, even if unsure about the relevance of this observation to this matter or to you in your current role, I would like to suggest the consideration of speed cameras or any other solution which would help in reducing car speed in Low Barholm. At the moment there is only one panel which used to show a "Slow down" message if 30mph were passed, but it has never been visible due to the vegetation and it's been at least a year where the message, for some reason, doesn't even come up. Exemptions to be extended to the gable end of no. 26 Low Barholm. There are no properties fronting the south side of the road beyond no. 26 where the carriageway reduces in width towards the rail bridge. There are also vehicle accesses and a bus stop situated between the gable of no. 26 and the rail bridge. Traffic calming / road safety requests outwith the scope of the Pavement Parking Exemption Order process. This will be considered in line with the Council’s adopted Road Safety Policy.
Page 11
Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Even adding a signal with the 30mph limit might be something, though not sufficient, to help reduce speeding, which is a very serious and dangerous matter for us, also considered the absence of any zebra crossing on our street. Low Barholm Kilbarchan I am contacting you re: the pavement parking exemption at Low Barholm. I support this and ask that the exemption apply past number 20 to include the pavement to the fence for the burn. This pavement is also wide and is required by residents and their visitors for parking. It is wide enough for safe pedestrian access and also a parked vehicle. Indeed this afternoon I saw a lady on a mobility scooter travelling safely between the houses at Low Barholm and parked cars so obviously room for both. One neighbour who is within the exemption area has mooted the idea of a residents only parking at this area as they park a van and a private car outside their property. However I do not support making the pavement area for residents only as these spaces are required by all residents along Low Barholm and also their visitors. Exemptions to be extended to the gable end of no. 26 Low Barholm. There are no properties fronting the south side of the road beyond no. 26 where the carriageway reduces in width towards the rail bridge. There are also vehicle accesses and a bus stop situated between the gable of no. 26 and the rail bridge. Low Barholm Kilbarchan I am emailing to comment on the proposed pavement parking exemption, in particular at Low Barholm, Kilbarchan. Currently the proposal is suggesting that the exemption will apply from the Trust Inn up to number 20. I am asking for the exemption to be applied all the way up to the old gasworks wall. The reasoning for this is that the pavement is wide enough for cars to park all the way to that point whilst still allowing space for the general public to walk through. Additionally, even with cars parked fully on the pavement, there is still plenty of space to get a pram or a wheelchair through. It is on these grounds that I object to the proposed exception stopping at number 20 - it should be applied to the whole row. Exemptions to be extended to the gable end of no. 26 Low Barholm. There are no properties fronting the south side of the road beyond no. 26 where the carriageway reduces in width towards the rail bridge. There are also vehicle accesses and a bus stop situated between the gable of no. 26 and the rail bridge.
Page 12
4.11 The following sites were raised in the consultation and will be subject to desktop analysis to determine if site surveys are required to assess the potential for additional exemptions. Road Settlement Road Settlement Road Settlement Berl Avenue Houston Moorpark Square Renfrew Warlock Road Bridge of Weir Greenhill Crescent Elderslie Stuart Road Bishopton Glasgow Road Paisley Newtyle Road Paisley A8 Greenock Road Bishopton New Avenue and Hallside Howwood Hillview Road Elderslie Abbey View Paisley Royal Inch Crescent Renfrew Ivanhoe Road Paisley Arkleston Road Paisley Kirk Road Houston Auchmannoch Avenue Paisley Buchlyvie Road Paisley Ladykirk Crescent Paisley Balmoral Crescent Inchinnan Calderpark Street Lochwinnoch Lochinver Crescent Paisley Banchory Avenue Inchinnan Cunninghame Rd Kilbarchan McKay Crescent Johnstone Bathgo Avenue Paisley Kinpurnie Road Paisley Milliken Drive Kilbarchan Broomlea Crescent Inchinnan Gartmore Road Paisley Sandy Road / Afton Drive Renfrew Earl Place Bridge of Weir Hawkhead Avenue Paisley Mimosa Road Bridge of Weir Fauldshead Road Renfrew Mains Hill Erskine Main Road Elderslie Fraser Avenue Bishopton Murray Street Paisley Shuttle Street Kilbarchan Hay Avenue Bishopton Park Avenue Elderslie Tandlehill Road Kilbarchan Hazelwood Road / Runfurly Road Bridge of Weir Lossie Crescent Renfrew The Hawthorns Erskine _________________________________________________________
Page 13
5. Traffic Order Approval Procedure 5.1 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. 5.2 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. 5.3 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. 5.4 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. _________________________________________________________ 6. Implementation 6.1 Should the Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board approve the implementation of the exemptions as advertised, excluding the noted amendments, officers will arrange for the required lining and signing works to make the Order enforceable. 6.2 As explained above, in addition to these requirements, there will be a requirement for a further Exemption Order to satisfy the outcome of the statutory consultation process. ___________________________________________________________________
Page 14
7. Enforcement Provisions 7.1 The ILE Board is delegated to exercise the functions of the Council in relation to road traffic regulation. Part 6 of the Transport (Scotland) 2019 Act, which allows for PCNs to be issued in respect of contraventions of the pavement parking prohibition, the double parking prohibition or the dropped footway parking prohibition, falls within that definition. 7.2 This report seeks to have specific powers relating to road traffic regulation delegated to specified officers by virtue of an amendment to para 20 on page 92 of the scheme of delegation (shown in bold below): “Senior Community Support Officers, Community Support Officers and Community Support Assistants are authorised in terms of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Road Traffic Act 1991 both as modified by the Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (Renfrewshire Council) Designation Order 2010 to issue Penalty Charge Notices and in terms of Part 6 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and the Parking Prohibitions (Enforcement and Accounts) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 to issue Penalty Charge Notices”. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 – N/A 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
Page 15
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 exemption order is to permit pavement parking on roads to maintain emergency and refuse vehicle access while maintaining an appropriate footway width for pedestrians and wheelers. 9. Procurement – N/A 10. Risk - No risks have been identified in relation to the proposal. 11. Privacy Impact – N/A 12. Climate Risk – N/A 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 16
Appendix 1 Roads to be included in amended Exemption Order Bishopton • Greenock Road (at West Porton Place) • Removed temporarily to allow their expansion and inclusion in a future Order; o Cawdor Crescent (east side) o Ettrick Drive (east side) o Morar Crescent (east side) o Teviot Drive (east side) o Yarrow Crescent (east side) Bridge of Weir • Houston Road (south side of the service road at Elm Road) • Houston Road (both sides between Warlock Road and Freeland Drive) Crosslee • Houston Road (east side between Whirlie Road and Crosslee Park) Elderslie • Glenpatrick Road (east side between Kings Crescent and Edzell Drive) Johnstone • Burns Drive (52 to opposite 63, 17 to 21 and 33 to 69) • Removed temporarily to allow its expansion and inclusion in a future Order; o Burns Drive (from 2 to 42) • Graham Street (north side between Hagg Road and Hagg Crescent) Kilbarchan • The Grove (entire road) • Removed temporarily to allow its expansion and inclusion in a future Order; o Low Barholm (south side, from 12 to 26) Langbank • Middlepenny Road (north side, from 18 to 20)
Page 17
Linwood • Removed temporarily to allow its expansion and inclusion in a future Order; o Kintyre Avenue (south side, from 25 to 73) Lochwinnoch • Newton of Barr (north side) Paisley • Andrew Street (north side, between Caledonia Street and Albion Street) • Blythswood Drive (south side, between Caledonia Street and Albion Street) • Penilee Road (both sides, between Auchmannoch Avenue and School Road) Renfrew • East Avenue (north side) • West Avenue (north side)