The Renfrewshire Council (Prohibition and restriction of waiting loading and parking places)
Renfrewshire Council · 19 March 2025
Back to Infrastructure, Land and Environment Policy Board — 19 March 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: 19 March 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Director of Environment, Housing & Infrastructure ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: The Renfrewshire Council (Prohibition and restriction of waiting, loading and parking places) (Consolidation & Amendment Order 1002) Order 202*, Ref TRO 1002 ___________________________________________________________________ 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 third waiting, loading and parking places consolidation and amendment digital order; the previous order being approved by this Board on 06 November 2024. This order covers requests for revisions and additions received since the cut-off date of that digital order consultation. 1.4 On the 3rd July 2024 the above TRO, was advertised for public consultation which proposed to impose restrictions on the roads listed in Section 3.3.
Page 2
1.5 Of the 16 separate items within the TRO 1002 proposal, there were no objections in relation to 9 items. Four items received comment or objections not pertinent to or out-with the scope of the proposals. 1.6 Sustained objections were received in relation to the following items: 405 Easwald Bank & Milliken Road Kilbarchan No waiting at any time 445 Arran Place Linwood No waiting at any time 448 Church Street Kilbarchan Designated parking “Motor cars” only 1.7 Officers recommend: o Easwald Bank a change to the proposal to meet the objectors’ requirements. Remove the proposed ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions on the west side of Easwald Bank except at its junction with St Barchans Rd. The proposed bus stop restriction and the restrictions on the east side will provide adequate visibility to allow safe passage of buses and retain the parking space for residents. o Milliken Road implementation of the restrictions as proposed because objectors mistakenly thought parking restrictions were being applied to both sides of the road. o Arran Place a compromise to limit the restriction to the turning area and the northeast side of the bend only. This provides improved access yet retains parking space for the residents. o Church Street implementation of the restrictions as proposed, to retain the existing character of the road or adjoining property, improve the amenity of the area through which the road runs yet enable the layby’s use by residents’ and visitors’ cars. 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.
Page 3
1.9 A plan of the proposed TRO 1002 can be found at this link. https://ren.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/sidebar/index.html?appid=7c1f0325b4b34251aef cd7527a586dfa ___________________________________________________________________ 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 1002) 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 Renfrewshire Council (Prohibition and restriction of waiting, loading and parking places) (Consolidation & Amendment Order 1002) 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 1002 proposal went through a single stage consultation process for a 28 day period from 3rd to 31st July 2024. 3.2 The purpose of the consultation was to satisfy the statutory consultation process which would allow 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 map at https://ren.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/sidebar/index.html?appid=7c1f0325b4b34251aef cd7527a586dfa
Page 4
Item Road Settlement Restriction 370 Overton Crescent Johnstone No waiting at any time 405 Easwald Bank & Milliken Road Kilbarchan No waiting at any time 407 Charleston Square Paisley No waiting at any time 408 Great Hamilton Street Paisley No waiting at any time & No waiting & no loading at any time Amendment 410 Prieston Road Bridge of Weir Limited waiting amendment & designated parking amendment 411 Christie Lane Paisley No waiting at any time 416 East Buchannan Street Paisley No waiting & no loading at any time 420 Walkinshaw Street/ Dimity Street Johnstone No waiting at stated times amendment 426 Greenock Road / Old Greenock Road Bishopton No waiting at any time 427 Abbey Road Elderslie No waiting at any time 433 Arrochar Drive Dargavel School Keep Clear and bus stops 445 Arran Place Linwood No waiting at any time 446 Barclay Avenue Elderslie No waiting at any time 447 Stoddard Square Elderslie No waiting at any time 448 Church Street Kilbarchan Designated parking “Motor cars” only 449 High Street Renfrew Limited waiting amendment 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 39 pertinent responses were received. 36 objections and 3 in 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. 405 Easwald Bank & Milliken Road Kilbarchan No waiting at any time 445 Arran Place Linwood No waiting at any time 448 Church Street Kilbarchan Designated parking “Motor cars” only
Page 5
3.7 Item 405 Easwald Bank received 26 responses, with 25 of them being objections and 1 in support of the proposal. The local bus operator requested parking restrictions on the west side to prevent delay to services and near misses. The on-street parking on the west side is the only available parking for the terraced houses. Officers recommend a change to the proposal to meet the objectors’ requirements. Remove the proposed ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions on the west side of Easwald Bank except at its junction with St Barchans Rd. The proposed bus stop restriction and the restrictions on the east side will provide adequate visibility to allow safe passage of buses and retain the parking space for residents. 3.8 Milliken Road received 5 objections mistakenly believing the restrictions to prevent parking on the road outside houses. The restrictions are limited in location to keeping the approach road to the mini-roundabout and side roads clear for access. Officers recommend implementation of the restrictions as proposed. 3.9 Item 445 Arran Place received 2 objections. Residents requested restrictions to allow access for the bin lorry and emergency vehicles. Objectors felt the restrictions too onerous. After correspondence with the objectors, one has removed their objection and one has not responded. Officers recommend a compromise to limit the restriction to the turning area and the east side of the bend only. This provides improved access yet retains parking space for the residents. 3.10 Item 448 Church Street received 4 objections. Residents requested action from their Councillor; in relation to the degradation of the amenity of the area, caused by regular overnight camping by campervans and associated detritus left in the area being an attraction to vermin. Objectors foresee the camper vans parking elsewhere and taking the problem with them. Officers recommend implementation of the restrictions as proposed, to retain the existing character of the road or adjoining property, improve the amenity of the area through which the road runs yet enable the layby’s use by residents’ cars. 3.11 Of the 16 separate items within the TRO 1002 proposal, there were no objections in relation to the 9 items below.
Page 6
Item Road Settlement Restriction 370 Overton Crescent Johnstone No waiting at any time 407 Charleston Square Paisley No waiting at any time 408 Great Hamilton Street Paisley No waiting at any time & No waiting & no loading at any time Amendment 410 Prieston Road Bridge of Weir Limited waiting amendment & designated parking amendment 411 Christie Lane Paisley No waiting at any time 420 Walkinshaw St/ Dimity Street Johnstone No waiting at stated times amendment 433 Arrochar Drive Dargavel School Keep Clear and bus stops 447 Stoddard Square Elderslie No waiting at any time 449 High Street Renfrew Limited waiting amendment 3.12 Of the 16 separate items within the TRO 1002 proposal, objections and/or comments were received in relation to the 4 items below. However, they were considered as not being pertinent to the proposal or as objections out-with the scope of the proposal. Item Road Settlement Restriction Response 416 East Buchannan Street Paisley No waiting & no loading at any time 1 respondent offering comment 426 Greenock Rd / Old Greenock Rd Bishopton No waiting at any time 1 objection to proposals not contained in Order 427 Abbey Road Elderslie No waiting at any time 1 respondent offering comment 446 Barclay Avenue/ Main Road Elderslie No waiting at any time 1 respondent offering comment 4. Procedure 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.
Page 7
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. 4.5 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 1002) Order 202*, officers will arrange for the required lining and signing works to make the Order enforceable. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 – None 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 8
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 – None. 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. 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. _______________________________________________________ Author: Mark Higginbotham, Transportation and Active Travel Manager Email: mark.higginbotham@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 9
Appendix 1 Responses to the proposals. Information which could personally identify the respondents has been removed. Responses objecting to the proposals Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Easwald Bank & Milliken Road. Multiple versions of the same objections from the majority of respondents Kilbarchan Due to “inappropriate parking”. – Where ? If individual vehicle owners have breached road laws why haven’t they been cautioned / charged ? THESE ARE THE PARKING PROBLEMS THE STREET HAS ALREADY : Residents definitely would not benefit from double yellow lines on the road – opposite the 4 identified junctions - which would further restrict parking spaces Easwald Bank is a terraced street – tenement flats – multiple residents - ergo multiple vehicles. The demographic has changed since Census 2011 - younger commuters with vehicles. There are several “Disabled” bays already that would be affected – what happens to them - or possible future ones. Bus route - Four bus Since Renfrewshire Council decriminalised Parking Enforcement in 2010 it has been the Council that holds the powers of enforcement, However the Council can only enforce where there is a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and cannot enforce at other locations as described in the Highway Code; The Code recommends parking at least 10 metres away from a junction, except where there are legitimate parking bays available. Drivers pulling out will have a difficult time checking for traffic from both directions if you're blocking their view, increasing the chances of accidents. The limited road width due to parking opposite the junction also forces vehicles on to the other side of the carriage way severely restricting the designed visibility splay at these junctions. RULE 243 Highway Code states DO NOT stop or park: opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space. Hence inappropriate parking with the exception of disabled bays. The purpose of a “Road” under the Road Scotland Act 1984 is for the transportation of people and goods. It is not, nor should it be considered as a car park, nor is there the right to park outside a personal residence, as the primary use must always be the first consideration. Existing disabled persons’ parking places will be accommodated with newer ones provided adjacent to any restriction. The purpose behind this proposal is due to complaints from the bus company regarding near
Page 10
Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review stops already on street route. The village has just fought to get buses back more frequently into the village. Need street parking spaces not only for residents but also for : Post / Royal Mail / Parcel Force, Bin collection, Delivery vans to residents, Delivery vans to local shops, Builders / Workers trucks / vans working on properties. Where is the alternative parking for all the resident cars going to be situated? There are side roads opposite, but with 2 out of 3 roads being privately owned, I’m sure the homeowners will not relish an upsurge of cars from Easwald Bank parked outside their properties. The speed of cars through the village is quite alarming at present. I’m already quite uneasy walking on the narrow pavements, pushing a pram, with a toddler in tow, with the speed of cars passing. But at least the parked cars act as a buffer for any drivers who are driving too quickly and may swerve out of control. If the reason behind this scheme is to do with safety issues, this will increase the risk, as cars will then go even faster, with no parked vehicles to slow them down. The bottom end of Easwald Bank (around the Butchers on the corner) does suffer from a lack of available parking for local residents, however this would likely be resolved by Renfrewshire Council addressing the problem of the local garage utilising the streets in the immediate vicinity and the car park next to the bus stop, as an extension to their business to store a considerable number of cars which are either waiting repair or waiting to be sold. misses, passing difficulties and delays to timetables. due to usable road width along this part of the route. The Council is required to adopt climate change policies and as such support pedestrians, cyclists and public transport The restrictions do not prohibit the availability for loading /unloading, or dropping off and picking up and allows such time for this to be carried out with luggage, goods and deliveries and will improve access for refuse vehicles. It is not within the Councils remit to determine where any particular private vehicle may park so long not on an authorised restriction. It is the licenced driver who has the responsibility to park appropriately. In situations like this parking issues are resolved by traffic dissipating into the general area until a compromise is achieved in the locality. The speed issue will be mitigated by the retention of segments of available parking on a first come basis. This will create a shortened “give and take” element which will expand the opportunities to pass without accelerating to the next to reduce vehicle speeds. However, in addition, there is also currently national proposals for a general 20mph speed limit in all built up areas. This has been progressing and it is envisioned that it will be determined in the near future. I would therefore consider the requirement for a crossing mitigated. The Council has now made a Renfrewshire wide off street Car Parking order that now enables the Councils PA’s to enforce within car parks in out -lying areas once signing has been completed
Page 11
Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Received from 2 Objectors proposals are totally unacceptable for the residents who live in this area. I am concerned as to where I am going to find a parking space in future as it is very difficult already to park and the detrimental effect on sale price if / when I decide to sell my property I am a resident of Easwald bank and I agree that there should be no parking at the corners of the junctions alongside Easwald bank - such as the junctions for Quarry bank and Milliken Drive. However, my view is that the double yellow lines should not be applied on the road opposite these points. These would not improve road safety and would significantly impact the residents. The Council had offered a compromise by way a reduction in the severity of the proposals; from “No waiting at any time” to “No waiting during specified times“, envisioned as being 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday. On the Southern side of Easwald Bank (excluding the junction of St Barchans Road), while retaining the “no waiting at any time” at the junctions opposite on the North side and the junction of St Barchans Rd. This would allow parking from 6pm in the evening to 8am in the morning. There is no loading restriction proposed which allows for stopping to drop off or pick up passengers or goods throughout the day. So long as the vehicle is moved once the action has been completed between 8am and 6pm. Of the 26 residents written to only one was accepting of the proposed compromise 13 of the 25 respondents with objections indicated that they would be accepting of “No waiting at any time” restrictions on the junctions on the east side, but not on west side of Easwald Bank. It is considered that while not as robust as the Councils initial compromise a further relaxation in the above form would be considered as a cautious improvement to the current position and would enable the improvements at St Barochans to be introduced while preserving the ability for residents to park. Given the remaining available road width it is not considered appropriate to mark general public parking bays in the area. Recommend Remove ‘no waiting at any time’ restrictions on the west side of Easwald Bank except at its junction with St Barchans Rd.
Page 12
Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Milliken Road Kilbarchan It is proposed that no parking/keep clear on certain corners is to be introduced. This may be needed. But the added idea for double yellow lines being introduced outside No 1,3 and 7 Milliken Road would dramatically impact many residents that live there, myself included. Most residents are mindful when parking outside their place of residence, as they understand the need for other road users ease of access. The problems arise from residents from Easwald Bank that park on Milliken Road or the Garage on Tandlehill Road that regularly uses the street and the car park as its own storage for customers cars! Less than one space per household, which is further reduced when those who own work vans are taken into account. I commonly find it difficult to park my car close to my flat, and often have to park at the far end of the street, or close to the turning space at the entrance to Nether Johnstone. or onto neighbouring street to get to my car if the spaces available for parking on Milliken Road were reduced due to double yellow lines. I understand and agree that some of the proposed restrictions are necessary – parking on corners is dangerous and illegal and I welcome double yellow lines being painted directly on the corners on Milliken Road, however the proposal to paint double yellow lines on the road opposite those corners will only serve to cause parking congestion on other neighbouring streets, and cause a lot of stress and anxiety for people like myself who will feel very unsafe and perhaps even struggle with mobility issues to get to their car if they cannot park on the street that they live on. I think it is essential for the safety of residents including myself that you amend these plans by removing the double yellow restrictions opposite the proposed corners before going ahead. It is not proposed to restrict parking outside nos. 1, 3 or 7 Milliken Road only restrictions proposed are on the corners opposite and to protect the car park entrance and turning head and the entrance to the new spur road There has been a new TRO made for off street Council car parks which includes the restriction on use by garages. This will be passed for enforcement once signs have been erected. This practice has also been observed by Council officers on several recent occasions. Recommend Make proposal
Page 13
Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Church Street Kilbarchan are very well aware of issues regarding the traffic on this street. There are limited areas where there are pavements which is a danger for pedestrians, especially the young and infirm. I am confused as to why the restrictions are designated to the area of Church Street where the road is wide and there are areas where vans can park at the side of the road and not on it. I understand the vans parked currently are unsightly and I would be happier that they were not there, but they do not appear to be a hazard. I am also concerned that if these vans are forced to move that they will then park in an area which is more of a hazard and/or issue. As proposed, it appears that the planned restriction would be legally invalid. The restriction appears to seek to limit parking to motorcars only, which I assume is an attempt to remove the vans and motorhomes parked in the area. Whilst this may be valid for reasons on aesthetics, restricting parking of vans cannot reasonably be deemed to enhance safety or improve traffic flow. I am confused 'though as to why the restrictions are designated to the one area of the street where the road is wide and there are frequently vacant spaces. It appears to be specifically targeted at the 2 camper vans which have become permanent fixtures on that spot. Whilst I agree that it's not ideal for these vehicles to be permanently left there (they are an eyesore), the proposal would merely potentially shift the problem to other areas of the street. What's to stop the owners just moving them across the road and leaving them directly outside the houses of residents. This Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is due to the formal concerns residents have related to their Councillor and been passed to Council Officers for action; in relation to the amenity of the area, caused by regular overnight camping by campervans and associated detritus left in the area being an attraction to vermin. Standard Statements of Reasons for TRO. Based on Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Section 1, Paragraphs (a) to (f). (d) for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property (f) for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs It is not permitted to restrict individuals. The legislation only permits restriction by user type or by class of vehicle. It is considered that prohibiting the lay-by to camper vans was the least restrictive to the majority of local residents as this would enable its use by residents cars.
Page 14
Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Church Street TRO. This is proposed as parking for cars only. At present we are aware that a resident uses this space for a campervan. Why is this a problem? The road is wide at this section and there is no issue with visibility for other road users. What about residents who have a work van? We are aware that there have been suggestions of non- residents parking at this location, but is this still a problem? Why does it require a TRO stating that this area is for cars only? I, and my neighbours, use this space quite often and particularly when we have visitors etc. The bottom of church street already see’s people parking here who do not live in the area which causes us all to have to park on the road itself leading to regular vehicular standoffs and congestion. Not to mention the dangerous corner that you come around on Kibbleston Road onto church street. To allow cars to only be able to park on this area of church street would see significant amounts of non resident vehicles present, at a dangerous juncture of the road. This would also reduce the current space on the street. Forcing residents to park on the road, again increasing risk of crashes or accidents with the many many keen walkers and dog owners. It would also mean that those of us who live here would find that we cannot even get parked outside our own houses! Often the case, for non resident parking, is people is the very inconsiderate manner in which they park. These same people use the area to leave behind their rubbish, increasing the risk of vermin. Again something that us residents do not do. We also have concerns about how this would be policed? Will there be a charge for residents to park on their own street? Or will they require a permit? Increasing their costs of living for another unnecessary council permit All roadworthy vehicles may use a designated lay-by to rest, including in a motorhome for such time as is required. This includes pulling in to sleep overnight. While no offence / contravention is committed if the activity is contained fully within the vehicle. As soon as tables/chairs/cooking etc takes place outside the vehicle then an offence is committed and can be adjudged as “camping”. This practice was passed to Renfrewshire Council as part of the complaint and as such the Council is required to act to prevent such contravention and reduce the potential for increased vermin activity. It is not permitted to restrict individuals. The legislation only permits restriction by user type or by class of vehicle. It is considered that prohibiting the lay-by to camper vans was the least restrictive to the majority of local residents as this would enable its use by residents & visitors cars. Recommend Make proposal
Page 15
Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review Arran Place Linwood Writing AGAINST proposals for new parking regulations in ARRAN PLACE, LINWOOD. It doesn't affect me personally, but it WILL as the 9 cars owned by householders in the proposed area at bottom corner of street won't have parking, so they will come over and use other householders parking spaces, then where will we go ?? especially myself being of poor mobility. The problem in Arran Place has been caused by the council changing bin collection to a Sunday morning when everyone's car is at home, It used to be collected on a Tuesday when most of the cars were away at work places. I have talked to some of these bin lorry drivers who agree with what I am saying. SO AGAIN I AM AGAINST ANY TRAFFIC PROPOSALS IN ARRAN PLACE AS YOU WILL CAUSE CHAOS and PARKING WARS Renfrewshire Council decided that it would be a good idea to swap our bin collection day from a Friday to a Sunday. The council works 7 days a week, I get that, but Linwood absolutely got the short straw when the days were being allocated out. Ever since the day was changed we have had nothing but trouble with bin collections BECAUSE on a Sunday most people are at home and the street is busy with parked cars. The bin lorry often couldn't get to the bottom end of the street (where I live) and many complaints were made and the council had to return on numerous occasions to collect missed bins. The council then removed part of the grass at the top of the street near the flats in order to give the bin lorry more room to get round. Great idea in theory however all this did was create a couple of "parking spaces" for those residing at the top end of the street to use and those at the bottom end continued to have their bins missed The council then wrote to everyone and said that all bins had to be left at the top of the street for collection. This was not an issue in any way however I would say that since that letter was sent the bin lorry has managed to get down to the bottom of the Council officers put forward a compromise to reduce the restriction to the turning area and the east side of the bend only. As such one of the 2 objectors has removed their objection while no response has been received from the other. This objection has been withdrawn due to the compromise offered. Recommend Make proposal as per compromise on northeast side only
Page 16
Road Settlement Objection Officers’ Review street about 90% of the time. I believe that this particular proposal has been initiated from a complaint made by a neighbour's daughter (who does not live in the street) stating that an ambulance could not get to her mother's house due to parked cars on the corner, for context - it was not an emergency. I was at home that particular day and confirm there were cars parked on the corner-the same cars which the bin lorry had no issue getting round That same house had a small fire around the same time and the Fire Service managed to get round just fine The proposed answer to this problem appears to be putting double yellow lines where the grass was cut back but also outside the houses between 34 - 33 Arran Place. I can understand the logic in this plan however who is actually going to police this to ensure compliance? Parking is already a massive issue in the street, putting yellow lines in would mean those at the top end of the street parking at the bottom end leaving no spaces for those who reside at the bottom end? I work shifts and regularly cannot get a space near my house, if you implement these changes chances are I will need to park on the main road or the next street and walk to my house – not overly safe when I come home from work late at night or early morning in the dark? FYI it is always people who reside at the top of the street who park where the grass was cut away, I wonder if they have been sent letters asking them not to park there? I don't know what the answer is but I don't think forcing yellow lines will stop the problem. I have lived in Linwood almost all of my 55 years, when these houses were built hardly anyone had a car - now each household has at least one. I believe parking is one of the most common issues for neighbour disputes and I do not think this proposal will help in any way.
Page 17
Responses in support of the proposals Road Settlement Support Easwald Bank Kilbarchan the proposed measures are precisely what is needed as a starting point to address both traffic and pedestrian safety issues around Easwald Bank, particularly with regard to inappropriate parking. In particular, this will hopefully address bellmouth parking which often restricts HGV, bus and bin lorry access. In addition, it will address pedestrian safety issues whereby pedestrians are forced to enter the bellmouth road due to inappropriate pavement-mounted parking on bellmouths. Milliken Road Kilbarchan N/A Church Street Kilbarchan delighted to see the new parking and waiting restrictions for Kilbarchan. The changes to Church Street I am particularly pleased with. As you know, we have had camper vans parked on our street for years. One owner even lived in his caravan for about a year. He is currently still parked across the street from us, where he has been parking for about 3 years, but lives nowhere near this street. Arran Place Linwood I wish to support the proposed plans for Arran Place, Linwood. Due to this street being a cul de sac, emergency vehicles are not being able to enter and exit the properties at the end of the street. This is due to cars/trucks being parked at the corner of the street where a portion of the road was taken away to allow access for bin Lorrie’s etc.