Traffic Regulation Orders
Argyll and Bute Council · 18 December 2025
Back to Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee — 18 December 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 18 DECEMBER 2025 TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides Members with an overview of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process. It also outlines a. the current backlog for processing new orders, b. proposals to progress outstanding amendments, including pre-statutory engagement, and c. the need for additional resources to meet the demand. The key points detailed within the body of the report are as follows • Due to the increase in demand for Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TTROs) and Temporary Road Traffic Notices (TRTNs) as well as historical under resourcing, there is a significant backlog of TROs across the Argyll and Bute Area. TROs and TRTNs have explicit timescales which require to be completed and as such with insufficient resource levels, the current staffing of 2 officers have had to prioritise these orders rather than promoting or consolidating TROs. As an example, the two officers managed to complete 6 TROs in the previous 2 years, none of which were particularly challenged or delayed due to objections. Also of note is that one Officer has recently resigned from post, and we will require to recruit for this post in the New Year alongside the other two posts required. • In 2016/17, the service dealt with 14 TRTNs and 19 TTROs. This rose to 110 TRTNs and 65 TTROs by 2024. Unfortunately, this rise in demand has not been matched by increased resources, and this combination of factors has been a significant contributor to the delay in progressing TROs of which we currently have in excess of 100 outstanding. • This has been the subject of various conversations with members and in particular in Oban, Dunoon and Campbeltown as it has affected businesses, public transport services and members of the public, all of whom wish to see improved traffic regulation in their communities. • At present, there are more than 600 TROs recorded in the database, with the earliest of these being dated 1933. Although some of the TROs will have been revoked and replaced by another order, it still leaves a largely unmanageable administrative volume of orders for the current staffing level to manage effectively to support our communities and businesses.
Page 2
• Appendix 1 provides the current TRO programme. The minimum timescale allocated to follow the legislative process for a straightforward TRO with no objections raised at the consultation phases is 28 weeks. However, where there are objections raised for a TRO, and officers are unable to resolve these, then the process can extend to 18 months. On rare occasions where a Reporter is appointed by the Scottish Government (in the case of Luss), this can extend beyond 18 months. • Officers would also highlight that it is an intention to carry out a parking review for our area which will also tie into and potentially follow on from the TRO work. Both areas are closely related and having the TRO work started will also assist in any future Parking Review. 1.2 The report further refers to potential changes to the national approach to how TROs are recorded and managed and how the organisation can prepare for the future. Further details are incorporated into Appendix 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.3 It is recommended that the Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee: a. approve the proposed method for pre-engagement outlined in paragraph 4.7; b. approve the 4 priority areas for addressing the TRO backlog as outlined in paragraph 4.8; c. note that a further report will be brought back to the March 2026 EDI Committee listing the progress on recruiting the new positions with an indicative timeline on how long the consolidation process and outstanding ‘priority’ TROs will take; and d. note that additional resources will be added to TRO work as part of the RIS Review restructuring of the Service.
Page 3
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE ROADS & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 18 DECEMBER 2025 TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 This report provides Members with an overview of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process, the current backlog, and proposals to progress outstanding amendments, including pre-statutory engagement, and the need for additional resources to meet the demand. 2.2 The report further provides detail on potential changes to the national approach to how TROs are recorded and managed and how the organisation can prepare for the future. Further details are incorporated into Appendix 4. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 The Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee are requested to consider the following three recommendations: a. approve the proposed method for pre-engagement outlined in paragraph 4.7; b. approve the 4 priority areas for addressing the TRO backlog as outlined in paragraph 4.8; c. note that a further report will be brought back to the March 2026 EDI Committee listing the progress on recruiting the new positions with an indicative timeline on how long the consolidation process and outstanding ‘priority’ TROs will take; and d. note that additional resources will be added to TRO work as part of the RIS Review restructuring of the Service.
Page 4
4.0 DETAIL Background 4.1 A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is a legal order made by a traffic or roads authority which is used to manage the behaviour of road users where a need to do so has been identified. TROs can be used to implement a wide range of restrictions. The more common types are listed below: i. Speed Order – this type of Order imposes speed limits on roads. Where there is a system of street lighting, and unless changed by Order, the speed limit defaults to 30mph. In these circumstances, no Order is required. ii. Weight / Width / Length Order – this type of Order imposes a weight, width or length (or any mix of the three) restriction on the network. iii. Off-street Car Parking Order – imposes conditions of use on an off-street car park (e.g. must park within a bay, pay & display, time constraints) iv. Disabled Bay Order – Mostly on-street disabled bays but includes a small number of others. v. Traffic Management Order – imposes restriction on street. This can be anything from one-way systems to no waiting (“double yellows”), on-street parking controls, loading bays and so on. 4.2 The council has a complex collection of TROs which can be challenging to understand due to the legal language and the local knowledge of the area, often with orders having numerous amendments which require them to be read through individually by officers prior to any subsequent orders being made in that area. At present, there are more than 600 recorded TROs, with the earliest of these dating back to 1933. Some of the TROs will have been revoked and replaced by another order, but it still leaves a largely unmanageable administrative volume of orders. 4.3 Officers are aware that there is a significant backlog of TROs. In addition to this, it is clear from correspondence from and discussions with Elected Members, businesses, public transport services, and members of the public that there is a demand for this backlog to be cleared but also to make improvements to the relevant towns and villages. Whilst Appendix 1 lists 25 Orders in the current programme which Officers have historically been unable to progress and would prioritise, there are over 100 outstanding Orders which need to be progressed as well as the consolidation of the other orders across our area. 4.4 Appendix 1 shows the current list of prioritised TROs. These are orders that officers have been asked to progress but were delayed due to limited resources. Appendix 3 explains that the minimum time to complete a straightforward TRO, with no objections, is 28 weeks. This demonstrates the complexity and timescales involved. If objections arise and cannot be resolved, the process can take up to 18 months. In rare cases, where a Scottish Government Reporter is required (as happened in Luss), the process can take even longer than 18 months. 4.5 The number of new and amended TROs which need to be processed has increased significantly. In 2016/17 the service dealt with 14 TRTNs and 19 TTROs. This rose to 110 TRTNs and 65 TTROs by 2024. Unfortunately, the resources
Page 5
available to meet this demand have not increased, which has caused frustration for communities and elected members. Due to the available resource and the requirement to prioritise the TTROs and TRTNs, this has meant that TRO progression has been slow and only very simple TRO’s having been managed in the last 10 years. Proposed method for progression of TROs 4.6 The procedural document previously drafted sets out the process for promoting various types of order in full but only considers the statutory requirements. It does not include any pre-engagement processes. For ease of reference, Appendix 3 contains a summarised TRO process. 4.7 For simple TROs (e.g. double yellows at a junction), the statutory process is sufficient. However, for larger or more complex proposals, officers recognise the benefits of a pre-statutory engagement process. This is the recommendation of officers based on local knowledge and previous discussions with members and in particular in Oban, Dunoon and Campbeltown as it has affected businesses, public transport services and members of the public, all of whom wish to see improved traffic regulation in their communities. This is also recognised as best practice and minimises the risk of a judicial review of the implementation of any TRO. The following sets out how officers propose to conduct this type of engagement: i. Officers review the existing TROs for a town and create a map showing this graphically and adding known proposed amendments. ii. Officers meet with Elected Members & Community Councils to further develop proposed amendments.
Page 6
iii. Thereafter, prepare plans for public engagement and host drop-in sessions for the local community to offer comment (including amendments) to the proposals; this for consideration and to maximise engagement. Will also include an online option for comments to be submitted. iv. Present final proposals to the local Area Committee for approval to proceed with the formal TRO process. v. Commence statutory TRO procedure. 4.8 The four areas below have been prioritised by Officers: • Oban – Officers have identified 7 speed orders and 36 traffic management orders. • Dunoon / Sandbank, Kirn & Innellan – Officers have identified 20 speed orders and 53 traffic management orders. • Campbeltown – Officers have identified 7 speed orders and 18 traffic management orders. • Bute – the proposal includes consolidating all existing speed restriction on Bute into a single Order and doing the same for Traffic Management Orders. Officers have identified 13 speed orders and 26 traffic management orders. 4.9 As previously highlighted, the RIS Review has identified the area of TROs and resource levels as a priority. It is anticipated that additional officers (x2), with the division (e.g. split east-west) of areas and the refocusing of the officers on TROs, will allow a much speedier progression through the backlog and consolidations. It also has the added benefit of preparing the authority for prospective future requirements, including the likelihood of a move to Digital TROs (“D-TROs”). This is expected to become a statutory requirement in England on completion of an initial trial period and once associated regulations are affirmed (See Appendix 4), and it is anticipated that Scotland will follow this example. 4.10 The proposed additional resource, detailed in paragraph 4.9, seeks to take the mapping of TROs from an aspirational level to a deliverable action. It should however be noted that it will take time to go through the appropriate application process and is dependent on the qualifications of applicants; there is more than likely a requirement for training too which could mean a delay of at least 6 months before the TRO consolidation works can be started.
Page 7
4.11 Whilst at this time and until we have recruited the extra resources, Officers are unable to provide an accurate timescale to advise on how long the process of consolidating the orders or promoting the prioritised orders as this is a very specialised area of work where applicants will require to have a knowledge of legislation coupled with traffic management expertise. Officers will be in a better position to advise at the March 2026 EDI Committee when we have recruited staff and will know whether further training is required to allow them to carry out the work. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 Para 4.7 sets out the five steps that officers will follow when carrying out local consultation on all but the most straightforward of TROs. 5.2 As noted within the report, there is a demand for new restrictions, consolidation and for progress to be made with the current backlog. The report also makes recommendations on officer-suggested priority in taking TROs forward in specific areas. 5.3 The report also identifies that to provide a more resilient and sustainable TRO programme; the current resource level is insufficient and will not deliver progress on TROs without enhancement to the team. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy – The Traffic Regulation Orders Procedural Document requires to be updated to reflect recent legislative changes and expand to fully cover TTROs, TRTNs, Motor Sport Orders, Pavement Parking and to reflect pre-engagement strategies. 6.2 Financial – increased team will be funded from existing resources as part of the RIS Review restructure. 6.3 Legal – Amendments to the Traffic Regulation Orders Procedural Document to reflect recent changes to legislation. 6.4 HR – An increase in staff resource will require appropriate training and management. 6.5 Customer service – pre-engagement strategies will provide a better customer service. 6.6 Risk – long term there is probable move to D-TROs. The present backlog and format of TROs would make this move extremely difficult to accomplish. 6.7 Climate change – n/a. 6.8 Fairer Scotland Duty – n/a.
Page 8
6.9 Equalities: protected characteristics – n/a. 6.10 Consumer duty – n/a. 6.11 Island communities – amendments to the Traffic Regulation Orders Procedural Document will include impact of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. 6.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing – n/a. Executive Director with responsibility for Roads and Infrastructure Services: Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead for Roads, Transport and Amenity Services: Councillor John Armour December 2025 For further information contact: Stuart Watson, Assistant Network & Standards Manager stuart.watson@argyll-bute.gov.uk Hugh O’Neill – Network & Standard Manager hugh.oneill@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Current TRO Programme Appendix 2 – Traffic Regulation Orders Procedural Document, v3.1 Appendix 3 - TRO process Appendix 4 – Digital TRO enhancements