30/06/2025
Also just to share a response shown to me that was recently submitted. It’s great to see the time, effort and thought people are giving this.
Anyone can comment and object by this Friday. So don’t delay!
Thanks again
Statement of Objection to Traffic Regulation Order TRO 24/12
Andrew and Alison Ferguson
Introduction
We wish to object to the making of the above order, and in particular, to the proposals to introduce No Waiting restrictions adjacent to the Avenue Shop, Blackford Avenue, as well as paid for parking places and No Waiting restrictions further north east on Blackford Avenue, all as shown on ‘Map 10a of 11’ being one of the documents produced in connection with the proposed TRO.
Also relevant to our objection is the one page ‘Statement of Reasons’ which forms part of the same suite of documents.
Legislative Background
The Order is made in terms of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (‘the Act’). The draft Order correctly refers to the relevant sections and Schedule 9 of the Act. Having reviewed the relevant parts of the legislation, the key provision appears to be the Scottish version of s. 1(1), namely:
‘Section 1
Traffic regulation orders outside Greater London.
(1) The traffic authority for a road outside Greater London may make an order under this section (referred to in this Act as a “traffic regulation order”) in respect of the road] where it appears to the authority making the order that it is expedient to make it—
(a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or
(b) for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, or
(c) for facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic (including pedestrians), or
(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, or
(e) (without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (d) above) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot, or
(f) for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs or
(g) for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of section 87 of the Environment Act 1995 (air quality).
We wish to object to the proposed TRO on the following grounds:
➢ Detrimental effect to an important local business;
➢ Failure to comply, or demonstrate compliance with, the terms of the 1984 Act;
➢ Inadequate, flawed consultation;
➢ Lack of EqIA.
The grounds are set out in more detail below.
Detrimental effect to an important local business
As other objectors will no doubt also detail, the Avenue Shop in Blackford Avenue is an extremely popular, well run family business which serves much of the surrounding area. It is an important local shop, with the next nearest grocery type provision being Margiotta at the east end of West Savile Terrace, the shops in Marchmont, or beyond that Newington or Morningside. There is also a Cat Clinic next door, and a post office right across the road, and the arguments made in this objection apply with near identical effect to them.
Although we bought our flat in Watertoun Road ten years ago, we only stayed in it occasionally at weekends until we moved into it permanently just under 4 years ago (it was previously student accommodation for our daughter and a flatmate). Others will therefore have longer memories of the history of the store.
However, in all our time here we have found the shop to be an excellent local store which serves its community well. It is very conveniently placed with a bus stop on the 9 and 24 routes right outside. The shop is essentially a licensed grocer, and one feature we have noted is that, unlike any other local shop we’ve ever used where we’ve lived before, it is constantly restocked, with staff checking and rechecking by phone where current stock levels are. The produce is therefore almost always in stock; it is also high quality and reasonably priced for a shop of this kind.
Deliveries to the shop happen a number of times a day. When the deliveries are done by HGV there can be slight conflicts between parked cars, buses and the delivery lorry, but these are usually well managed, and, given the width of the street at that point, work arounds are always found to allow safe passage of traffic in our experience.
To reiterate the points made by the Avenue Store itself, the proposals will:
➢ Make their business unsustainable;
➢ Be unnecessary – short stay bays already prevent long stay parking;
➢ Put local jobs at risk
➢ Restrict access for suppliers, reducing the shop’s product range;
➢ Increase car journeys as customers go further afield;
➢ Restrict access for elderly and disabled;
➢ Create many more parking and traffic management issues than they solve.
In short, the proposals appear to be a solution looking for a problem.
Failure to comply, or demonstrate compliance with, the terms of the 1984 Act
Reference is made to the provisions of s.1(1) of the 1984 Act, set out above. As far as we are aware these are the only reasons the Council can make a TRO.
Of these, we presume none of paragraphs (d) to (g) inclusive form part of the Council’s thinking. That leaves (a) to (c):
(a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or
(b)for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, or
(c)for facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic (including pedestrians).
So far as (a) is concerned, we are not aware of there being a danger on this part of what is a wide suburban street to any persons or traffic: even if there were, we are not sure how the TRO would help that be avoided. Accident statistics may indicate otherwise but nowhere have these been referred to in the supporting documentation.
On (b), again, there is no obvious evidence of buildings or the road being damaged by current usage – or how the TRO would solve things if there were.
So far as (c) is concerned, our contention is that safe passage is achievable for every class of vehicle, as well as pedestrians. There is a pedestrian crossing a few yards away. We no longer own a car and almost always visit the shop on foot.
The only other possible explanation for this part of the TRO might be found in (f), ‘preserving or improving the amenities of the area,’ a suitably vague term. However, we do not think this beautiful leafy part of south Edinburgh could have much more in the way of amenities. If there is a better example of a ’20 minute neighbourhood’ to use the current catchphrase of broader transportation policy, we do not know of one.
It is also notable that the report of 12th September, examined shortly, encourages decision makers to recognise ‘the potential economic, traffic management and air quality benefits of reducing commuter parking,’ which whilst covering similar ground to the wording of the statute as to why a TRO might be made, is not the same as the grounds in s.1(1).
The one page ‘Statement of Reasons’ made available as part of the suite of documents associated with this TRO gives no further information on this particular proposal, nor why it has been deemed ‘expedient,’ in the words of s.1(1).
The live consultation document refers to the wider controlled parking zone being proposed ‘in order to reduce and resolve the parking issues noted via the feedback the Council received and the information gathered during parking surveys.’ However, without more granular information being made available, this statement is meaningless. As we will see however, that is not the whole story.
Inadequate, flawed consultation
This last point leads on to the next basis of our objection, namely that the consultation is flawed and does not meet the requisite public law tests of consultation.
There is a substantial volume of case law indicating how public bodies like the Council should consult on proposals of this nature. However, the shortest explanation of it can be found in the so-called ‘Gunning Principles,’ or ‘Sedley Criteria.’ These principles, first set out by Stephen Sedley QC in R v Brent LBC, ex parte Gunning, can be summarised as follows:
➢ The consultation must be at a time when the proposals are at a formative stage, and no final decision has been taken;
➢ The consultation must give sufficient reasons and information supporting the proposal to give those responding a way of giving ‘intelligent consideration’ to it;
➢ There must be enough time given for a response: what is appropriate can vary according to the subject and its potential impact;
➢ The consultation responses must be given ‘conscientious consideration’ by those taking the final decision.
Of the four bullet points, we consider that the current consultation fails to meet the second and third of them. It remains to be seen whether those making the decision meet the fourth criterion of giving the responses ‘conscientious consideration.’
The consultation documents on the website are voluminous, but there is somewhat confusing and circular signposting to the relevant information. Attendance at the drop in event on Thursday 19th June at Reid Memorial confirmed that the methodology and data relied upon in the making of these proposals were to be found in the committee reports made available as part of the consultation.
We started with the report to Transport and Environment Committee on Thursday, 12th September 2019. This meaty, 232 page document seemed to be the foundation of the now extant proposals for this area, reporting as it did the outcome of a ‘review’ process of then current parking problems. Notably, at 4.11 it recognises that the results for the Blackford area (which unfortunately for our purposes ends right at the Avenue shop) may have been skewed by the surveys happening after the end of the academic year, and proposes a further update to Committee once more survey work has been carried out. I understand a follow up may have been carried out during the COVID pandemic, but may have missed the results somewhere in the supporting documentation.
Appendix 1 contains the main consultant’s report, which then, somewhat confusingly, contains various Appendices from A to E.
Appendix 5, the ‘Action List – Interim,’ contained proposals for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) for Area B1, which includes that part of Blackford Avenue north of the Avenue Shop, and ‘further monitoring’ for Blackford.
Since that report, which was considered nearly 6 years ago by, presumably, a very different set of Committee members, there have been update reports in January 2021, August 2021, August/September 2022, December 2022, September 2023, January 2024, August, 2024, and April this year.
Taken together with the 12th September 2019 report, these amount to over 1,500 pages for those being consulted to plough through to find the relevant parts which apply to their own area. One cannot help feeling a twinge of pity for members of the Committee being faced with this onslaught of words every committee cycle. Before addressing the substance of what can be gleaned from these 1,500 pages, then, we would refer back to the third of the Sedley Criteria, which says that adequate time should be given for a response.
In the interests of expediency, we used a search function on our pdf reader to see if all or any of the reports were relevant to Blackford. The first that threw up results was the update of 8th December 2022 (the earlier reports did seem to be related to other parts of the city, but it was difficult to be sure without reading them first). The December 2022 update contained the responses to an informal survey, which as regards Blackford showed mixed views but a large majority in favour of keeping the status quo as regards Blackford Avenue and Blackford Bank.
The update of 15th August 2024 notes Blackford and Area B1 in the overall list of areas in terms of relative ‘parking pressure’ levels. Area B1 ranks higher in terms of parking pressures and is to become a CPZ; Blackford is to be ‘monitored.’
The update report of 3rd April this year is noteworthy, and not just for its relatively short length (9 pages). It contains an update on process. Following a motion by Cllr Booth, it has been agreed to dispense with further informal ‘pre-TRO’ consultations for future phases of the parking roll-out. Given the length of time it has taken the Council to implement any of the Review proposals so far, one can sympathise with the sentiment, even if it means that the consultation process will be even less adequate than before. The report outlines how, at the stage of a TRO being made, only some adjustments can be made – leading to less flexibility for both objectors and the Council.
From a review of the update reports in the time available, therefore, it appears that no meaningful further monitoring has actually been carried out prior to the introduction of the formal TRO proposal. If this is the case, then it would suggest that introducing these unpopular changes to the length of Blackford Avenue were founded upon traffic surveys carried out in May, 2019, over 6 years ago when the world was a very different place. Any updated monitoring during the pandemic would have done little to advance matters.
Lack of EqIA
It seems self-evident that a proposal of this nature will have an effect on those who have protected characteristics. For example, although the Blackford and Grange areas have a mixed demographic, there is a substantial amount of retirement-type accommodation, particularly along West Savile Terrace. Many people residing in this type of accommodation will have limited mobility and may, therefore, need to drive to their local shop. Parking restrictions will therefore have a disproportionate impact on such persons.
For that reason alone a full Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) should have been carried out in advance of the proposals, and the outcome of it should have been published along with the remainder of the consultation documents. However, other impacts on those with protected characteristics may exist.
As with our other grounds of objection, we contend that this is a fundamental flaw of the consultation process and should be addressed before the Council proceeds further with the proposals.
Conclusion
We recognise that managing traffic in Scotland’s capital city is a far from easy task, especially in a world where council transportation departments are undervalued and overstretched.
Similarly, we recognise that there is a desire to short circuit matters by introducing proposals as part of an umbrella approach. However, the net effect of this is to make things exceedingly difficult for those of us who, whilst mindful of the need to mitigate environmental impacts in general, may consider that at local level an individual proposal is not the right fit.
We would be grateful if you could ensure that these points are taken into consideration fully by the relevant decision makers in due course.
