
Pavement parking ban helps Prestwick store overturn council decision
The Keystore in Adamton Road North, Prestwick, argued that there is no need for bollards to stop pavement parking now that new law is in place.
The new ban on pavement parking in South Ayrshire has resulted in an unanticipated change of heart from councillors.
Last year, South Ayrshire Council's Local Review Body approved a plan for a Prestwick store to introduce a hot food takeaway to its premises.
The application for the Keystore in Adamton Road had originally been refused by planners, with the issue of traffic and increased usage of the shop among the reasons given.
That was overturned on the condition, recommended by Ayrshire Roads Alliance, that the shop owners agreed mitigation measures to prevent pavement parking, including the installation of bollards.
However, that promise was never met and the owners took the decision to appeal the outcome of the appeal.
Part of their argument for removing the condition around parking was the introduction of the pavement parking ban and the irony that mitigations, such as bollards, would narrow the pavement, causing access issues to the public, particularly wheelchair users and the visually impaired – one of the reasons for bringing in the ban in the first place.
Planning officer James Hall told the Local Review Body that the owners had pointed out that the hot food element only made up five per cent of the goods sold, there was little community objection or evidence of problems, and that it would impact accessibility to a neighbouring hairdresser.
They also said that they felt the cost of implementing mitigation measures, such as bollards, would be too high for them and that the requirement could become a precedent for other small retailers.
Some councillors took the issue of the pavement parking ban one step further, questioning why, having introduced a ban, the council would be putting the onus on a business to deter the practice.
Conservative councillor Martin Kilbride said: 'I do understand a year ago why there was talk of bollards, because it was to make sure that the cars weren't parking on the footpath, to allow access for pedestrians to safely get from A to B.
'We've now got a pavement parking ban in place.'
He said there was evidence that the ban was being adhered to, putting a further question to the need for the condition.
'So, the pavement parking ban has worked. The reason for the bollards was to keep the footpath open for people in wheelchairs and with disabilities.'
He was backed by Conservative colleague Lee Lyons, who said: 'What we are effectively doing is taking an already narrow path and making it narrower to prevent someone potentially parking on the pavement, when we have just brought in a new pavement parking ban.
'So we are effectively got a policy that you can't park on the pavement, but we are asking someone to put in bollards to basically enforce a law.
'I don't see why we're doing both. Either the law in itself is sufficient and should be policed or it's not and we have to build a fence by the side of the road.'
He called on the committee to approve the request to scrap the condition as a result.
Other councillors took issue with the fact that Ayrshire Roads Alliance had maintained their stance despite the change in the law, did not attend Tuesday's hearing to answer councillors' questions and had simply not answered when asked for comment ahead of the meeting.
Councillor Mark Dixon wanted to defer a decision in order to get answers from ARA, after the summer recess and was backed by Labour member Ian Cavana.
The motion to approve the request to remove the condition was agreed by three votes to two.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Ex-Tory minister suspended over ‘cash for questions' row
Dear oh dear. Mr S reported on Saturday that former Conservative science minister George Freeman was under scrutiny over Sunday Times reports about his £60,000-a-year adviser gig to GHGSat Limited. Now it transpires that the Tory MP for Mid Norfolk has been suspended from his role as government trade envoy after the allegations he was paid by the eco-innovators to reportedly submit parliamentary questions about the sector the firm operates in. As revealed by the Sunday broadsheet, leaked emails showed Freeman asking the director of the environment monitoring firm GHGSat Limited 'what to ask about'. Submitting tailored queries to ministers about the sector could have handed the company a commercial advantage – and would break multiple rules in the MPs' code of conduct. After being approached, Freeman immediately referred himself to the parliamentary commissioner for standards – after first insisting he did not believe he had done anything wrong. And now the allegations are taking a toll on his work. Downing Street said his role as trade envoy for Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Brunei had been 'suspended', while a spokesperson added: Parliamentary standards are a matter for the House and the parliamentary standards commissioner, and you can see the individual has referred himself to that process. While that investigation takes place, it is right he has been asked to step back from the role and he has been suspended in representing the UK as a trade envoy until that process has been concluded. It's not good news for the Tory party, which has already seen Patrick Spencer lose the whip over sexual assault charges. The party's dwindling numbers are at risk of dropping even more…


Evening Standard
12 hours ago
- Evening Standard
Scheme to register foreign agents comes into force but China avoids top tier
Following the announcement in April that Russia would be included in the enhanced tier, Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said it was 'astonishing' that China had not received similar treatment and accused the Government of 'prioritising economic links over national security'.


North Wales Chronicle
17 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Welfare U-turn will cost £2.5bn by 2030, Liz Kendall tells MPs
Liz Kendall said the costs and savings of the Government's revised welfare package would be confirmed by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the budget in the autumn. But her statement to MPs on Monday suggested the measures would save less than half the £4.8 billion the Government had expected from its initial proposals. Ms Kendall's statement confirmed the concessions announced last week in an effort to head off a major rebellion by Labour backbenchers, including protecting people who claim personal independence payments from new eligibility criteria. Responding to claims this would create a 'two-tier' benefits system, Ms Kendall said: 'I would say to the House, including members opposite, that our benefits system often protects existing claimants from new rates or new rules, because lives have been built around that support, and it's often very hard for people to adjust.' Earlier, modelling from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) suggested the Government's proposals would push 150,000 more people into poverty by 2030. The figure is down from the 250,000 extra people estimated to have been facing relative poverty after housing costs under the original proposals. Modelling published by the DWP said the estimate does not include any 'potential positive impact' from extra funding and measures to support people with disabilities and long-term health conditions into work. Speaking in the Commons on Monday afternoon, Ms Kendall insisted that changes to her proposals on Pip and universal credit would 'ensure no existing claimants are put into poverty'. A Number 10 spokesman also said that the DWP's poverty modelling was 'subject to uncertainty' and did not 'reflect the full picture', including investment in the health service to help people get back to work. Ministers hope the concessions will be enough to avert defeat when MPs vote on the reforms on Tuesday, although Downing Street remains braced for a substantial revolt. A 'reasoned amendment' proposed by senior Labour backbencher Dame Meg Hillier had received support from 126 Labour MPs, enough to overturn Sir Keir Starmer's majority. On Friday, Dame Meg had described the concessions as a 'workable compromise'. But Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, who negotiated the concessions alongside Dame Meg, told ITV News on Monday that the Government had rowed back on what had been negotiated. Although she described the concessions as 'good', Ms Abrahams said the rebels were 'not quite there yet' on a deal with the Government. She added: 'The actual offer that was put to one of the negotiating team wasn't actually what we thought we had negotiated on Wednesday and Thursday. There are some issues around that.' In the Commons, both Dame Meg and Ms Abrahams raised concerns that a review of Pip, to be conducted by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms, would report too late to have an effect on the changes scheduled for November 2026. Meanwhile, Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately accused the Government of making 'unfunded U-turns costing billions and welfare plans that are not worth the paper that they are written on'. She said: 'Their latest idea is a two-tier welfare system to trap people in a lifetime on benefits and deny them the dignity of work while leaving the taxpayer to pick up the ever-growing bill.' Tory leader Kemi Badenoch confirmed on Monday evening that her party would vote against the Government's proposals, saying they were 'not serious welfare reform'. Accusing Sir Keir of having 'watered down the small savings Labour were making', she added: 'We have a Government that is incapable of governing. For that reason, we will be voting against the welfare Bill tomorrow.' The U-turn will also cause problems for Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who will now have to find a way to cover the shortfall between the amount the Government had expected to save, and the new, lower figure. And that figure could be even higher, with economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation suggesting last week the U-turn could cost in the region of £3 billion, raising the prospect of further tax rises.