Alan Bell on the promenade parking ban in Ardrossan

But it seems not.

I was concerned to hear from residents of Arran Place that under the provisions on pavement parking in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, which the council has had the power to enforce since November, the car park area at the west end of the Ardrossan promenade has been designated as a pavement.

Residents, I'm told, have now been warned by traffic wardens that their cars will be issued with a fine if they continue to park there.

This was a concern to me for a number of reasons.

First, this area of the promenade has historically been used as parking, not only for residents in Arran Place but also for those people visiting the beach. For example, just a few weeks ago, when the sun was scorching (remember those days?), this car park area was full with 12 vehicles while other beach visitors, in more than 90 vehicles, resorted to parking on the promenade grass.

Drivers face a fine for parking on the pavement at the west end of the Ardrossan prom. (Image: Newsquest)

In other words, parking along the promenade is essential to help drive tourism and visitors to our beach and promenade area.

Second: I know I’m being selfish here, but my charity is based in the Barony St John Centre, right across the road from this parking area. Many people visiting our centre for advice, classes, community groups, etc. park here, particularly those with disabilities.

Where are they supposed to park now? Finding a parking space along Princes Street is extremely difficult as most are taken by business owners and the street’s residents.

Third, my charity is currently building a wellbeing café extension onto our centre which will predominantly be used by vulnerable people. Removing the parking area directly across from us will have a devastating effect on both our centre and the new café. Victims of violence and abuse find it hard enough to leave the house without having to walk through the town from the nearest parking space to get to us. 

Fourth: the former Barony St John Church building, next door to us, is currently being developed into a mosque and community centre. Removing this parking area will have a major effect on this development. Where are all these people supposed to park to attend their religious and community services?

Fifth: according to the section on pavement parking in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, an area of pavement can be considered for exemption "if its layout or character would allow for a width of 1.5 metres of the footway to remain unobstructed when any part of a vehicle is parked on it".

This area of promenade, directly across from our centre, will have at least three to four metres of unobstructed pavement left, even when cars are parked there. There is absolutely no reason, in my opinion, why this could not be an exempted area.

This pavement area at the west end of the Ardrossan prom has been used for decades to park vehicles. (Image: Google Street View)

Sixth, and last, if this area is now classed as a pavement, despite being used as a parking area for decades, could it be grassed over like the rest of the promenade, allowing for cars to park on the grass? 

Unfortunately, the council did not agree with any of my points. Regarding my last idea, a spokesman said: “I am unaware of any plans to alter or return this area to grass."

They also confirmed that local authorities in Scotland do indeed have powers to exempt certain areas of pavement from the national ban, should they feel it necessary and if certain criteria are met.

However, they said: "This section of pavement at the Promenade has been assessed by the roads services team, and unfortunately did not qualify for an exemption as it was deemed that there is sufficient street parking nearby."

They went on to argue: "While parking on the pavement at the promenade has historically taken place for many years, regardless of its width this pavement was not designed or constructed to repeatedly carry vehicular traffic, and consequently requires regular inspection and maintenance to keep the area safe and clear of surface defects."

Now, I found this a strange comment to make. Theoretically it sounds correct, but the reality is that in the 10 years I have been at the Barony St John Centre, I have never seen any defects to the pavement or kerbs caused by vehicles parking on this area of the promenade.

They added: “In addition, driving, reversing, and the general movement of vehicles on this section of pavement severely compromises the safety of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.”

Alan Bell says people using the Barony St John Centre will be severely inconvenienced by enforcement of the pavement parking regulations. (Image: Google Street View)

To be honest, this sounds like a cop-out to me. Vehicles drive into and around parking areas everywhere in the country. Drivers are not stupid. In these areas, they drive extra carefully because they know there are pedestrians around. It’s never a problem.

So to say that vehicles moving in this section of the promenade will compromise the safety of pedestrians is, in my opinion, hogwash.

But their next comment really annoyed me.

“It would be expected," they said, "that residents and regular visitors would be fully aware of the pavement parking restrictions now in place, and their obligation to park responsibly.”

So, with no notices to the contrary, the council is now assuming that every visitor to the town will know that this area is no longer a parking area, despite it being used as such for as long as anyone can remember. And visitors who don’t know the area will see another car parked there and follow suit. Without any 'No Parking' notices, this just seems to me like a way to get more money from parking fines.

Speaking of fines, I was thinking it would be something like a £30 fine, but it’s actually £100 for parking on this area of the promenade now. It's absolutely shocking.  

With regard to the problems removing this parking area will cause to our charity and the proposed community centre next door, they replied: "The council is not responsible for, nor has a duty to provide, residential or commercial parking on the public road network.

"I appreciate you may be disappointed with this decision, and that the nearby parking may not be the most convenient.

"However, pedestrian accessibility and pedestrian safety are a significant priority for North Ayrshire Council, and we will continue to work in partnership with all our key stakeholders and are committed to deliver the best outcome for our local communities.”

And with the next line of their reply, the penny finally dropped for me.

“I have been advised," they said, "that this area has been highlighted by Ardrossan Regeneration Project to formalise the footway, cycleway, and parking, in the near future, and that this news may provide some comfort for the local residents, commercial operators, and tourists going forward.”

Alan Bell reckons getting cyclists and pedestrians to share the same space is much more likely to put pedestrians' safety at risk than having dedicated cycle lanes on roads. (Image: Google Street View)

So the actual reason there is now no longer any parking allowed on this part of the promenade is because it will be part of the new proposed cycle route.

This plans to do away with the cycle lane on the road that runs the length of South Crescent Road, up to Arran Place (where, in my opinion, cyclists should be), and will instead divert cyclists onto the promenade footpath, making this a shared pathway for both cyclists and pedestrians.

Now, if you ask me, if there's anything “severely compromises the safety of pedestrians”, it’s allowing cyclists to fly past them on a pavement.

But then again, I’m only the founder of The Scottish Centre for Personal Safety. So what do I know about safety?

I’d be interested in hearing YOUR thoughts about the removal of promenade parking at Arran Place.