south ayrshire council residents parking study final... · job no report no issue no report name...

South Ayrshire Council Residents Parking Study

Ayr & Prestwick

Report


Ayr & Prestwick

Report

JMP Consultants Limited Blackfriars House Parsonage Manchester M3 2JA T 0161 831 5600 F 0161 831 5601 E [email protected] www.jmp.co.uk

Job No. SCT3652

Report No. SCT3652-001d

Prepared by Jonathan Parsons

Verified John Milligan

Approved by John Milligan

Status Final

Issue No. 1

Date 04 July 2013


Ayr & Prestwick

Report

Contents Amendments Record

This document has been issued and amended as follows:

Status/Revision Revision description Issue Number Approved By Date

Draft 1st Draft Version 1 JM 12/06/2013

Final Incorporating comments from SAC Project Team 2 JM 27/06/2013

Final Final Report 3 JM 04/07/2013

Contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1

Report Structure ......................................................................................................................... 1

2 STUDY BRIEF ............................................................................................................................ 3

Study Work Stages ..................................................................................................................... 3

3 POLICY CONTEXT .................................................................................................................... 4

National Policy ............................................................................................................................ 4

Local Policy................................................................................................................................. 5

4 CONSULTATION........................................................................................................................ 9

Consultation Events .................................................................................................................... 9

Consultation Findings ............................................................................................................... 10

Prestwick .................................................................................................................................. 10

Ayr ............................................................................................................................................ 12

Troon ........................................................................................................................................ 16

Monkton .................................................................................................................................... 17

Supplementary Consultation .................................................................................................... 18

5 DATA COLLECTION AND SURVEYS ..................................................................................... 21

Survey Identification & Specification ........................................................................................ 21

Survey Results – Ayr ................................................................................................................ 23

Survey Results – Prestwick ...................................................................................................... 30

Supplementary Data Sources................................................................................................... 33

University of West of Scotland – CPZ Survey .......................................................................... 33

Off-Street Car Park Analysis .................................................................................................... 33

Summary .................................................................................................................................. 36

6 DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSALS ......................................................................................... 38

General Considerations ............................................................................................................ 38

Proposals for Ayr ...................................................................................................................... 42

Proposals for Prestwick ............................................................................................................ 46

7 FINAL PROPOSALS ................................................................................................................ 49

8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 51

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 51

Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 52

Tables and Figures

Table 3.1 South Ayrshire Parking Study Outcomes .......................................................................... 5 Table 4.1 Consultation Events Attendees ....................................................................................... 10 Table 5.1 Ayr Town Centre Car Parks – Average Occupancy – Thur / Fri / Sat ............................ 34 Table 5.2 Ayr Town Centre Car Parks – Average Occupancy – Weekday / Weekend .................. 35 Table 6.1 Comparative Residents Parking Permit Charges ........................................................... 42 Figure 4.1 Agenda for Consultation Events ...................................................................................... 9 Figure 5.1 Map of streets surveyed in Ayr ...................................................................................... 22 Figure 5.2 Map of streets surveyed in Prestwick ............................................................................ 23 Figure 5.3 Ayr Town Centre - Survey Results Zones ..................................................................... 24 Figure 5.4 Ayr - Daytime (10:00-12:00) Occupancy Results .......................................................... 24 Figure 5.5 Ayr - Night-time (02:00-06:00) Occupancy Results ....................................................... 26 Figure 5.6 Ayr - Weekend (Saturday) (10:00-12:00) Occupancy Results ...................................... 28 Figure 5.7 Prestwick - Daytime (10:00-12:00) Occupancy Results ................................................ 30 Figure 5.8 Prestwick - Night-time (02:00-06:00) Occupancy Results ............................................. 31 Figure 5.9 Prestwick - Weekend (Saturday) (10:00-12:00) Occupancy Results ............................ 32 Figure 5.10 Ayr Town Centre - Car Park Locations ........................................................................ 34 Figure 5.11 Ayr Town Centre - Car Park Occupancy Analysis ....................................................... 36 Figure 6.1 Parking Information - Ayr Town Centre CPZ ................................................................. 39 Figure 6.2 Parking Signage - Ayr Town Centre CPZ ...................................................................... 39 Figure 6.3 Payment Machine Signage - Ayr Town Centre CPZ ..................................................... 40 Figure 6.4 Payment Machines - Ayr Town Centre CPZ .................................................................. 40 Figure 6.5 Off-Street Car Park Signage - Ayr Town Centre ............................................................ 41 Figure 6.6 Residents Parking Signage - Ayr Town Centre ............................................................. 41 Figure 6.7 Proposal Six - Zonal Approach for Ayr .......................................................................... 46 Figure 6.8 Proposal Eight - Zonal Approach for Prestwick ............................................................. 48

Appendices

APPENDIX A Consultation Events – Letter to invitees APPENDIX B Consultation Events – List of Invitees APPENDIX C Consultation Events – Notes APPENDIX D Additional Consultation Notes APPENDIX E Streets Surveyed APPENDIX F Survey Results APPENDIX G Figures

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page SCT3652 SCT3652-001d 1 South Ayrshire Council Residents Parking Study 1

1 Executive Summary 1.1 South Ayrshire Council [SAC] have commissioned JMP Consultants [JMP] to undertake a Parking

Study covering the residential areas within four settlements in South Ayrshire – Ayr, Prestwick, Troon and Monkton. The aim of the Study was to better understand current parking trends and habits within the study area, following the introduction of decriminalised parking restrictions within South Ayrshire in September 2012.

1.2 JMP have assessed and considered the policy context in which this Study sits, facilitated and mediated consultation events, commissioned parking beat surveys of the study areas, analysed the survey results and considered supplementary data sources (including off-street parking). As a consequence of the feedback and lack of issues raised during the consultation events, it was decided through consultation with SAC not to take Monkton and Troon forward as part of the Study.

1.3 It was noted that when comparing the outcomes from the consultation events with the results of the parking beat surveys, that there were differences between perceived parking issues, and the actual number of vehicles surveyed across the range of time periods. This was particularly evident around the streets close to Ayr College and the Ayr campus of the University of West Scotland.

1.4 A list of recommendations that can be taken forward as the outputs of the Study were finalised as a consequence of the analysis of the data collection and survey results, and these were assessed in partnership with the SAC Project Team. The final recommendations of the Study include:

• A refreshing of the current residents parking permit system to include a re-issuing of all residents permits, the application of a cost to the application and renewal processes that reflects the administration cost to SAC, the limiting of permits issues and replacement charges for lost permits;

• The extension of the current Ayr Town Centre CPZ to include Smith Street, Mill Street, River Street, Garden Street, Alloway Place, Barns Park, Barns Crescent and Miller Road;

• Further work, including engagement and consultation with residents of Wallacetown, to establish whether there is a need to introduce Residents Parking on streets within this area;

• Creation of limited waiting parking zones in Ayr and Prestwick, with exemptions for Residents. These areas are shown in Figures 6.7 and 6.8 and

• Charging for parking, supported by enforcement, on Main Street in Prestwick.

Report Structure 1.5 This report comprises eight sections, including this section.

1.6 Section 2 sets out the Study Brief and the Work Stages which comprise the overall Study;

1.7 The policy context of the work is set out in Section 3;

1.8 Section 4 discusses the public consultation events which were held;

1.9 The data collection, parking beat surveys undertaken, and supplementary data sources are examined in Section 5;

Page Job No Report No Issue no Report Name 2 SCT3652 SCT3652-001d 1 South Ayrshire Council Residents Parking Study

1.10 Section 6 discusses the development of the proposals as a consequence of the consultation events and data collection exercises;

1.11 The final Study proposals are set out in Section 7; and

1.12 Section 8 provides the conclusions and recommendations to the Study.


2 Study Brief 2.1 The overall Brief for the project is as follows:

South Ayrshire Council requires the preparation of a Parking Survey covering residential areas within proximity of Ayr, Prestwick, Monkton and Troon town centres, in order to provide greater understanding of parking trends and habits within the study area following the introduction of decriminalised parking restrictions within South Ayrshire in late September 2012. The study shall be required to highlight problem areas, including identification of particular issues relating to parking in residential areas, and investigate potential solutions.

Study Work Stages 2.2 SAC proposed that the Study would be broken down into four distinct work stages.

• Work Stage 1: Initial consultation with key stakeholders;

• Work Stage 2: Data collection;

• Work Stage 3: Investigate potential solutions; and

• Work Stage 4: Parking Study submission.

2.3 Within Work Stage 1 it was proposed as part of the brief to invite South Ayrshire Councillors; Community Councils; and Residents Groups to the consultation events. The consultation events, and their findings, are discussed in more detail in Section 4 of this Report.

2.4 A variety of data sources were used in the development of Work Stage 2, involving a combination of desktop study, statistical data acquired from SAC, and commissioned surveys. More details regarding the other data collection exercises can be found in Section 5 of this Report.

2.5 Once the full data had been collated and compiled with the outputs from the consultation events, Work Stage 3 developed a range of potential measures that could be implemented to prevent / alleviate the issues identified within the earlier work stages of the Study.

2.6 Work Stage 4 involved the development of the Final Report, identifying a range of proposals, as well as providing conclusions and recommendations.


3 Policy Context

National Policy 3.1 The 2004 Transport White Paper, “Scotland’s Transport Future” recognised the influence that

government and local policy can have on travel patterns.

3.2 Subsequently, in Scotland’s National Transport Strategy, published in 2006, local authorities were called upon to enhance their parking policies to manage demand. It was considered that road space is finite, and as such, decisions relating to allocation of available road space are critical in shaping policy aims and initiatives.

3.3 However, it must be recognised that while demand does require management, an uninformed and inconsistent approach to this can have serious detrimental effects for local economies and for particular groups such as disabled persons and businesses which require on street loading space. As a consequence, the balance between demand management and meeting local needs must always be met.

Scotland’s National Transport Strategy (December 2006)

3.4 The National Transport Strategy stated that managing demand on the network has a vital role to play in ensuring more reliable journey times and reducing congestion. With regards to parking, this is to be achieved through encouraging regional transport partnerships to create a network of innovative parking, and park and choose facilities, at suitable sites near our towns and cities and at key interchange hubs catering for all forms of transport and ensuring they introduce bus priority measures on key corridors.

3.5 In addition, local authorities are also encouraged to take forward decriminalised parking enforcement and to enhance their parking policies to manage demand.

Scottish Planning Policy (February 2010)

3.6 The management of parking is a planning, as well as a transport, issue and Scottish Planning Policy encourages planning authorities to apply maximum parking standards to on-site parking at new developments to encourage modal shift away from the single occupancy car journey.

3.7 SPP also suggests that parking restraint policies should be supported by measures to promote the availability of high quality public transport services and that local authorities may like to consider promoting Park & Ride schemes on commuter routes, including that which uses existing public transport networks such as the rail lines into Glasgow. In addition, SPP recognises the importance of parking provision at strategic gateways such as ports / airports as well as accommodating particular groups e.g. disabled persons.

3.8 With regards to specifics regarding parking, it is also stated within SPP that the availability of parking can have an important influence in reducing reliance on the car.

3.9 As a complementary measure, parking restraint policies should be supported by measures to promote the availability of high quality public transport services. Authorities should also consider promoting park and ride schemes on commuter routes. Appropriate car and cycle parking should be provided at rail stations to encourage onward travel by rail.


Local Policy South Ayrshire Council Parking Strategy (June 2011)

3.10 Colin Buchanan and Partners Ltd were commissioned by SAC to prepare a parking strategy for the South Ayrshire area. The strategy was aimed at providing a consistent approach to parking restrictions and parking policy across the whole South Ayrshire area. A total of seven objectives were identified by Colin Buchanan and Partners within the strategy, which was envisaged to enable a coherent and consistent approach to parking across South Ayrshire:

• Implement parking policies that improve safety and accessibility whilst supporting economic growth;

• Implement parking policies that encourage walking, cycling and public transport trips in town centres;

• Enhance the streetscape in conservation areas by minimising parking related signage, markings and street furniture;

• Equally support the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and disabled persons as well as motorists;

• Reduce the negative effects of commuter parking in residential areas;

• Use technology to direct drivers to safe, secure parking and when applying parking charges; and

• Implement policies that encourage the reduction of CO2 emissions

3.11 For completeness, the outcomes have been replicated in Table 3.1 below:

Table 3.1 South Ayrshire Parking Study Outcomes

Measure Target

Effective use of supplied parking

In central and peripheral areas peak usage should not regularly exceed 85% of the total supply. Similarly it should not regularly be less than 50% except at locations where demand is seasonal.

Road safety Reduce road traffic accidents in all areas in line with government targets.

Accessibility

All locations should be accessible for pedestrians and cyclists (unless there are pressing safety considerations). Level 1 locations should have a good level of public transport accessibility and in other locations public transport accessibility should be as good as is possible.

Economic growth Town centre economies should grow in line with national / regional averages.

Use of non-car modes Maximise the opportunities for the use of non-car modes in line with the LTS.

Attractive streetscapes and reduced emissions

Minimise parking search behaviour through signage and demand management.

Use of appropriate technology

Maximise the availability of VMS and user friendly payment technologies.

Appropriate supply for specific user groups

Adequate parking supplied for specific groups, specifically disabled persons.

Impact on residents Residents should usually be able to park in the parking area / street closest to their residence.


Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan (November 2007)

3.12 The AJSP states that it will be important to limit long-stay commuter parking and encourage short-stay parking in areas adjacent to key retail locations. However, it is considered crucial that this is undertaken within the context of a co-ordinated approach to parking that applies maximum parking standards and supports the roles of town centres.

3.13 This is explored in greater detail in Policy TRANS 6 Town Centre Traffic Management.

3.14 Within the town centres of the Core Investment Area and Investment Corridors where appropriate, the three Ayrshire Councils shall:

• Introduce measures to facilitate accessibility by a range of transport modes giving priority to walking, cycling and public transport where possible;

• Discourage long-stay commuter parking within town centres and give priority to short-stay parking in areas adjacent to key retail locations;

• Apply maximum parking standards as appropriate with regard to new development proposals;

• Seek development contributions, as appropriate, to supplement the overall supply of parking and improve services in the town centre; and

• Consider the needs of non-retail land-uses within the context of an integrated approach to parking.

South Ayrshire Council’s Local Transport Strategy (March 2009)

3.15 It is noted within the Local Transport Strategy that retail development around Ayr town centre has increased pressure on the town’s parking facilities. It is stated that a major problem with meeting demand in terms of car parking spaces is that this often encourages and increases private car usage1.

3.16 SAC aim to reduce car travel in the area, not aggravate the existing parking situation, which chimes with the AJSP which suggests that it is ‘important to limit long-stay commuter parking and encourage short-stay parking in areas adjacent to key retail locations’.

3.17 The proposed Park-&-Ride schemes will reduce traffic pressures and emissions being produced from vehicles travelling to / from Ayr. Commuters would have an alternative mode choice when deciding on how to travel to / from Ayr. Park-&-Ride at locations within and around Ayr would help eliminate long-stay car parking in Ayr town centre although the parking policy for the town centre will be changed to accommodate new public transport services and support economic growth in the town.

3.18 Long-stay car parking will be encouraged at Park-&-Ride locations or Multi-Modal Travel Stations with public transport transferring passengers into town. Parking in Ayr town centre would be provided for short-stay time periods.

3.19 It was identified in 2009 that there are several issues associated with parking provision in towns, especially Prestwick and Ayr. Demand for parking outstripped supply within these towns, affecting their economic attractiveness. However, since the economic downturn, this is no longer seen to be the case. Also, the lack of Park & Ride facilities for trips into and out of the area results in local

1 However, since the LTS was published, the economic downturn has seen a fall in the retail provision within Ayr, and as such, the increase in private car usage as a consequence of the demand for retail is no longer the case.


parking facilities being used for this purpose, reducing the availability of parking for other uses. Also noted is that the charging mechanisms in use can often be confusing and are not consistent across the authority area.

3.20 When the community were consulted on the LTS, car parking provision was again seen as a low priority for a majority of respondents, which dovetailed with the high level of respondents prioritising means to tackle congestion.

3.21 When the consultation responses are analysed in more detail, the issue given the least priority overall was improving car parking provision and the enforcement of yellow lines, with 40% of respondents selecting this issue as 8th, 9th or 10th choice. Making walking and cycling real alternatives for some journeys and investing in transport infrastructure and services to grow the economy were ranked 8th equal overall with 34% of respondents selecting these issues as 8th 9th or 10th choice.

3.22 Current parking issues within South Ayrshire have various causes including the displacement of parking from the controlled parking zone, parking needs generated by bus and rail commuters and airport passengers. The displaced parking from the controlled zones mostly affects residential areas which are within easy walking distance of the town centres. Many of these areas are made up of Victorian properties, with little or no off road parking provision.

3.23 A balance has to be struck to ensure that town centres are not dominated and congested by the presence of parked vehicles or void of parking facilities that could deter the economic growth of town centre business to the benefit of out of town retail centres where parking is ample. Therefore, within the LTS, the Council aims to encourage parking facilities in town centres as short stay parking, and discourage long stay parking to a level that the council deems appropriate. However, in sparsely populated locations such as rural areas, public transport may be infrequent and the use of private vehicles is therefore an essential means of daily life. In contrast to urban location where parking standards may be more restrictive, recommendations for parking facilities in rural areas can be more lenient.

Prestwick Parking Study (December 2008)

3.24 Jacobs Consultancy was commissioned by SAC to carry out a study into parking issues in Prestwick town centre, and in the vicinity of Glasgow Prestwick Airport.

3.25 Overall, the Study reported that there appears to be considerable numbers of airport passengers parking their vehicles on residential areas close to the airport and in the town centre, with the majority of likely flight passengers vehicles’ parked between two and five days. The streets which were identified to be experiencing parking issues with regards to assumed flight passengers’ vehicles include Langcroft Avenue, Blackford Crescent, Kirk Street and Midton Road2.

3.26 The Study also focussed on parking associated with passengers using the long distance bus service between Ayr and Glasgow. The frequency of the long distance X77 bus service between Ayr and Glasgow city centre has increased over the last few years with more reliable journey times and a quicker service. This has resulted in increased passenger usage with a demand for Park-&-Ride that appears to be focussed on Prestwick.

3.27 In addition, results from parking surveys carried out across the town centre showed that a considerable number of vehicles were parking for longer time periods than legally specified on TROs. 2 N.B. – At the time of the Jacobs Study, there were several daily flights to London. This is no longer the case.


3.28 It was recommended that residents only parking areas would help reduce the number of flight passengers parking on residential areas. In addition, it was recommended to introduce a rolling hour restriction in residents parking areas to assist in deterring airport passengers from parking in residential streets.

3.29 Supplementary recommendations included enhancing early morning/late evening public transport services to and from the airport, which may reduce the number of passengers travelling by car and alleviate parking on-street in Prestwick town centre and residential areas close to the airport. Also suggested was that improving advertising for the early morning/late evening bus services may also improve people’s awareness of the service and potentially lead to a reduction in the number of flight passengers parking on-street in Prestwick.


4 Consultation

Consultation Events 4.1 Work Stage 2 of the Study comprised the arrangement and holding of consultation events across

the study area. SAC identified the list of attendees to be invited, whilst offering the opportunity for correspondence via email should invitees not be able to attend, thus ensuring all views could be recorded. A copy of the letter sent out to invitees can be found at Appendix A, with the list of invitees at Appendix B.

4.2 Due to Ayr being a larger conurbation than the other towns within the brief, it was considered prudent to hold two consultation events in Ayr, one in Prestwick, and a joint event for Troon and Monkton (held in Troon).

4.3 The consultation events were held on the following dates:

• Monday 15th April - Prestwick Community Centre - 14.30-16.00

• Monday 15th April - Ayr Town Hall - 18.00-19.30

• Wednesday 17th April - Walker Hall, Troon - 14.30-16.00

• Wednesday 17th April - Citadel, Ayr - 18.00-19.30

4.4 The meeting format, agreed with the SAC project team, was as follows:

• JMP had two staff in attendance, one to facilitate the meeting, and the other to take notes;

• Round-table discussion, with Chatham House rules, JMP leading the conversation and facilitating; and

• A member of the SAC project team to attend, purely in an observation capacity.

4.5 In addition, the following agenda was agreed, and used at the consultation events:

Figure 4.1 Agenda for Consultation Events

• Welcome and aspirations for the event

• Introductions

• Discussion (contributions from all facilitated by JMP)

• Agreement on where and when parking pressures in the town occur

• Discussion of causes of these pressures (commuters, shoppers, residents, etc)

• Agreement of implications of these pressures (people discouraged from shopping in town, residents inconvenienced, etc)

• Discussion of preferred solutions (CPZs, limited wait, introduction of charges, etc) and advantages/disadvantages of each

• Sum up

• Next steps, thanks and close


4.6 The numbers of attendees at each event can be seen in Table 4.1, below:

Table 4.1 Consultation Events Attendees

Consultation Event Number of Attendees3

Monday 15th April – Prestwick Community Centre 2 Monday 15th April – Ayr Town Hall 3 Wednesday 17th April – Walker Hall, Troon 4 Wednesday 17th April – Citadel, Ayr 8

4.7 Whilst it was considered that the consultation events were not as well attended as hoped, some

useful points and discussions were raised, and as such, it was felt that there were enough issues raised to take the Study through to the data collection element of Work Stage 3. The consultation notes from the events are appended to this Report at Appendix C.

Consultation Findings 4.8 For ease of reading, the key issues raised are identified for each town they were raised in:

Prestwick 4.9 When it was discussed amongst the group where and when parking pressures occurred, and the

possible causes of these, it was noted that the limited waiting bays on Main Street (A79) were being used for long-stay parking, with some local businesses seen as positively encouraging this misuse. In addition, it was perceived that bus bays are ‘routinely’ abused and parked in4, as well as perceived that one-hour limited waiting bays are ‘routinely’ used for longer stays, with no enforcement5. The failure to enforce waiting restrictions and time limits was also seen as an ongoing problem.

4.10 To the rear of Main Street, it was considered that residential properties in these locations generate the demand for parking, with overspill into parking for business properties. This can be compounded by increased demand for parking in Prestwick in the evening due to its growing popularity as a destination, meaning that residents arriving home at night can sometimes struggle to find a parking space close to their property.

4.11 It was also noted that staff working at the Prestwick Academy cannot park on school land, and are therefore parking on the streets close to the school.

4.12 The following streets around Prestwick Town Railway Station were identified as experiencing issues with informal ‘park and ride’ to Prestwick Airport and other locations such as Glasgow, Ayr and Troon:

• Kirk Street;

• MacIntyre Street;

• Hamilton Way;

• Monkton Court;

3 Excluding SAC Officers attending in an observation capacity 4 Post-event, it was identified that 5 PCNs had been issued for such an offence between 01/10/12 and 01/05/13. 5 Post-event, it was identified that 380 PCNs had been issued for such an offence between 01/10/12 and 01/05/13.


• Shawfarm Gardens;

• Powmill Road; and

• Powmill Gardens.

4.13 It was noted that it was not uncommon to experience vehicles arriving at 5am, with drivers completing their onwards journey to the Airport by taxi.

4.14 Despite nearby Oswald Drive having a one-hour single yellow line parking restriction in operation between 11.00 and 12.00, it was claimed that this was unenforced, leading to long-stay parking being an issue. Also, in the north of the conurbation, some localised parking issues were caused by people attending the Bridge Club on The Riggs.

4.15 It was noted that Sunday church services can cause localised parking problems around St Nicholas’ Parish Church. Other Main Street localised issues tend to arise to the east of Main Street, with less complaints made by residents living to the west of Main Street. It was also noted that the Co-operative store on Main Street utilised informal parking enforcement provision to deter indiscriminate parking in their car park.

4.16 When asked to consider the implications of these issues, the following points were raised:

• A core issue seemed to be that residents were inconvenienced, and unable to park near their homes;

• This issue was exacerbated for disabled visitors, with disabled bays subject to abuse, meaning further distance is required to travel once a space is located;

• With regards to parking issues, safety is not perceived to be an issue to date; and

• Attendees were not aware of the economic implications of the parking issue.

4.17 Attendees were also asked about possible solutions to existing parking problems in Prestwick.

4.18 It was felt that in the long term, a park and ride site at Monkton would offer solutions to some of the parking problems currently faced, especially in the north of Prestwick. In addition, Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) would be an option in some locations, but is not likely to be a universally popular solution. However, it was felt that accepting restrictions in one area may relocate the issues to neighbouring streets and areas.

4.19 Another solution proposed, but again considered that it would not be universally popular, was that of charging for permits.

4.20 In other areas it was felt that an increase in the provision of double yellow lining would be the most appropriate solution, as well as extending the existing limited waiting restrictions.

4.21 It was noted in the discussions that whatever solution comes forward, it requires enforcement, and the implementing of a permit system would require more staff to ensure the system is managed and enforced.

4.22 Some attendees commented that the status quo is an acceptable solution.

4.23 Another possible solution is that the Sainsbury’s car park on Ayr Road is considered to be rarely more than 30% full, and could be used to resolve existing parking issues.


4.24 There are already parking restrictions in the Prestwick Toll area, and it was discussed that there are discussions around extending these restrictions. With regards to Prestwick Toll, it was mentioned that this area and Lilybank Road should be included within the surveys.

Ayr6 4.25 When it was discussed amongst the group where and when parking pressures occurred, one

attendee highlighted issues in the Wallacetown, and neighbouring, areas, on the following streets:

• John Street;

• Elba Street;

• Craigie Avenue;

• Craigie Way; and

• Content Avenue

4.26 It was noted that parking in and around these streets is difficult for residents, as it is felt that town centre workers use these streets for all day parking. In addition, people who work in the area as carers are parking in surrounding streets 24 hours a day, with taxi cab parking on John Street also taking place; although the cab drivers do not appear to be residents. As a consequence of these demand pressures – and pressures for Ayr town centre and the Job Centre – residents are reluctant to leave their homes with a car, as they may be unable to locate a parking space upon their return.

4.27 In addition, the streets to the east of the town centre, surrounding the College and University campus (Fotheringham Road was identified as one street where this occurred), are heavily parked with vehicles perceived to be belonging to students; this is despite the University owning four free car parks and the College having its own parking provision. When considered in more detail, Mondays and Wednesdays were seen as being the worst days for indiscriminate parking, as nursing class sessions take place on these days. Attendees did accept that no bus services pass the University site at present.

4.28 Content Avenue has no parking controls and is very busy with what is perceived to be student parking. Councillors are still receiving complaints from residents around the University areas regarding student parking, but these have lessened recently. It is understood that a large number of students and dog walkers now park on Holmston Road.

4.29 Fotheringham Road has a bowling club and conflict has arisen between bowlers and residents, it was raised that residents pay council tax, and should receive priority.

4.30 The area of Newton was considered in discussions, and it was seen as an area with a mix of residential and business properties, and suffers from parking issues during the day. A recent example given was of an ambulance being unable to turn around in the street. It was suggested that much of this pressure for parking is generated by local business employees as well as people working in the town centre and nearby harbour.

4.31 Also in Newton, there is a small pocket of indiscriminate on-street parking near the Railway Station, where commuters park, and make onward journey by bus / train to Glasgow. At Ayr Rail Station, similar issues have been noted at the Old Cattle Market car park, with reported cases of cars

6 The findings from both Ayr events have been combined.


parked for two weeks with owners travelling to Prestwick Airport via train. Parking in this car park is free of charge.

4.32 However, there is no particular concern regarding parking in Ayr from the Newton and Heathfield Residents Association.

4.33 It was commented upon that the seafront is heavily parked by people - who are presumed to be council office staff - who are avoiding controlled parking areas in the town centre. A lot of staff who it is believed work in the council offices, are parking in Carrick Road. Bellevue Road is also heavily parked and there are issues over parking capacity at this location.

4.34 The social services building on Galloway Avenue is perceived as a source of parking on the dual carriageway (Whitletts Road). Gemmell Crescent suffers from people stopping there who are shopping in Tesco, as well as visitors to the Sunday market. Parking in the town can be difficult on a Sunday. Driveways in Peggieshill Road have become obstructed due to Belmont Academy students parking there.7


• Office staff park on / near the seafront and are reducing available parking for tourists, which the town are keen to encourage. Enforcement of parking near the County Buildings and more recently the seafront are driving the people who park in those areas, who are mostly employees in the town, into the Cromwell Road car park. The result is that the car park is now so full that people driving into Ayr to shop cannot find space in the Cromwell Road car park;

• Council staff may object to charging for car parking along the Esplanade as so many of them use that area for free parking. The Council might be perceived as caving-in to, or protecting its staff, if it does not enforce parking along the Esplanade. Council staff do not have an automatic right to free parking;

• Members of the public find it difficult to park near and visit the Council offices due to the volume of staff parking in the area;

• A large amount of inconvenience for residents, around Newton and John Street with some heavily parked streets causing safety concerns;

• Parking around the local schools has become more of an issue since decriminalisation; with particular issues at Forehill Primary School where a number of measures to discourage parking issues have been tried without success. Lots of drivers around school premises park on the footway, dropping off pupils which raises safety concerns;

• The large Railway Station car park in the town centre is at capacity each day and is believed to be used by commuters travelling to Glasgow;

• Some of the town centre car parks are ‘scruffy’ and do not encourage drivers to make use of them, however, not all are owned by SAC. However, generally the free town centre car parks are well used;

• Some drivers find it difficult to locate available on street parking spaces in the town centre. It was noted that TK Maxx’s car park is used for indiscriminate parking;

7 Whilst issues in these streets have been noted, they are outside of the study area for this Study.


• Changes in how people shop have affected the number of people coming into the town. TK Maxx now implement 4 hour parking restrictions and charge a £60 penalty fee;

• There is a perception that visitors are reluctant to come to Ayr due to the difficulty of finding parking spaces;

• The enforcement, when it is carried out is successful because feedback suggests that prior to proper enforcement, visitors were staying away from the town due to the difficulty in finding car parking spaces;

• It was considered that in Ayr, more limited-time parking areas should be considered;

• It was also considered that the introduction of residents parking only would also damage the town;

• It was also stated that it is felt that there is too little enforcement of existing regulations in the town altogether;

• Dongola Road, St Andrews Street, Ashgrove Street, these streets have a lot of guest houses8 with limited off street parking, enforcement of parking here may damage businesses; and

• Holmston Road near Ayr Cemetery is a difficult area, with an advisory cycle lane that is parked in (by College users / dog walkers).

4.36 Attendees were also asked about possible solutions to existing parking problems in Ayr.

4.37 It was noted that the town does seem to be busier following the implementation of meter controls, with a greater turnover of vehicles - currently users pay 60p9 for two hours parking and these appear popular. However, it was thought that the two hour period should be extended slightly for town centre locations.

4.38 In the current ‘pay and display’ car parking zoning system, residents have a concession to purchase parking permits for a fixed charge of £50/annum or £16/quarter – This price was introduced in 1993 and has remained unchanged for 20 years.

4.39 In the ‘Residents-Only’ parking streets, residents may obtain two parking permits for a ‘one-off’ purchase price of 50 pence and (should they require to be replaced) may obtain replacement permits for a 10 pence charge - these prices were introduced over forty years ago when the system was introduced by Ayr Burgh Council administration.

4.40 These prices require to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly as they are considerably out of date and some of these permit types do not even cover SAC costs to administer them. In addition, current controls are out of sync with the town as it now is, and the town needs a revised parking plan to reflect the current offer and location of services.

4.41 Many of the parking regulations in Ayr are related to controlled parking areas which were implemented 20 or more years ago, when the town was a different place (e.g. former Ayr Hospital and Ayr Cattle Market sites now gone).

4.42 The council is trying to promote the town as a place to visit, to stay in, in order to increase the vibrancy and vitality of the town. The existing parking controls need to be completely reviewed, with

8 Post-event, it was considered that there are no guest houses in St Andrews Street or Dongola Road, and a couple of B&Bs in Ashgrove Street. 9 Post-event, SAC advised that the cost is £1.20 for two hours parking.


a variety of different solutions for different areas of the town. We should be seeking to create a High Street without car parking in it and try to create space where people can come to shop and enjoy.

4.43 Possibly refunding car parking charges with the purchase of goods, similar to the way rail stations charge for parking may be an incentive. This issue was raised by a Councillor, but is considered contentious.

4.44 The Charlotte Street Car Park is well signed – static and VMS signs associated with it. The multi-storey car park adjacent to the High Street is privately owned, and much cheaper to park in, although it is unattractive and tight to drive into, which may put people off using it.

4.45 It was thought that the creation of a park and ride site which serves the University and College may help alleviate parking problems in this location. Also, a town centre coach service may be an option, with a coach park at the rail station. Information has already gone out to potential companies about this.

4.46 Does the town require enforcement of parking around the County Buildings which is blamed for driving the Council office staff and retail staff into the Cromwell Road car park? Does the cycleway along the seafront need to be on both sides of the road, could this be one side of the road to free up car parking? Should we remove the whole of the cycle facilities to create more car parking along the seafront?

4.47 People expect to pay to park on the seafront and there is no problem with this, Council staff who work on the maintenance of the seafront are regularly asked where the parking meters are. The esplanade would easily support £2.00 per day car parking charges. Although parking charges may be a hard issue to sell politically.

4.48 The seafront and esplanade are not well signposted from the town centre for pedestrians. If you are in Ayr, you would not currently know how to find the seafront on foot. Improving signage may help encourage people to park in the town and walk to the seafront.

4.49 Residential permits and restrictions were proposed for some areas, and these have been asked for in the past, and have been refused. Examples of successful solutions are Park Circus, these areas are flats with limited on-street parking and controls work well here.

4.50 It was suggested that there should be a review of parking controls in specific areas; Content Avenue, Elba Street, Craigie Way, Craigie Avenue, John Street and James Campbell Road; and extend these out to the University area. Also relating to the University, it was thought that there needed to be better public transport provision to the University, as well as to the College and harbour area.

4.51 It was considered that Fotheringham Road and Content Avenue should be considered for some form of controlled parking, given the proximity to Ayr College/University and the resultant long term parking by students.

4.52 Some streets where there are single dwellings with large drives / off-street capacity for parking do not need controlled parking. Examples are; Barns Park, Barns Crescent, Bellevue Crescent and parts of Fairfield Road.

4.53 A more general point made was that the provision of parking within new-build specifications is much too low, and should be increased, particularly for nursing homes. The Citadel Centre is an example of a planning failure, as there are far too few spaces for parking.


4.54 Finally, as a solution to the immediate parking difficulties for disabled persons, we should be creating more disabled bays in some areas. In addition, Local residents are in favour of extending residential parking zones in some areas. However, in both instances, these were general comments, with no specific areas identified.

Troon 4.55 When it was discussed amongst the group where and when parking pressures occurred, and the

possible causes of these, it was identified that there are no particular parking issues around the Railway Station in Troon. In addition, the town centre was considered as not being an area that suffers too badly from parking issues.

4.56 Another seasonal parking issue is caused by the Troon-Larne ferry service, as vehicles can be double parked near the chip shop on Templehill, which was considered to be a safety issue at the top of the hill due to vehicles being parked on the corner of the junction. It was noted that Templehill parking spaces are generally used by shopkeepers and residents. Also, there is a GP surgery here, and as such, a large turnover of visitor parking occurs. Templehill also suffers from a large amount of parking outside the Marina Bar on the crest of the hill. It was considered that this is a pinch ’point’, as well as having an issue with vehicles speeding.

4.57 To the north of Templehill, Dukes Road is heavily parked with staff from nearby factories and the taxi company. The taxi company no longer have a local office, and as such, operate from the street. Staff from the call centre near Morrison’s supermarket sometimes use the supermarket parking as well, as parking on street, which can cause issues.

4.58 Also in the harbour area, at the junction of Wood Road and Titchfield Road in Troon, there is a worn patch of grass overlooking the sea. Lately and with increasing frequency, there is a car parked there despite there being a sign a few metres to the right ('please don't park on the grass - soft ground'). This area is obviously not a parking area and is subject to a great deal of weathering, and the persistent parking has left the grassed area more vulnerable to erosion. Drivers have to mount the pavement to access and exit this area, driving between pedestrians using the footway. The lowered kerb at this point seems to be an invitation to park there.

4.59 Also at Titchfield Road, it was felt that this stretch of road was frequently heavily parked, although, attendees did not feel this was too great an issue. There are considered to be issues near the care home ’where the road bends and there is car park access / egress’. It was also suggested that the single yellow line should be on the opposite side of the road to where it presently is located.

4.60 In the vicinity of Titchfield Road is Harbour Road where there are problems with people parking on the south side near the marina and sailing club. This is causing visibility problems. It is also noted that lorries stop here to use the facilities at the cafe.

4.61 South Beach can be heavily parked, extending to Royal Troon, subject to the weather / seasons.

4.62 The group discussed that due to three churches in town being close together and well attended, Sunday mornings see large amounts of indiscriminate parking around St Meddans Street, Bentinck Drive, Church Street, Academy St and South Beach, however it was noted that this was for a limited period during the morning service.

4.63 There have been issues of people driving onto the esplanade and parking, attendees would like to see this discouraged. There was also concern that more rigorous enforcement of parking along the


seafront may lead to drivers parking on the grass. Ice cream vans have been seen driving onto the Esplanade, and serving from this location, however, the issue was not debated amongst the group.

4.64 It was considered that the current single yellow line provision on Portland Terrace encourages people to park further up into Academy Street, where there are no markings / restrictions.

4.65 There are not considered to be problems at North Bay, where there is always plenty of space in the car parks.

4.66 Increasingly, lorries are approaching the town via minor roads; this may be a result of an overreliance on inaccurate GPS. An example given was the turn from Harbour Road to Templehill.


• There are problems with the P&O terminal which has very little available parking space for ferry traffic. The site has a car park accommodating about 75 cars, but a large amount of unused space and this results in drivers, who are waiting for a ferry, waiting on street.

• There is a desire to avoid driving people away from Troon as a consequence of parking enforcement, and not to go the way of Ayr with residential permits and charges. Residents can park in Troon; it is only when visitors arrive there are problems.

• The Esplanade is also the site of a variety of civic functions, car boot sales and fetes for example, and Titchfield Road is used by stallholders attending these events to unload their goods. The existing single yellow line makes this practice illegal, and enforcement of this yellow line will deter people from visiting the town or using the Esplanade. It was asked could the restrictions be moved to the other side of the carriageway.

4.68 Attendees were also asked about possible solutions to existing parking problems in Troon.

4.69 It was commented that when local parking enforcement teams operate in Troon all parking problems seem to disappear. The attendees suggested that a permanent parking officer in Troon would resolve the issues, even just during the high season. However, there is no desire to implement CPZ or charges for parking.

4.70 It was considered that creating space at the P&O terminal would help the situation and there seems to be a lot of available space to create an on-site car park for ferry traffic. However, this is a private development, and outside the control of SAC.

4.71 The group commented that they would like to see more yellow lining on corners of streets where there are noted problems, for example in Academy Street, or perhaps extending existing lining.

4.72 Regarding the problem with indiscriminate parking on the grassed areas at Wood Road / Titchfield Road, putting bollards in place would be excessive, and perhaps a simple way would be to put a sign up directly on the worn grass, then the situation be monitored over a season.

4.73 It was suggested that the grid layout of Troon would lend itself to a one-way system, but this was proposed to improve general traffic flow, and not to create additional parking space.

Monkton 4.74 No comments.


Supplementary Consultation 4.75 Following on from the consultation events, it was identified that there would be value in obtaining

more views from the selected list on invitees to the consultation event in Prestwick; to ensure the full picture of parking issues could be identified. However, no emails were received by SAC during the initial, and extension to the initial email consultation period.

4.76 Supplementary consultation events were held with Councillors from Ayr and Prestwick – Ayr Councillors on 14th May 2013 and Prestwick Councillors on 21st May 2013 – to allow non-attendees an additional forum to discuss parking issues. These issues have been recorded, and have been appended at Appendix D for completeness.

Meeting with Ayr Elected Members

Overview of key points:

• A key consideration in the need to implement residents parking should be where the existing situation constitutes a ‘detriment to quality of life’ for residents;

• A ‘public engagement’ exercise would allow public opinion to inform / steer any proposals to a degree at an early stage in the process. This may include feedback from the public on how much people would be prepared to pay for permits;

• The scheme should try to be as simple as possible to avoid needless complications and perceptions of inequality among residents;

• While a ‘big bang’ blanket approach may be seen to offer a consistent and fair approach, this would require massive administrative resources (and associated costs, errors and criticism);

• Could a tiered zoning system be explored? e.g. Zone 1 – town centre; Zone 2 – pressure areas; Zone 3 – residential only; and unrestricted;

• More than 2 permits per dwelling is unfair and unsustainable;

• The existing charges for permits and replacements are far too low. The charges must make the scheme ‘cost neutral’ to the Council;

• Potential exists to have a rising pricing structure for second permits applied for, e.g. a second permit may cost double the initial permit;

• That any scheme would require to tie a parking permit to a specific vehicle, registered at an address on the street in question (V5 form / insurance details to be presented as evidence); and

• Is there sufficient parking availability in and around Ayr town centre to accommodate parking displacement associated with the introduction of new residents parking streets?

Areas / streets of specific interest:

• River Street – potential to reopen? Need to encourage greater use of parking in this area;

• Bath Place – handful of residents who feel overlooked in parking proposals;

• Fairfield Road – with garages and off street parking provision, is there a need for existing residents parking to be continued?; and

• Content Avenue / Weaver Street / Newton Green / Elba Street – resident parking competition from business / student use.


Existing / potential problems to be overcome:

• Instances of permits being ‘passed on’ to non-residents for the use of visitors / workers;

• How to encourage employment car trip use of existing car parks over existing on-street opportunities? Possible promotions or price reductions;

• Generally speaking, car parks are seen as facilities for longer stay parking, with on-street bays intended as short-term with a high turnover. In specific areas where there are a number of short duration trip attractors (doctors, post office, etc) should a review of car parking pricing be undertaken to encourage more short-term use?;

• How to issue permits? Possibly tie into council tax, with barcode providing details when scanned on the duration left on permits; and

• Consideration would be required for how businesses operating on residential streets considered for residents parking (such as a B&B or dentist) could allow for a degree of guest or visitor parking.

Meeting with Prestwick Elected Members

Overview of key points:

• The residents parking considerations within Prestwick will take cognisance of the data and themes collated within the 2010 parking study;

• Concerns were raised relating to Shawfarm Road, Blackford Crescent and Langcroft Avenue, with resident complaints received associated with airport parking demands10;

• Concerns were raised with regards to the potential impact of traffic displacement associated with the introduction of any residents parking schemes. It was suggested that this process is likely to be iterative, and that several reviews over time are likely to be required with scope to extend any implemented scheme;

• Concerns were expressed that the introduction of double yellow lines at junctions had significantly reduced available parking opportunities, and asked if there was scope to reduce the double yellow lengths to create additional spaces. It was explained at length that the extent of double yellow lining is governed by visibility splay requirements, and that road safety must be considered paramount in this respect;

• The types of resident parking were discussed at length, with leaving all spaces as a ‘free for all’ at one end of the spectrum, and allocated bays for specific cars / residences at the other. The consensus was that the practical solution lay between these points;

• Emphasis was placed on the fact that the parking demands within Prestwick are as a result of a combination of factors including residential, seasonal, retail and airport;

• Mansfield Road, Kingscroft Road and Pleasantfield area identified as being used as an informal ‘park and ride’ for the X77 service. A potential review of X77 stops may help to alleviate this issue;

10 JMP were presented with some anecdotal evidence regarding long-stay parking for Prestwick Airport, on Shaw Road, Orangefield Avenue, Langcroft Avenue and Blackford Crescent, which were not among the streets identified and surveyed as part of the parking beats in Prestwick. Due to the anecdotal nature of the evidence, it is not possible to draw any conclusions regarding long-stay / Airport parking on these streets from the data, within the outcomes of this Study. Notwithstanding, it may be worth undertaking a further study, considering the demand for long-stay parking for Prestwick Airport, to better understand the implications it has for residents within residential streets in the north of Prestwick.


• Public engagement of potential scheme options was recommended as the next step in the overall process – especially pertinent within Prestwick due to the previous difficulties in implementing restrictions due to received objections;

• There was debate as to whether the creation of new driveways should be promoted or discouraged – the argument for was that this reduces on-street demands by residents, and the argument against was that this would reduce on-street parking availability which could impact upon retail trips, etc; and

• It was agreed that the best way forward is likely to continue to be a very polarising subject – discussion was held into the feasibility of a possible permit trial scheme – but it was clarified that TROs would be required and a temporary trial scheme would be very difficult from an administrative point of view.


5 Data Collection and Surveys

Survey Identification & Specification 5.1 The outcomes from the public consultation, combined with current issues identified by the SAC

project team, allowed the streets and survey periods to be identified for the second element of Work Stage 2.

5.2 The consultation period also identified that Monkton and Troon should not be considered further within this Study, as it was not found that any issues needed to be addressed in the short term. Notwithstanding, these settlements may be considered by a different study at a future date, with any ongoing issues monitored by SAC in the short team. As a consequence, only surveys in Ayr and Prestwick were to be undertaken as part of this Work Stage.

5.3 Taking into account the consultation results, a number of streets in Ayr and Prestwick were identified to be surveyed as part of Work Stage 2. The list of streets is too exhaustive to be included within the body of the report, and as such, has been appended to this report at Appendix E.

5.4 SAC identified the parameters of the survey work to be undertaken, paying due cognisance to the consultation outputs, with the following parking beats identified:

Daytime Surveys

• Undertaken between 10am and 12pm; and

• One visit of each street to identify a ‘snapshot’ of parking demand.

Night-time Surveys

• Undertaken between 2am and 6am; and


Weekend Surveys

• Undertaken between 9am and 12pm; and


5.5 Each street to be surveyed was colour coded to identify its survey requirements:

• Green - Daytime, Night-time and Weekend surveys required

• Magenta - Daytime, Night-time and Weekend surveys required (existing residents parking in place)

• Cyan - Night-time survey only (town centre controlled parking zone)

5.6 The frequency of the surveys were identified by SAC:

Magenta and Green streets

• Thursday Daytime Survey;

• Friday Daytime Survey;

• Thursday Night-time Survey; and

• Weekend Survey (Saturday).


Cyan streets

• Thursday Night-time Survey11

5.7 The surveys were undertaken by Count-On-Us on Thursday 10th May, Friday 11th May and Saturday 12th May. The streets surveyed in Ayr can be seen in Figure 5.1 below, with the streets in Prestwick in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.1 Map of streets surveyed in Ayr

11 Due to an error in the surveys, the Cyan streets were surveyed across all time periods – night-time, daytime and weekend – and as such, all of this data has been utilised within this section of the Report.


Figure 5.2 Map of streets surveyed in Prestwick

5.8 The survey results data can be seen at Appendix F, with all of the Figures presented within

Sections 5 and 6 appended to this report at Appendix G.

Survey Results – Ayr 5.9 For ease of analysing the results, and the number of streets surveyed, the streets within Ayr have

been broken down into zones:

• Zone 1 – Ayr (North West)

• Zone 2 – Ayr (North and East)

• Zone 3 – Town Centre CPZ

• Zone 4 – Ayr (South West)

• Zone 5 – Ayr (South East)

5.10 The zones have been mapped in Figure 5.3:


Figure 5.3 Ayr Town Centre - Survey Results Zones

5.11 The Daytime (10:00-12:00) results have been produced in Figure 5.4:

Figure 5.4 Ayr - Daytime (10:00-12:00) Occupancy Results


5.12 The rationale for undertaking daytime surveys is to understand and consider the demand for

parking, once residents have left for work in the morning. In addition, it also shows the demand for the retail and services within the Town Centre CPZ at this time, as well as the parking demand for employment or educational sites, such as Ayr College / University site.

Zone 1 – Ayr (North West)

5.13 Bath Place was surveyed as 90% occupied during the surveyed time period, and this can be attributed to demand for the SAC offices, Ayr Sherriff Court and Ayr Bowling Club, as well as for demand for the Esplanade. Despite these attractions, Bath Place was not surveyed as being over capacity, ensuring a turnover in availability of spaces.

5.14 The surveys indicate that there was spare capacity in the remaining streets which comprise Zone 1, and this can be attributed to residents using their vehicles to access work opportunities, and as such, providing less of a demand for on-street parking in this part of Ayr.

Zone 2 – Ayr (North and East)

5.15 Zone 2 contains a number of streets north of the River Ayr, as well as a number of streets located close to Ayr College and the University of West Scotland’s Ayr Campus. Both Content Avenue and Fotheringham Road were surveyed as part of the planning obligation between the University and SAC, and the results from these surveys are provided later within this section.

5.16 In Zone 2, the surveyed streets were broadly underutilised, aside from Macadam Place and Content Street, both of which are residential in nature. Both of these streets were surveyed as being over 100% occupied over the daytime survey days.

5.17 The streets in the proximity of Ayr College and the University Campus were not observed to be heavily occupied, allowing for a turnover of spaces to occur.

Zone 3 – Town Centre CPZ

5.18 When considering the Town Centre CPZ during the weekday daytime period, a number of streets surveyed were over capacity, and a number of streets approaching capacity.

5.19 This is not unexpected given the attraction of the town centre, and the subsequent demand for spaces this will generate. However, having a number of streets over capacity in the proximity will not ensure that a regular turnover of spaces is achieved, which in turn may affect people’s perception of the accessibility of the town centre. In addition, displaced parking on-street may cause issues with regard to the safe and efficient movement of traffic, including public transport and emergency vehicles.

5.20 To better understand this demand, further work could involve the consideration of the duration of stay of on-street parking, which would identify whether the current regulations are being adhered to, and whether the regulations are fit for purpose.

Zone 4 – Ayr (South West)

5.21 As with Zone 1, Zone 4 is predominantly residential in nature, with some streets classified as Residents Parking.

5.22 Within Zone 4, the parking beat surveys indicated that there was less demand for parking on streets on the Residents Parking streets, indicating that residents use their vehicles to access employment opportunities during the day.


5.23 However, there was a high demand (96%) for parking on Alloway Place, which could be attributed to the commercial premises on this street. Whilst the zones generated within this Report are considered arbitrary – aside from the Town Centre CPZ which is already established within Ayr – Alloway Place is located next to the Town Centre CPZ, and as such, people may park in this location to easily access the town centre, thus avoiding the CPZ.

5.24 On the remaining streets within Zone 4, occupancy was seen to be relatively low, and as such, ensuring turnover of spaces.

Zone 5 – Ayr (South East)

5.25 The surveyed streets that comprise Zone 5 are predominantly residential in nature, with a number of streets – Dongola Road, Ashgrove Street and St. Andrew’s Street – having Residents Parking restrictions on them.

5.26 When considering the weekday time period, the streets in Zone 5 were particularly under-utilised, suggesting that residents use their vehicles to travel for employment opportunities, combined with minimal parking pressures on these streets for nearby facilities such as Ayr Railway Station.

5.27 The Night-time (02:00-06:00) results have been produced in Figure 5.5:

Figure 5.5 Ayr - Night-time (02:00-06:00) Occupancy Results

5.28 The night-time surveys were undertaken to assess the greatest level of parking allied to parking by

residents on-street, as this time period is most likely to capture the demand for overnight parking.


5.29 Within Zone 1, no streets were surveyed as being over capacity, with plenty of spare capacity observed.


5.30 Eglinton Terrace, which has Residents Parking scheme in place, was surveyed as having an occupancy of 96%, however, neighbouring streets which are also part of the Residents Parking scheme were less occupied, and as such, able to cope with the demand for overnight parking in this part of Zone 1.

5.31 It is considered that Zone 1 does not have any issues with excessive demand for overnight parking, and there is spare capacity for residents to park their vehicles on street overnight.


5.32 In broad terms, the night-time surveys of Zone 2 showed that there is spare capacity on the surveyed streets. Only Macadam Place had a high occupancy figure – 91% - and it is considered that this is due to the number of flats on this street, combined with the minimal level of off-street parking provided.


5.33 Within the Town Centre CPZ, the weekday night-time survey results showed that the majority of streets surveyed were less than 30% occupied on average. Those that were noted to be well-occupied were Dalblair Road (104%), Cathcart Street (80%) and Fort Street (72%).

5.34 However, these occupancy figures are considered to be isolated within the wider context of the streets within the Town Centre CPZ, which had spare capacity during this time period, which is to be expected, given the balance of residential and retail/commercial use.


5.35 In the night-time surveys, Bellevue Crescent was surveyed as being over capacity (111%), with the neighbouring Park Circus having occupancy of 91%. Both Bellevue Crescent and Park Circus comprise terraced houses, with a number of Guest Houses also located on these streets, which will add to the demand for parking in this location, over and above ‘traditional’ residential demand for parking.

5.36 The remaining streets within Zone 4 had less demand for parking during this time period, with no trends emerging between streets that had Residents Parking provision, and those that didn’t.


5.37 During the weekday night-time survey period, it was observed that all of the streets in the Zone were underutilised in terms of occupancy, thus ensuring that residents could easily park on these streets.

5.38 The Weekend (Saturday) (10:00-12:00) results are indicated in Figure 5.6:


Figure 5.6 Ayr - Weekend (Saturday) (10:00-12:00) Occupancy Results

5.39 The Weekend (Saturday) surveys were undertaken to gauge the demand for town centre parking linked to the retail offer within Ayr, as well as considering the demand for parking on residential streets within the town centre, on a non-working day.


5.40 Within Zone 1, the weekend (Saturday) surveys have identified a high demand - but not exceeding capacity - for the streets within the Residents Parking area: - Eglinton Terrace; the unnamed street at Eglinton Terrace; Montgomerie Terrace; Cassillis Street; and Park Terrace. It is thought that this will be due to residents who use their vehicles to travel to work during the week, but not on a Saturday.

5.41 On the other streets within Zone 1, it was considered that there was spare capacity to ensure a turnover of spaces, although Weaver Street was observed as being over capacity, possibly due to the employment and retail site located close by.


5.42 Within Zone 2, the parking occupancy on the weekend (Saturday) broadly mirrored that of the weekday in the same time period. Both Macadam Place (86%) and Content Street (110%) were heavily occupied, with the other streets noted as having plenty of spare capacity.

5.43 Due to the high demand for spaces on Macadam Place and Content Street, it is considered that it might be appropriate to undertake further, more detailed survey work to consider the nature of parking in these streets, and to identify a parking regime that better facilitates the opportunities for residents to park in these locations.



5.44 In a reflection of the weekday daytime survey for the Town Centre CPZ, the occupancy results for the weekend Saturday surveys indicate that a number of streets were seen to be over capacity. Streets indicated to be over capacity during both time periods were:

• Alloway Street;

• Cathcart Street;

• Fullarton Street;

• High Street; and

• Kyle Street.

5.45 Given the location, there is a heavy demand for on-street parking within the town centre on a Saturday, as this will be the peak time for retailers within the town centre.

5.46 As discussed, when assessing the occupancy for the weekday daytime, further work may be required to better understand the duration of stay of vehicles at this time, whether they are adhering to the current waiting regulations, and whether they need to be adjusted to reflect the nature of demand for spaces in this location.


5.47 Within Zone 4 on the weekend Saturday survey, two streets were indicated to be at, or over, capacity – Miller Road and Bellevue Street. With regards to the previously mentioned residential streets of Bellevue Crescent and Park Circus, these were approaching capacity, as well as Park Terrace, which is also categorised as a Residents Parking street.

5.48 From considering all of the time periods, it is noted that the Residents Parking streets of Barns Park, Barns Crescent, Alloway Park and Fairfield Road were mainly underutilised in terms of occupancy.

5.49 This may be due to the fact that these streets are not as densely populated in terms of number of houses, compared to other streets which benefit from Residents Parking provision, particularly on Alloway Park and Fairfield Road. On Fairfield Road, the properties are much larger in nature, and despite a number of blocks of flats being present, it is considered that there is a good supply of off-road parking available to the residents of these properties. However, Fairfield Road is located close to the Esplanade – there is currently on-foot access – and the removal of Residents Parking restrictions may cause parking pressures during peak holiday times.

5.50 Aside from the streets already mentioned in Zone 4, the streets in the south of the Zone had spare capacity when surveyed on the Saturday.


5.51 There was a strong demand for spaces on Mill Street (75%) and Smith Street (104%), although this can be explained by their proximity to the Ayr Central retail site and the town centre. In addition, and as expected, there was less of a demand for spaces in the proximity of the education facilities located within Zone 5.

5.52 The residential streets within Zone 5 were observed as having spare capacity when surveyed on the Saturday, allowing for a good turnover of spaces.


Survey Results – Prestwick 5.53 As with the results for streets in Ayr, the results have been produced in the same three time

periods – Daytime (10.00-12.00), Night-time (02:00-06:00), and Weekend (Saturday) (10:00-12:00).

5.54 The Daytime (10:00-12:00) results have been produced in Figure 5.7:

Figure 5.7 Prestwick - Daytime (10:00-12:00) Occupancy Results

5.55 When considering the weekday daytime parking beat survey results, the overall demand for parking is broadly similar to the weekday night-time results (average daytime occupancy – 57% compared to an average night-time occupancy of 53%), with some streets seeing a consistent demand for spaces between the two time periods.

5.56 The streets noting a consistent demand for spaces are:

• Kirk Street;

• Crofthead Road;

• Salisbury Place; and

• Hunter Street.

5.57 The above streets all have an average occupancy of greater than 100% in the weekday daytime, and all are over 90% occupied in the weekday night-time. As such, it is considered that demand for these locations is high, and residents in these locations may have difficulties parking here.


5.58 In addition, it was observed that there was a high demand for parking on the streets close to Prestwick Town Railway Station, although some capacity remained on some adjoining streets, allowing residents to park, and not be displaced by commuter parking.

5.59 Main Street had an average occupancy of 83%, allowing for a turnover of spaces, and ensuring that people looking to access the retail outlets and services could do so, with spare capacity evident on adjoining streets.

5.60 In broad terms, and despite some localised issues, there is spare capacity to park on-street during the weekday daytime time period of 10:00-12:00. It is considered that this spare capacity will help ensure the vitality and viability of Main Street as a retail and service destination, with the occupancy surveyed allowing for a turnover of spaces. However, length of stay analysis within further work would identify the exact turnover of spaces, and also identify if current waiting restrictions are suitable and being adhered to.

5.61 The Night-time (02:00-06:00) results have been produced in Figure 5.8:

Figure 5.8 Prestwick - Night-time (02:00-06:00) Occupancy Results

5.62 It can be seen from the overnight parking beat surveys undertaken in Prestwick, in broad terms,

there is sufficient capacity within the majority of the surveyed streets, meaning the residents should have few issues with trying to locate a parking space close to their residence.

5.63 However, a number of streets – Boydfield Avenue, Meiklewood Avenue and Morris Road – were all averaging occupancy of 100% or more over the survey periods. It is noted that these are all residential streets, and as such, parking in this location, within this time period, will be a consequence of demand from these properties. It is considered, however, that this is a localised issue, with spare capacity existing on the adjoining Caerlaverock Road.


5.64 Other individual streets within Prestwick were surveyed as having occupancy between 91% & 99%, and again, these are predominantly residential in nature. However, due to the location of these peaks in demand, there is not an obvious trend that can be inferred, particularly when adjoining streets had available capacity.

5.65 Having considered the results from the parking beat surveys, in overall terms, it is not considered that Prestwick has parking occupancy/capacity issues. Whilst there may be some localised issues where demand exceeds supply, this only occurs on three streets, and is not considered to be a widespread issue.

5.66 The Weekend (Saturday) (10:00-12:00) results have been produced in Figure 5.9 below:

Figure 5.9 Prestwick - Weekend (Saturday) (10:00-12:00) Occupancy Results

5.67 The weekend (Saturday) parking beat surveys saw the highest overall occupancy of the three time

periods in Prestwick, with an average occupancy of 60%, meaning that in broad terms, there is sufficient parking provision on the surveyed streets to ensure a turnover of spaces.

5.68 As per the weekday daytime results, Hunter Street, Kirk Street and Salisbury Place were all surveyed as being over 100% occupied. In addition, Ladykirk Road was surveyed at being 100% occupied.

5.69 It was noted that demand for the streets in the vicinity of Prestwick Town Railway Station were less occupied than during the weekday surveys, and it is likely to be due to fewer people using these streets for commuting purposes.

5.70 Main Street had occupancy of 68% during the parking beat survey, thus ensuring a good turnover of spaces. However, as above, further work at this location should identify duration of stay calculations and whether or not current waiting restrictions are appropriate and being adhered to.


5.71 Despite the weekend survey having the highest demand for parking over the three time periods surveyed – and this can be attributable to a combination of demand for retail and services within Prestwick, combined with residents not being at work – there was still spare capacity across all areas within Prestwick when considering the streets surveyed.

Supplementary Data Sources 5.72 In addition to the parking beat surveys undertaken, the data collection exercise was also

supplemented by data from other sources, to enhance the understanding of parking issues, both on-street and off-street. These sources, and the information considered, are detailed in the following paragraphs.

University of West of Scotland – CPZ Survey 5.73 As part of the data collection exercise, SAC provided JMP with the most recent document prepared

by Fairhurst12, which summarises the findings of the CPZ surveys in October 2012, as part of the s75 Agreement between the University and SAC. The performance of the surveys was requested by SAC under the terms of the s75 Agreement.

5.74 The initial surveys were undertaken and reported in Autumn 2009, and it was indentified that there were no on-street parking demands arising from the Craigie Campus.

5.75 The surveys were undertaken on a number of streets in the west of Ayr, all to the west of the railway line, and predominately north of the River Ayr (with the A70 Holmston Road the only surveyed road south of the river). There were two roads surveyed by the Fairhurst work which were also included within this Study – Content Avenue and Fotheringham Road.

5.76 The conclusions noted that the parking demands arising from the Craigie Campus are predominantly accommodated within the site, and its parking provision. It was also noted that the provision on site had ‘reasonable levels’ of available capacity remaining. The report also concluded that there was no requirement for action by the University, as the demand for parking within the CPZ zones was at a ‘modest level’.

5.77 The consideration of this report has provided a useful supplementary data source to the Study, and provides evidence regarding the perceived parking pressures at this location. As such, these surveys results and reporting are considered a companion to the parking beat surveys undertaken for this Study.

Off-Street Car Park Analysis 5.78 To supplement the parking beat surveys, JMP obtained occupancy data of Ayr Town Centre’s off-

street car parks to provide a comparison between on-street and off-street occupancy. The data provided was for the first week of March 2013, and the last week of April 201313.

5.79 The car parks’ locations can be seen in Figure 5.10.

12 Ayr Campus Redevelopment – CPZ Survey, November 2012 13 Dates used for comparison purposes – Thursday 7th March, Thursday 25th April, Friday 1st March, Friday 26th April, Saturday 2nd March and Saturday 27th April


Figure 5.10 Ayr Town Centre - Car Park Locations

5.80 The occupancy statistics have been averaged out for the time periods that the parking beat surveys were identified to be undertaken in, thus providing a useful comparison between on-street and off-street occupancy. Car parks which charge for parking are highlighted in orange.

Table 5.1 Ayr Town Centre Car Parks – Average Occupancy – Thur / Fri / Sat

Car Park Spaces Thursday

(02:00-06:00)

Thursday

(10:00-12:00)

Friday

(02:00-06:00)

Friday

(10:00-12:00)

Saturday

(10:00-12:00)

Kyle Centre 370 1% 28% 1% 30% 30% Charlotte Street 80 6% 10% 8% 18% 18% Cromwell Road 144 3% 87% 5% 89% 35% Mill Brae 111 8% 91% 7% 86% 81% Riverside 101 25% 70% 20% 77% 61% Ayr Central 475 0% 17% 0% 20% 24% Fullarton Street 210 7% 51% 3% 61% 52% Dalblair Road 167 3% 35% 2% 40% 44% King Street 389 0% 23% 0% 24% 19% Barns Crescent 115 13% 35% 10% 44% 24% Average 7% 45% 6% 49% 39%


5.81 It can be seen in Table 5.1 that there are large variances in the average occupation of the car parks in the Town Centre, not only between time periods and days, car parks that charge, but within car parks over the same day and time periods.

5.82 Two of the three car parks with highest occupancy during the daytime – Mill Brae and Riverside – are located close to each other in the east of the Town Centre, and may well be occupied by long stay parkers working at the commerce, retail and education premises located in the proximity of these car parks. In addition, neither of these car parks charge for parking, which may be a heavily contributing factor to their occupancy. The other car park with higher occupancy levels – Cromwell Road, is located to the west of the Town Centre, and is more minded to serve the leisure and tourist facilities in this part of Ayr.

5.83 It is noticeable that the car parks in the heart of the Town Centre serving the retail core of the town are particularly under-utilised. This Study has not been prepared to consider in detail the provision and demand for off-street car parking in Ayr, but it is worth noting that whilst there is not always a direct correlation between demand for on-street and off-street parking, both have an impact on the other.

5.84 To enable a direct comparison between the off-street car park occupancy and the parking beat survey results, average weekday and weekend occupancies were derived from the results in Table 5.1, to produce Table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2 Ayr Town Centre Car Parks – Average Occupancy – Weekday / Weekend

Car Park Spaces Weekday

(02:00-06:00)

Weekday

(10:00-12:00)

Weekend (Saturday)

(10:00-12:00)

Kyle Centre 370 1% 29% 30% Charlotte Street 80 7% 14% 18% Cromwell Road 144 4% 88% 35% Mill Brae 111 8% 89% 81% Riverside 101 23% 74% 61% Ayr Central 475 0% 19% 24% Fullarton Street 210 5% 56% 52% Dalblair Road 167 3% 38% 44% King Street 389 0% 24% 19% Barns Crescent 115 12% 40% 24% Average 6% 47% 39%

5.85 When the results are condensed into average weekday and weekend occupancies, similar trends appear in the data. In overall terms, the supply of Town Centre off-street parking in Ayr is less than 50% occupied on Weekday and Weekend mornings. As such, should any changes to the existing Town Centre parking provision be brought in on-street, there is sufficient available capacity – approximately 1,000 spaces – to accommodate displaced parking, should such a circumstance occur.

5.86 Conversely, the spare capacity within the Town Centre car parks ensures that the viability and vitality of the Town Centre would not be impacted upon, as there is capacity for tourism and visitor trips, as well as retail and leisure trips, with scope for a consistent turnover of spaces. There is


also a noted variety in the amount of parking capacity observed, in terms of size of car park, location, and whether the car parks charge or not.

5.87 The data from Table 5.2 has been graphically represented in Figure 5.11:

Figure 5.11 Ayr Town Centre - Car Park Occupancy Analysis

Summary 5.88 This section of the Study has identified the data sources used to collate data regarding parking in

Ayr and Prestwick, and also described the methodology used to collate and analyse the data.

5.89 The parking beat snapshots have allowed JMP to develop an understanding of the parking pressures in Ayr and Prestwick, paying consideration to different areas within these settlements. Zoning the surveyed streets in Ayr has allowed more specific considerations to be taken into account, as well considering the nature of the streets surveyed, and how this may influence demand for parking in these streets.

5.90 Prestwick town centre was considered in its entirety, with trends emerging regarding demand for parking, and the locations where this is most prevalent. With regard to Ayr, it has been possible to identify streets, and areas of streets, where demand is more prevalent, as well as some instances where it is considered that the restrictions relating to the supply of parking might not be the most appropriate type. For example, some streets in Ayr are currently classified as ‘Residents Only’ parking, but the parking beat surveys have demonstrated that there may not be the on-street demand for such a restriction to be in place. Conversely, the survey results demonstrate that on some streets, the opposite may be the case.


5.91 The results from the parking beat surveys, combined with the supplementary data sources, have been used to understand parking trends, which in turn, have informed the development of proposals in the following section.

5.92 With regards to the off-street occupancy, it is apparent that in the time periods where there is greater demand for parking in Ayr Town Centre (weekday and weekend daytime) – and primarily within the Town Centre CPZ – there is spare capacity within the car parks in these areas, which could facilitate the demand for parking, thus reducing any on-street pressures. Off-street car parks on the periphery of Ayr Town Centre were also noted as having spare capacity, which could be utilised should there be a greater demand for parking in these locations, and Ayr as a whole.

5.93 It is considered that the total supply of parking within Ayr Town Centre area – both on-street and off-street – is more than sufficient to cope with the demand, but it is evident that the current off-street parking provision can be better utilised.


6 Development of Proposals 6.1 The development of proposals to improve parking for residents in Ayr and Prestwick has taken due

cognisance of the information gathered through the consultation events, supplementary consultation work, and the parking beat surveys. This has allowed JMP and the SAC Project Team to consider the implications of the data gathering work, and use it to consider how to alleviate any current problems, as well as consider the overall approach to residents parking within the two towns.

6.2 For ease of reading, the proposals have been broken down into two distinct sections:

• Proposals for Ayr; and

• Proposals for Prestwick.

General Considerations 6.3 Before bespoke solutions can be identified, the overall structure to any proposals needs to be

considered and rationalised.

6.4 Identifying restrictions for streets on an individual basis would have resource and cost implications, in addition to the potential for the displacement of parking issues to a neighbouring street or area. As such, a more holistic approach needs to be developed to ensure all users’ needs are accommodated.

6.5 As can be seen from the consideration of the parking beat survey results, similar zones / areas have been identified within Ayr, where parking may be better accommodated with differing approaches to parking regimes. A zonal approach to parking regimes in Ayr would not be seen as a radical step change due to the existing Town Centre CPZ, and this has been echoed through the consultation process.

6.6 With Prestwick, it is apparent that there are areas of greater demand for town centre parking to the east of the Main Street, with special consideration being given to Main Street, due to the unique function it performs compared to the other streets surveyed within Prestwick.

6.7 In addition to the general considerations, any proposals must compliment and work alongside the SAC Parking Strategy as well as the current CPZ in Ayr Town Centre, which benefits from being supported by extensive infrastructure and signage.

6.8 In order for a parking regime to be effective, users must be made aware of the parking restrictions with effective signage, combined with physical, and human, infrastructure. The following picture, taken on Smith Street, Ayr provides an example of the level of information that is made available to users of the system, at the roadside:


Figure 6.1 Parking Information - Ayr Town Centre CPZ

6.9 In addition, parking in the CPZ is well signed, giving users the information required to inform their parking decisions.

Figure 6.2 Parking Signage - Ayr Town Centre CPZ

6.10 The payment machines are also well signed, as evidenced on New Bridge Street, Ayr:


Figure 6.3 Payment Machine Signage - Ayr Town Centre CPZ

6.11 The parking machines in the CPZ have different payment options, which are detailed on the machines themselves:

Figure 6.4 Payment Machines - Ayr Town Centre CPZ

6.12 The off-street provision in Ayr is also well signed within the Town Centre, with Variable Messaging Signs (VMS) used to make drivers aware of available spaces in car parks.


Figure 6.5 Off-Street Car Park Signage - Ayr Town Centre

6.13 With regards to the Residents Parking areas in Ayr, these are well signed, to ensure drivers are made aware of the parking restrictions, with this example taken on Eglinton Terrace, Ayr:

Figure 6.6 Residents Parking Signage - Ayr Town Centre


6.14 As can be seen, the parking infrastructure provided within Ayr – as part of the decriminalisation of parking in 2012 – is in place, and could help to support any changes in the current system as proposed by this Study.

Proposals for Ayr 6.15 At present, the current Ayr Town Centre CPZ ensures that residents living within the zone are

eligible to purchase a special permit allowing them to park their vehicle within parking bays in any of the streets. Currently, the zone is split into three distinct sub-zones; A1, A2 and A3, and residents living on a street forming a boundary between two adjacent zones shall have the opportunity to park in either zone. The cost for a resident permit within the CPZ is £16 per quarter, or £50 for an annual permit.

6.16 It is considered that the current cost of a permit should be revised, as at present, an annual cost of £50 is considered too low, and below the true ‘market value’. However, in reconsidering the cost structure of the permit scheme, this should be calculated in line with the costs of administering the scheme to SAC, to ensure that the scheme is at least cost neutral.

6.17 For comparison purposes, JMP has identified costs associated with residents parking permit schemes elsewhere in Scotland, with the comparative charges reproduced in Table 6.1 below:

Table 6.1 Comparative Residents Parking Permit Charges Glasgow14 Edinburgh15 16 Perth17

Quarterly Charge

Western CPZ & Necropolis - £15.00 Hillhead & Garnethill - £36.00 City Centre - £65.00

Parking Zones 1 to 4 - £0 - £98.50 Parking Zones 5 to 8, S1 to S4, N1 to N5) - £0 - £52.00 Areas B1 to B3 - £0 to £21.00

-

Annual Charge

Western CPZ & Necropolis - £50.00 Hillhead & Garnethill - £135.00 Anderston - £135.00 City Centre - £250.00

Parking Zones 1 to 4 - £57.50 - £371.00 Parking Zones 5 to 8, S1 to S4, N1 to N5) - £28.50 - £185.50 Areas B1 to B3 - £9.50 - £63.00

Inner Zone - £190.00 Outer Zone - £110.00

6.18 Comparing Table 6.1 with the current charges levied in Ayr, it is apparent in broad terms, other

local authorities charge more for on-street residential parking permits. Therefore, in order to use the issuing of parking permits as a measure to control town centre parking, and to encourage the use of other modes for commuting, retail and leisure trips, it is considered that the current pricing regime should be the subject of further review.

14 http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=7929 15 http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/1278/parking-zones_and_permits/1461/resident_and_visitor_parking_permits 16 The charges for permits vary in Edinburgh, with permit price calculated on engine size (if the vehicles was registered before March 2001), or on CO2 emissions (if the vehicle was registered after March 2001). A second permit can be obtained for the same address, with quarterly and annual options available, again based on engine size / emissions, but are more expensive than initial permit for the same address with costs ranging from zero to £463.00. 17 http://www.pkc.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=16117&p=0


6.19 Proposal One:

A detailed consideration of the cost of resident permit charges within South Ayrshire, in line with the costs associated to SAC for administration of the scheme, to ensure the overall cost of the scheme is cost neutral.

6.20 As part of this consideration of Proposal One, the consultation events suggested that the current restrictions in the Town Centre could be revised, with restrictions increased to longer than two hours parking. However, given the spare capacity that exists in the off-street car parks within the Town Centre, it may be more appropriate to keep the current two hour limit, with stays of longer than two hours encouraged to use the off-street car parks. The proposal should be considered as part of the wider consideration of the current operation of the Town Centre CPZ.

6.21 With regards to the existing residents-only streets in the Town Centre, these were originally introduced in 1971 & 1972, and have remained unchanged ever since. The scheme is enforced through the use of residents permits, with each resident entitled to purchase up to two permits – at a one-off cost of 50p per permit – with the intention of one being for resident use, and one for the use of visitors. Should they require to be replaced, residents may obtain replacement permits for a 10 pence charge.

6.22 Whilst the permits show the street name on which the resident resides, they do not contain vehicle registration details, and as such, are not tied to a specific vehicle, and do not contain an expiration date.

6.23 It is considered that the residents parking scheme needs to be refreshed to allow SAC to better monitor the issuing of permits, as well as the number of permits within circulation. In parallel with the proposals for the Town Centre CPZ, a more current pricing regime is considered to be required, allowing the scheme to be cost neutral, as well as ensuring that the system is not misused. Tying permits to vehicles – via registration details – will ensure that misuse of the system is minimised, and reducing the number of visitor permits in circulation should ease parking pressures on residents-only streets.

6.24 Proposal Two:

A refresh of the current residents parking permits regime, including:

• Re-issuing of all residents permits, via a new application process, issuing them to specific vehicles (via vehicle registration details), and including an expiry date on the permits;

• Apply a cost to the application and renewal process for residents permits, that reflects the administration cost to SAC;

• Only issue visitor permits if applied for, and not as a right. Permits should also be limited to two per dwelling;

• A second permit for a dwelling should be charged at a higher price than the initial permit issued; and

• Replacement charges for lost / mislaid permits should reflect the administrative cost to SAC.


6.25 Proposal Three:

Consideration to be given to extending the current two-hour restrictions in the Town Centre CPZ.

6.26 The parking beat surveys in Ayr identified that the current Residents Parking on some streets may not be fit for purpose. When considering the three survey periods, the streets of Barns Park, Barns Crescent, Alloway Park and Fairfield Road were mainly underutilised in terms of occupancy.

6.27 Alloway Park and Fairfield Road are different in characteristic to other residential streets that benefit from Residents Parking, as they are not as densely populated, and properties benefit from off-street parking provision. It is recommended that further work be undertaken by SAC, in conjunction with the residents on these streets to identify if Residents Parking is suitable for these streets.

6.28 Proposal Four:

Further work, including engagement and consultation with residents of Barns Park, Barns Crescent, Alloway Park and Fairfield Road, to establish whether there is a continued need for Residents Parking on these streets.

6.29 Due to the high demand for spaces on Macadam Place and Content Street, it is considered that it would be appropriate to undertaken a review to determine the nature of parking, i.e. who parks in these streets, for what purpose, and to identify a parking regime that ensures residents are able to park in these locations.

6.30 The consultation process with Ayr residents highlighted this area as one of concern, also highlighting Craigie Avenue, John Street and Elba Street as streets that suffer from parking pressures. Elba Street was surveyed as part of this Study, but was not considered to be close to or over capacity during the survey periods. Notwithstanding, the survey data has shown there to be a high demand for spaces in this part of Ayr, and this may also occur on neighbouring streets which weren’t part of the survey.

6.31 Proposal Five:

Further work, including engagement and consultation with residents of Wallacetown, to establish whether there is a need to introduce Residents Parking in this area. In addition, this engagement and consultation should be used to identify neighbouring streets to those demonstrating high occupancy within the survey results, which may require the gathering of further survey data.

6.32 As part of the discussions with SAC over the course of the Study, it was evident that a consideration of Ayr Town Centre as different zones was something to be considered. This suggestion also became more prevalent during the consultation events. As such, and in partnership with SAC, a zonal approach to parking within Ayr Town Centre has been considered.

6.33 The first zone considered is the Town Centre CPZ, which is proposed to be slightly increased to incorporate the following streets:

• Smith Street;

• Mill Street;

• River Street;


• Garden Street;

• Alloway Place:

• Barns Park;

• Barns Crescent; and

• Miller Road.

6.34 It is considered that the increase of the Town Centre CPZ would reflect the current geography and operation of the Town Centre, since there is notable demand in the off-street car parks within the Town Centre. However, it is not considered that the current restrictions within the CPZ require to be altered, with exemptions for residents through the issuing of permits.

6.35 A zonal approach to the areas outside of the CPZ has also been considered, given the survey data collected and the responses from the consultation events. It is considered that the areas within Ayr neighbouring the Town Centre CPZ require to designate ‘Residents Only’ restrictions, to ensure that any displaced parking, as a consequence of the extension of the Town Centre CPZ, is displaced into the current off-street capacity, rather than impacting upon residential streets located a short walk from the Town Centre. It will also allow residents to ensure they can park outside, or close to, their properties, with the refresh of the current parking permits system and provision working in tandem with this proposal.

6.36 Should the outcomes of Proposals Four & Five result in Residents Parking not being considered as an appropriate way forward, it may be more appropriate to consider some limited waiting restrictions, with exemptions for residents through the issuing of permits. As such, a proposed zonal approach can be seen in Figure 6.7, with the shaded areas identified as having ‘Residents Only’ restrictions between 10.00 and 16.00, Monday to Saturday.


Figure 6.7 Proposal Six - Zonal Approach for Ayr

6.37 Proposal Six:

Creation of limited waiting zones within Ayr Town Centre, with exemptions for residents through the issuing of permits.

Proposals for Prestwick 6.38 The consultation event in Prestwick identified that the limited waiting bays on Main Street were

being abused, and that there was no enforcement, which was also seen as an ‘ongoing’ problem. As such, it is considered that it may be appropriate to introduce charging for parking on Main Street – from the junction of Station Road / The Cross to the junction of Main Street / St. Quivox Road.

6.39 Putting such restrictions in place would ensure a turnover of spaces, allowing people to access the retail and service outlets on Main Street, whilst ensuring that enforcement of these spaces could take place through the current enforcement regime which exists in South Ayrshire.

6.40 From the survey results in Prestwick, it is apparent that a number of adjoining streets have spare capacity, and as such, there is sufficient capacity to cope with the possibility of displaced demand.

6.41 Such a proposal should be supported by further work including duration of stay calculations and assessment, to provide evidence for the proposal, and to identify suitable and appropriate restrictions which can form part of the engagement and consultation process.


6.42 Proposal Seven:

Charging for parking bays on Main Street should be introduced:

• Consultation and engagement with local residents, stakeholders and businesses should be undertaken to identify appropriate prices and restrictions, and what hours any restrictions should be limited to;

• Enforcement of these bays should be undertaken, to ensure that the bays are not misused, and to encourage a turnover of spaces; and

• This proposal should be supported by better signage (possibly VMS) of current off-street car parks.

6.43 The survey results also indicated that some streets in Prestwick – all to the east of Main Street – suffered from parking pressures. However, a number of these streets border Main Street, and as such, it would be inappropriate to consider these streets for Residents Parking only as this would displace parking from the retail outlets and services on Main Street.

6.44 A two-tiered approach to parking in Prestwick has, therefore, been considered, in conjunction with the SAC Project Team, to ensure that the retail and service core of Prestwick is not compromised, whilst maintaining the needs of residents for parking.

6.45 Where demand for parking was most prevalent on the residential streets east of Main Street, it is considered that ‘Residents Only’ restrictions between 10.00 and 16.00, Monday to Saturday, would be an appropriate measure to introduce. Similar restrictions – albeit limited waiting - should also be placed on the surveyed streets to the west of Main Street, as well as the cluster of surveyed streets in the south of Prestwick.

6.46 Sandwiched between the eastern and western residential areas in Prestwick, the core of Prestwick is proposed to have limited waiting restrictions, which would allow for a turnover of spaces, with exemptions for residents through the issuing of permits.

6.47 In order to fully identify the remit of such an area, as well as restrictions, residents on these streets should be consulted to identify whether they consider it to be suitable for their needs, and also consider their views on any restrictions that should be placed on such a scheme. In addition, should such a scheme in this location come to fruition, the considerations regarding the refresh of the current residents parking scheme in Ayr, and ensuring that it is cost neutral, should also be applied to Prestwick.

6.48 The proposals within Proposal Eight can be seen at Figure 6.8:


Figure 6.8 Proposal Eight - Zonal Approach for Prestwick

6.49 Proposal Eight:

Introduction of a zonal system within Prestwick, containing limited waiting restrictions (with exemptions for residents) in the core area, with ‘residents only’ restrictions on a group of streets to the east of Main Street, and limited waiting restrictions (again, with exemptions for residents) on streets to the west and south of Main Street. These proposals should be consulted upon with local residents and stakeholders, building on the work done to date within this Study.


7 Final Proposals 7.1 The proposals made in Section 6 were discussed with the SAC Project Team, to identify which

proposals were considered to be most appropriate to be taken forward as part of the Study. All of the eight proposals presented above were considered, with the following proposals being considered acceptable to SAC:

7.2 Proposal One:

A detailed consideration of the cost of resident permit charges within South Ayrshire, in line with the costs associated to SAC for administration of the scheme, to ensure the overall cost of the scheme is revenue neutral.

7.3 Proposal Two:







7.4 Proposal Four:


7.5 Proposal Five:


7.6 Proposal Six:

Creation of limited waiting zones with Ayr Town Centre, with exemptions for residents through the issuing of permits.

7.7 Proposal Seven:

Charging for parking bays on Main Street, Prestwick should be introduced:





7.8 Proposal Eight:


7.9 A proposal not being taken forward through this Study is Proposal Three. This is due to the extension of waiting restrictions being considered by the SAC Project Team as a separate issue, outside of the scope of the study brief.


8 Conclusion and Recommendations 8.1 South Ayrshire Council commissioned JMP Consultants to undertake a Parking Study covering the

residential areas within four settlements in South Ayrshire – Ayr, Prestwick, Troon and Monkton. The aim of the Study was to better understand current parking trends and habits within the study area, following the introduction of decriminalised parking restrictions within South Ayrshire in September 2012.

8.2 JMP has assessed and considered the policy context in which this Study sits, facilitated and mediated public consultation events, commissioned parking beat surveys of the study areas, analysed the survey results and considered supplementary data sources (including off-street parking). As a consequence of the feedback and lack of issues raised during the public consultation events, it was decided not to take Monkton and Troon forward as part of the Study.

Conclusions 8.3 The undertaking of this Study has allowed conclusions to be drawn regarding parking habits and

trends in Ayr and Prestwick, and how these are encompassed within the current supply of parking – both on-street and off-street – as well as considering the current waiting restrictions and permit schemes in operation.

8.4 It was noted that when comparing the outcomes from the consultation events with the results of the parking beat surveys, that there were differences between perceived parking issues, and the actual number of vehicles surveyed across the range of time periods. This was particularly evident around the streets close to Ayr College and the Ayr campus of the University of West Scotland.

8.5 In overall terms, and despite some localised parking pressures, it is considered that the supply of parking – both on-street and off-street – within Ayr Town Centre meets the current demand for spaces within the Town Centre, with sufficient capacity remaining. Notwithstanding, the current operation can be improved to benefit residents and stakeholders, as well as SAC.

8.6 From comparing Table 6.1 with the current charges levied in Ayr, it is apparent that in broad terms, other local authorities charge more for on-street residential parking permits. As such, in order to use the issuing of parking permits as a measure to control town centre parking, and to encourage the use of other modes for commuting, retail and leisure trips, it is considered that the current pricing regime should be the subject of further consideration.

8.7 As part of the consideration of the current pricing regime, it is considered that the residents parking scheme needs to be refreshed; and to allow SAC to better monitor the issuing of permits, as well as the number of permits within circulation. In parallel with the proposals for the Town Centre CPZ, a more up-to-date pricing regime is considered more appropriate, allowing the scheme to be cost neutral, as well as ensuring that the system is not misused. Tying permits to vehicles – via registration details – will ensure that misuse of the system is minimised, and reducing the number of visitor permits in circulation should ease parking pressures on residents-only streets.

8.8 The parking beat surveys in Ayr identified that the current Residents Parking on some streets may not be fit for purpose. In addition, it was observed that some streets, where no such restrictions exist, may require Residents Parking restrictions, or some ‘Residents Only’ restrictions at certain times. It was identified that engagement and consultation with residents is essential to identify whether such proposals would best suit their needs.


8.9 As part of the discussions with SAC over the course of the Study, it was evident that a consideration of Ayr Town Centre as different zones was something to be considered; with such an idea also became more prevalent during the consultation events. As such, and in partnership with SAC, a zonal approach to parking within Ayr Town Centre has been considered within the proposals. These proposals also included an extension to the current Town Centre CPZ.

8.10 The consultation event in Prestwick identified that the limited waiting bays on Main Street were being abused, and that there was no enforcement, which was also seen as an ‘ongoing’ problem. As such, it is considered that it may be appropriate to introduce charging for parking on Main Street – from the junction of Station Road / The Cross to the junction of Main Street / St. Quivox Road. In addition, from the survey results in Prestwick it is apparent that a number of adjoining streets to the west of Main Street have spare capacity, and as such, there is sufficient capacity to cope with the possibility of displaced demand.

8.11 The survey results also showed that some streets in Prestwick – all to the east of Main Street – suffered from parking pressures. However, a number of these streets border Main Street, and as such, it would be inappropriate to consider these streets for Residents Parking only, as this would displace vehicles of people using the retail outlets and services on Main Street.

8.12 A two-tiered approach to parking in Prestwick has, therefore, been considered, in conjunction with the SAC Project Team, to ensure that the retail and service core of Prestwick is not compromised, whilst maintaining the needs of residents for parking.

8.13 In order to fully identify the remit of such an area, as well as restrictions, residents on these streets should be engaged with to identify whether they consider it to be suitable for their needs, and also consider their views on any restrictions that should be placed on such a scheme. In addition, should such a scheme in this location come to fruition, then the considerations regarding the refresh of the current residents parking scheme in Ayr, should also be applied to Prestwick.

Recommendations 8.14 Proposal One:

A detailed consideration of the cost of resident permit charges within South Ayrshire, in line with the costs associated to SAC for administration of the scheme, to ensure the overall cost of the scheme is revenue neutral.

8.15 Proposal Two:








8.16 Proposal Four:


8.17 Proposal Five:


8.18 Proposal Six:

Creation of limited waiting zones with Ayr Town Centre, with exemptions for residents through the issuing of permits.

8.19 Proposal Seven:

Charging for parking bays on Main Street should be introduced:




8.20 Proposal Eight:


Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page SCT3652 SCT3652-001d 1 South Ayrshire Council Residents Parking Study A1

Appendix A

Consultation Events – Letter to invitees

Waste Management, Roads, Transport, Fleet, Building Standards, Environmental Health, Trading Standards, Green Space, Streetscene and Bereavement Services

Economy, Neighbourhood and Environment

Executive Director: Lesley Bloomer

Head of Neighbourhood Services: Mike Newall Burns House, Burns Statue Square, Ayr KA7 1UT Tel: 01292 616100 Email: [email protected] Our Ref: AB1 Your Ref: N/A Date: 05/04/13 If phoning or calling ask for Graeme Senior

Dear Sir or Madam,

RESIDENTS PARKING STUDY - INITIAL STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION South Ayrshire Council (SAC) are undertaking a Parking Study covering residential areas within proximity of Ayr, Prestwick, Monkton and Troon town centres, in order to provide greater understanding of parking trends and habits within the study area, following the introduction of decriminalised parking restrictions in late September 2012.

The Study – being undertaken in partnership with transport consultants JMP – has been commissioned to identify problem areas, including identification of particular issues relating to parking in residential areas, and to investigate potential solutions. The intention is for the final study report to be presented to the Council in mid-June.

The first stage of the Study is to consult with identified stakeholders, in order to canvass the relevant groups and gauge their opinions regarding residents parking issues. It is intended to gain stakeholders views at workshop events being held in the week commencing April 15th.

As a representative of a group or organisation identified as a key stakeholder we would like to extend an invitation to you to participate in a 90 minute workshop session, the details of which are provided below:

Workshop Session: Ayr2

Workshop Venue: Citadel Leisure Centre, South Harbour Street, Ayr, KA7 1JB

Workshop Date and Time: Wednesday 17th April from 6:00pm - 7:30pm

To ensure the events will be productive for all parties, we are limiting the numbers for each event, which should allow all invitees to actively contribute to the discussions taking place. As such, this letter is intended for only the recipient, or a nominated proxy, to attend. There will also be a comments box available at each event, to ensure that we fully record the views of all invitees.

Waste Management, Roads, Transport, Fleet, Building Standards, Environmental Health, Trading Standards, Green Space, Streetscene and Bereavement Services

If you, or a nominated proxy, are unable to attend the relevant consultation event, but still wish to make representations, you can provide comments in writing to:

Residents Parking Study C/O Graeme Senior Burns House Burns Statue Square Ayr KA7 1UT Or by emailing [email protected] (clearly marking the email subject as “Residents Parking Study”) and we will consider any representations received between receipt of this letter, and the final day of consultation events.

To allow residents and stakeholders to consider the issues in advance of the consultation events, each event is intended to follow the structure below:

We hope that you are available to participate, and look forward to seeing you at the consultation event.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Braidwood

Roads Manager

• Welcome and aspirations for the event

• Introductions

• Discussion (contributions from all facilitated by JMP)

• Agreement on where and when parking pressures in the town occur;

• Discussion of causes of these pressures (commuters, shoppers, residents, etc);

• Agreement of implications of these pressures (people discouraged from shopping in town, residents inconvenienced, etc); and

• Discussion of preferred solutions (CPZs, limited wait, introduction of charges, etc) and advantages/disadvantages of each

• Summing up

• Next steps, thanks and close

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page SCT3652 SCT3652-001d 1 South Ayrshire Council Residents Parking Study B1

Appendix B

Consultation Events – List of Invitees

Ay

r

List of C

on

sulte

es

Co

un

cillors

Do

ug

las C

am

pb

ell

Wa

rd 3

- Ay

r No

rth

Ian

Ca

va

na

Wa

rd 3

- Ay

r No

rth

Joh

n H

am

pto

nW

ard

3 - A

yr N

orth

Rita

Mille

rW

ard

3 - A

yr N

orth

Ian

Do

ug

las

Wa

rd 4

- Ay

r Ea

st

Ma

ry K

ilpa

trickW

ard

4 - A

yr E

ast

Bria

n M

cGin

ley

Wa

rd 4

- Ay

r Ea

st

Co

rri Wilso

nW

ard

4 - A

yr E

ast

Kirsty

Da

rwe

nt

Wa

rd 5

- Ay

r We

st

Alla

n D

ora

ns

Wa

rd 5

- Ay

r We

st

Bill G

ran

tW

ard

5 - A

yr W

est

Ro

bin

Re

idW

ard

5 - A

yr W

est

Co

mm

un

ity C

ou

ncils

Th

om

as R

ob

ertso

n (C

ha

ir)N

ew

ton

an

d H

ea

thfie

ld C

Ch

ttp://w

ww

.sou

th-a

yrsh

ire.g

ov.u

k/co

mm

un

ityco

un

cils/ne

wto

n_

he

ath

field

.asp

x

Joh

n H

od

ge

(Ch

air)

Be

lmo

nt a

nd

Kin

caid

ston

CC

http

://ww

w.so

uth

-ay

rshire

.go

v.u

k/co

mm

un

ityco

un

cils/be

lmo

nt_

kin

caid

ston

.asp

x

Joh

n M

cGu

ire (S

ecre

tary

)F

ore

hill, H

olm

ston

an

d M

aso

nh

ill CC

http

://ww

w.so

uth

-ay

rshire

.go

v.u

k/co

mm

un

ityco

un

cils/fore

hill_

ho

lmsto

n_

ma

son

hill.a

spx

No

rma

n M

cLea

n (C

ha

ir)F

ort, S

ea

field

an

d W

alla

ceto

wn

CC

http

://ww

w.so

uth

-ay

rshire

.go

v.u

k/co

mm

un

ityco

un

cils/fort_

sea

field

_w

alla

ceto

wn

.asp

x

Co

mm

un

ity P

olice

Sg

t Ma

rk H

orn

by

Stra

thcly

de

Po

liceM

ark

.Ho

rnb

y@

sou

th-a

yrsh

ire.g

ov.u

kT

: 01

29

2 6

16

61

6

Oth

ers

Ay

rshire

Ho

usin

gJim

Wh

iston

11

9 M

ain

Stre

et, K

A8

8B

X

Ca

re a

nd

Sh

are

Gro

up

Lizzie A

dra

inR

ive

rside

chu

rch

Da

lbla

ir Ro

ad

Re

side

nts A

ssocia

tion

An

dre

a S

mith

21

Da

lbla

ir Ro

ad

, KA

7 1

UF

Fo

rt Re

side

nts A

ssocia

tion

Sco

tt Fitzsim

mo

ns

21

Tre

nch

ard

Co

urt, K

A9

1JU

T: 0

12

92

61

81

20

Fo

rt Te

na

nts A

ssocia

tion

Ms A

Lind

say

9 A

rran

Te

rrace

Fo

rt, Se

afie

ld a

nd

Wa

llace

tow

n C

om

mu

nity

Co

un

cilO

len

a S

tew

art

Sh

alim

ar W

ing

, KA

7 2

TX

Mill F

riars T

en

an

ts an

d R

esid

en

ts Asso

ciatio

nH

ilary

Aitk

en

53

c Mill S

tree

t, KA

7 1

TH

T: 0

79

31

51

17

86

Ne

wto

n &

He

ath

field

Co

mm

un

ity C

ou

ncil

Ms S

he

ila A

nn

e W

yllie

10

St G

eo

rge

s Ro

ad

, KA

8 9

HN

Ne

wto

n te

na

nts A

ssocia

tion

Mr A

nd

rew

McK

issock

10

3 G

ree

n S

tree

t

No

rth A

yr C

om

mu

nity

Co

un

cilM

r Ro

be

rt Gre

en

45

Co

wa

n C

resce

nt, K

A8

9Q

U

So

uth

Ay

rshire

Te

na

nts G

rou

pM

r Jim H

en

dry

9 W

alk

er R

oa

dT

: 01

29

2 2

87

30

1

So

uth

Wa

llace

tou

n T

en

an

ts an

d R

esid

en

ts Asso

ciatio

nM

r Joh

n W

alk

er

56

Joh

n S

tree

t, KA

8 0

BS

Wa

llace

tou

n N

orth

Te

na

nts a

nd

Re

side

nts A

ssocia

tion

Pa

ulin

e M

ack

ieC

/O 1

6 G

eo

rge

Stre

et

Wa

llace

tou

n S

ou

th T

en

an

ts & R

esid

en

ts Asso

ciatio

nM

rs Du

nca

n4

4 M

acA

da

m P

lace

Wa

llace

tou

n/N

ew

ton

Re

ge

ne

ratio

n F

oru

mM

r Joe

Laffe

rty1

6 G

eo

rge

Stre

et

T: 0

12

92

27

00

05

We

st of S

cotla

nd

Ho

usin

g A

ssocia

tion

Ms C

lare

Ne

wto

n1

4 S

trath

ay

r Pla

ce, K

A8

0A

YT

: 01

29

2-2

87

84

1

Tro

on

List of C

on

sulte

es

Co

un

cillors

Pe

ter C

on

ve

ryW

ard

1 - T

roo

n

Na

n M

cFa

rlan

eW

ard

1 - T

roo

n

Bill M

cInto

shW

ard

1 - T

roo

n

Ph

ilip S

axto

nW

ard

1 - T

roo

n

Co

mm

un

ity C

ou

ncils

Do

ug

las G

rah

am

(Ch

air)

Tro

on

CC

http

://ww

w.w

elco

me

totro

on

.uk

.com

/TC

C.h

tm

Co

mm

un

ity P

olice

Sg

t Ma

rk H

orn

by

Stra

thcly

de

Po

liceM

ark

.Ho

rnb

y@

sou

th-a

yrsh

ire.g

ov

.uk

T: 0

12

92

61

66

16

Oth

ers

Pa

nro

ck/M

illrock

Te

na

nts A

ssocia

tion

Mrs E

Hu

gh

es

9 M

illrock

Co

urt

Te

mp

leh

ill Re

side

nts G

rou

pM

s Su

e W

illiam

sT

he

Kn

ow

e

Tro

on

Co

mm

un

ity C

ou

ncil

Mr Jo

hn

Sn

od

dy

19

Bu

rnfo

ot A

ve

nu

e, K

A1

0 6

RF

Tro

on

Ha

rbo

ur T

en

an

ts & R

esid

en

ts Asso

ciatio

nM

oira

Yo

un

g2

3 H

arb

ou

r Ro

ad

Pre

stwick

& M

on

kto

n

List of C

on

sulte

es

Co

un

cillors

Ian

Co

chra

ne

Wa

rd 2

- Pre

stwick

Hu

gh

Hu

nte

rW

ard

2 - P

restw

ick

He

len

Mo

on

ieW

ard

2 - P

restw

ick

Ma

rga

ret T

on

er

Wa

rd 2

- Pre

stwick

Joh

n A

llan

Wa

rd 6

- Ky

le

An

dy

Ca

mp

be

llW

ard

6 - K

yle

Hy

we

l Da

vie

sW

ard

6 - K

yle

Co

mm

un

ity C

ou

ncils

Jam

es R

on

ne

y (C

ha

ir)P

restw

ick N

orth

CC

http

://ww

w.so

uth

-ay

rshire

.org

.uk

/pre

stwick

no

rthcc/

Jimm

y S

tew

art (C

ha

ir)M

on

kto

n C

Ch

ttp://w

ww

.sou

th-a

yrsh

ire.g

ov.u

k/co

mm

un

ityco

un

cils/mo

nk

ton

.asp

x

Co

mm

un

ity P

olice

Sg

t Ma

rk H

orn

by

Stra

thcly

de

Po

liceM

ark

.Ho

rnb

y@

sou

th-a

yrsh

ire.g

ov.u

kT

: 01

29

2 6

16

61

6

Oth

ers

Pre

stwick

Co

mm

un

ity A

ssocia

tion

Mrs W

ills4

0 M

oss B

an

k, K

A9

1D

TT

: 01

29

24

76

39

9

Pre

stwick

No

rth C

om

mu

nity

Co

un

cilM

r Ro

nn

y Jo

hn

ston

16

Ou

tda

le A

ve

nu

e, K

A9

1E

U

Pre

stwick

So

uth

Co

mm

un

ity C

ou

ncil

Mr A

rchie

T M

on

kh

ou

se3

2 B

ellro

ck A

ve

nu

e, K

A9

1S

Q

SA

C

Pro

ject T

ea

m

Tra

ffic & T

ran

spo

rtatio

n

Ge

org

e F

idd

es

Te

am

Lea

de

rg

eo

rge

.fidd

es@

sou

th-a

yrsh

ire.g

ov.u

k

Bla

ir Wy

llieS

up

erv

isory

En

gin

ee

rb

lair.w

yllie

@so

uth

-ay

rshire

.go

v.u

k

Eric K

elty

En

gin

ee

ring

Office

re

ric.ke

lty@

sou

th-a

yrsh

ire.g

ov.u

k

Gra

em

e S

en

ior

En

gin

ee

ring

Office

rg

rae

me

.sen

ior@

sou

th-a

yrsh

ire.g

ov.u

k

Pa

rkin

g E

nfo

rcem

en

t

Ala

n M

cCu

tche

on

Pa

rkin

g S

up

erv

isor

ala

n.m

ccutch

eo

n@

sou

th-a

yrsh

ire.g

ov.u

k

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page SCT3652 SCT3652-001d 1 South Ayrshire Council Residents Parking Study C1

Appendix C

Consultation Events – Notes

1

South Ayrshire Council Residents Parking Study - Initial Stakeholder Consultation

Workshop 1: Prestwick Community Centre, Prestwick Community Centre, Briarhill Rd, Prestwick, KA9 1HY

Monday 15th 2:30 – 4:00pm

Towns to be discussed – Prestwick and Monkton

Attendees:

• Tim Steiner; JMP

• Gary Cummins; JMP

• Blair Wyllie; South Ayrshire Council

• PC Danny Ver Berne; Police Scotland

• Archie T Monkhouse; Prestwick South Community Council

TS Began meeting by asking for introductions and explained the session agenda and aspirations for the session which was to gain an understanding of:

• Where and when parking pressures in the town occur;

• Discuss possible causes of these pressures (commuters, shoppers, residents, etc);

• Seek to understand the implications of these pressures (people discouraged from shopping in town, residents inconvenienced, etc); and

• Discussion potential or preferred solutions (CPZs, limited wait, introduction of charges, etc) and advantages/disadvantages of each.

TS informed attendees that the meeting would be held under Chatham House rules and that comments will be recorded in note form but will not be attributed to any individual.

Where and when parking pressures in the town occur, and possible causes

• As well as the study area, there are significant parking issues to the south of this area at Prestwick Toll and the study should include this extended area.

• Limited waiting bays on Main Street intended as shoppers bays are being used for long-stay parking and some local businesses are positively encouraging this misuse.

• Bus bays are routinely abused and parked in. Post meeting information - 5 PCNs issued for parking in bus bays 1/10/12 – 1/5/13

• One hour time limited bays are routinely used for longer stays and there is no enforcement of time limits. Post meeting information - 380 PCN issued in Prestwick between 1/10/12 and 1/5/13.

2

• Failure to enforce parking is an ongoing perceived problem; there are only six enforcement staff operating in all of South Ayrshire.

• Residential flats at back of Main Street use many available spaces and use business spaces.

• Prestwick’s growing popularity as an evening destination for people living in surrounding towns mean there can be particular issues during evenings when residents arrive home and cannot find a parking space.

• Prestwick Academy staff cannot park around the school and are using the school as a car park.

• Areas around the rail station, noted were Kirk Street, MacIntyre Road, Hamilton Way, Monkton Court, Shawfarm Gardens Powmill Road and Powmill Gardens, these issues are caused by people travelling to Glasgow, Ayr, Troon and the Airport including aircrew. It is not uncommon to experience cars arriving at 5am and drivers rendezvousing with taxis to the airport. Residents claim that Oswald Drive, in spite of having a one-hour single yellow line operation between 11.00 and 12.00 still experiences long term parking due to little enforcement.

• Hunter Street and Caeverlock Street have issues

• Sunday church services cause particular problems around St Nicholas’ Parish Church.

• West of Main Street the issue of on street parking has less impact on residents, east of Main Street is the area of most complaints.

• Other issues are caused by attendees of the Bridge Club on The Riggs.

• The Co-Operative store is required to ‘man’ their car park to deter indiscriminate parking.

Implications of issues

• Residents are inconvenienced and unable to park near their homes, this seems to be the core issue.

• Disabled visitors suffer disproportionately, the disabled bays are subject to abuse, and disabled users are then required to travel further than desired away from their vehicle.

• Safety does not seem to be an issue to date, had there been these would have been raised and addressed.

• The attendees were not aware of the economic implications of the parking issue.

Possible solutions

• In the long term a park and ride site at Monkton would offer a solution.

• Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) would be an option for some, but is not likely to be universally popular.

• More double-yellow lining would suit some streets, extending the existing limited waiting time regulations may help.

• The potential to charge for permits has been mooted before but this is unlikely to be popular with residents.

3

• Any solution needs enforcement and implementing a permit system means more staff are required to police this solution.

• It is accepted that implementing restrictions in one area may just push the problem into nearby unrestricted streets.

• The status quo is an acceptable solution for some attendees

• The Sainsbury’s car park is rarely more than 30% full, the question was asked; could this site be used as part of any solution? There are already parking restrictions in the Prestwick Toll area and there is discussion around extending these restrictions.

• Any survey should include areas down to Lilybank and Prestwick Toll area

Workshop 2 – Ayr Town Hall Ayr Town Hall, Sandgate, Ayr, KA7 1DA

Monday 15th 6:00 – 7:30pm

Towns to be discussed – Ayr

Attendees:



• Sgt Mark Hornby; Police Scotland

• Cllr Ian Cavana; South Ayrshire Council;

• John Walker; Wallacetoun Tenants and Residents Association;

• George Fiddes; South Ayrshire Council

TS began meeting by thanking attendees and asking for introductions. He explained the session agenda and aspirations for the session which were the same as those outlined for the other towns:


• One attendee highlighted issues in the Wallacetoun area, specifically John Street, Elba Street, Craigie Avenue, Craigie Way and Content Avenue. Parking in and around some of these streets has increased dramatically in recent years to the point that it is now difficult for residents to park in the area. It is thought that some shop staff leave their cars in the area and walk to their place of work in the town centre. People who work in the area as carers for the disabled are parking in surrounding streets 24 hours each day and taxi cab drivers are parking in John Street (although these cab owners do not appear to be residents). Office and shop staff working in Ayr Town Centre, as well as people attending the Job Centre, are parking in the area from 7.30am – 6.00pm each day. Some residents are now reluctant to leave their homes with a car as they may be unable to locate a parking place during the day.

• Newton, a local area with a high level of business and residential, has significant issues during the day and a recent case arose of an ambulance being unable to turn in local streets. It was

4

suggested that much of this pressure is generated by local business employees as well as people working in the town centre and nearby harbour.

• The streets to the east of the town surrounding the College and University campus are heavily parked with vehicles perceived to be belonging to students, this is despite the University owning four free car parks and the College having its own parking provision. Mondays and Wednesdays appear to be the worst days for indiscriminate parking as nursing class sessions take place on these two days. Attendees did accept that no bus services pass the University site at present.

• There is a small pocket of indiscriminate on-street parking near Newton Rail Station where long distance commuters park and take an onward bus to Glasgow.

• To the south of Ayr Rail Station (at the Old Cattle Market car park) there are reported cases of cars parked for two weeks with owners travelling to Prestwick Airport via train. Parking in this car park is free of charge.


• A large amount of inconvenience for residents, around Newton and John Street with some heavily parked streets causing safety concerns.

• Parking around the local schools has become more of an issue since decriminalisation; there are particular issues at Forehill Primary School where a number of measures to discourage parking issues have been tried without success. Lots of drivers around schools park on the footway, dropping off pupils raises safety concerns.

• The large Rail Station car park in the town centre is at capacity each day and is believed to be used by commuters travelling to Glasgow. Some of the town centre car parks are scruffy and do not encourage drivers to make use of them, not all are owned by the local authority. However, generally the free town centre car parks are well used.

• Some drivers find it difficult to locate available on street parking space in the town centre. TK Maxx’s car park is used for indiscriminate parking.

• There is a perception that visitors are reluctant to come to Ayr due to the difficulty of finding parking spaces.

• The National Stadium (Hampden) is an example of successful parking controls during events, however this type of measure introduced into Ayr may damage local business. Ayr should consider introducing more limited-time parking areas.

• Residents’ parking only would also damage the town.

• There is too little enforcement of existing regulations in the town altogether.

• Holmston Road near Ayr Cemetery is a difficult area, an advisory cycle lane that is parked in (by College users).

Possible solutions

• The town does seem to be busier following the implementation of meter controls with a greater turnover of vehicles, currently users pay 60p / two hours parking and these appear popular. Two hour period should be extended to slightly longer for town centre locations.

5

• Creating a park and ride area which serves the University and College may help.

• Residential permits and restrictions in some areas, these have been asked for in the past and have been refused.

• Review of parking controls in specific areas; Content Avenue, Elba Street, Craigie Way, Craigie Avenue, John Street, James Campbell Road. Extend these out to the University area

• Better public transport provision to the University, College and harbour area.

• As a solution to the immediate parking difficulties of disabled persons, we should be creating more disabled bays in some areas. Local residents are in favour of extending residential parking zones in some areas.

Workshop 3 - Walker Hall, Troon Walker Hall, South Beach, Troon, KA10 6EFTroon

Wednesday 17th April - 14.30-16.00

Towns to be discussed – Troon

Attendees:



• PC Brian Downie; Police Scotland

• Annabelle Beattie; Templehill Residents Association

• Douglas Graham; Troon Community Council

• Graeme Senior; South Ayrshire Council

• Councillor Phillip Saxton; South Ayrshire Council

TS Began the meeting by thanking attendees and asking for introductions. He explained the session agenda and aspirations for the session which were the same as those outlined for Prestwick:


• The rail station although identified within the project scope area is not particularly bad (and was not discussed during the rest of the meeting). The town centre is also not considered an area that suffers too badly.

• Problems in Troon are very seasonal, dependant on the time of the year and the weather conditions on the day.

• Due to three churches in town being close together and well attended, Sunday mornings see large amounts of indiscriminate parking around St Meddans Street, Bentinck Drive, Church Street, Academy St and South Beach, this is only throughout the morning service period however.

6

• When the ferry is due to sail vehicles are double parked near the chip shop on Templehill, but ferry parking tends to be a seasonal issue. There was considered to be a safety issue at the top of the hill on Templehill due to vehicles parked here on the corner. Templehill parking spaces are generally used by shopkeepers and residents. There is a GP surgery here and a large turnover of visitor parking occurs. Templehill also suffers from a large amount of parking outside the Marina Bar on the crest of the hill. There is a pinch point as well as a speeding issue here.

• There have been issues of people driving onto the esplanade and parking, attendees would like to see this discouraged. There was also concern that more rigorous enforcement of parking along the seafront may lead to drivers parking on the grass. Ice cream vans have been seen driving onto the esplanade, and serving from this location, however, the issue wa note debated amongst the group.

• The single yellow line in Portland Terrace encourages people to park further up into Academy Street where there are no markings.

• There are not considered to be problems at North Bay where there is always plenty of space in the car parks.

• At the junction of Wood Road and Titchfield Road in Troon, there is a worn patch of grass overlooking the sea. Lately and with increasing frequency, there is a car parked there despite there being a sign a few metres to the right ('please don't park on the grass - soft ground'). This area is obviously not a parking area is subject to a great deal of weathering and the persistent parking has left the grassed area more vulnerable to erosion. Drivers have to mount the pavement to access and exit this area, driving between pedestrians using the footway. The lowered kerb at this point seems to be an invitation to park there.

Other areas where there are problems include;

• South Beach, which can be heavily parked all the way along to Royal Troon subject to the weather.

• Titchfield Road, frequently heavily parked, although, attendees did not feel this was too great an issue there are considered to be issues near the care home where the road bends and there is car park access. It was suggested that the single yellow line should be on the opposite side of the road.

• There are problems with people parking on the south side of Harbour Road near the marina and sailing club this is causing visibility problems, lorries stop here to use the cafe.

• Dukes Road is heavily parked with staff from factories and the taxi company. The taxi company no longer have a local office and operate from the street.

• The call centre near Morrisons supermarket sometimes use the supermarket parking as well as parking on street.

• Increasingly, lorries are approaching the town via minor roads, this may be a result of an overreliance on inaccurate GPS. An example given was the turn from Harbour Road to Templehill.


7

• There are problems with the P&O terminal which has very little available parking space for ferry traffic, the site has a car park accommodating about 75 cars but a large amount of unused space. This results in drivers who are waiting for a ferry to wait on street.

• There is a desire to avoid driving people away from Troon via enforcement and not to go the way of Ayr with residential permits and charges. Residents can park in Troon, it is only when visitors arrive there are problems.

• The esplanade is also the site of a variety of civic functions, car boot sales and fetes for example, and Titchfield Road is used by stallholders attending these events to unload their goods. The existing single yellow line makes this practice illegal and enforcement of this yellow line will deter people from visiting the town or using the esplanade. Could the restrictions be moved to the other side of the carriageway

Possible solutions

• When local parking enforcement teams operate in Troon all parking problems seem to disappear. The attendees suggested that a permanent parking officer in Troon would resolve the issues, even just during the high season.

• There is no desire to implement CPZ or charges.

• Creating space at the P&O terminal would help the situation, there seems to be a lot of available space to create an on-site car park for ferry traffic. However, this is a private development, and outside the control of SAC.

• More yellow lining on corners of streets where there are noted problems, for example in Academy Street, perhaps extend existing lining.

• Regarding the problem with indiscriminate parking on the grassed areas at Wood Road / Titchfield Road, putting bollards in place would be excessive and perhaps a simple way would be to put a sign up directly on the worn grass, then the situation be monitored over a season.

• Councillor Saxton suggested that the grid layout of Troon would lend itself to a one-way system, but this was proposed to improve general traffic flow, and not to create additional parking space.

Workshop 4 – The Citadel, Ayr Citadel Leisure Centre, South Harbour Street, Ayr, KA7 1JB

Wednesday 17th 6:00 – 7:30pm

Towns to be discussed - Ayr

Attendees



• Eric Kelty; South Ayrshire Council

• Sgt Mark Hornby; Police Scotland

8

• Michael Allen; Fort Residents Association

• Edwin England; Newton and Heathfield Community Council

• Corrie Wilson; South Ayrshire Council

• Ian Douglas: South Ayrshire Council

• Kirsty Derwent; South Ayrshire Council

• Bill Grant: South Ayrshire Council

• Brian McGinley; South Ayrshire Council

As with previous meetings TS began the meeting by thanking attendees and asking for introductions. He explained the session agenda and aspirations for the session which were the same as those outlined for previous meetings.


• Areas highlighted include Fotheringham Road which is heavily used by University students and staff. The seafront is heavily parked by people who are presumed to be council office staff who are avoiding controlled parking areas in the town centre.

• A lot of staff who it is believed work in the council offices, are parking in Carrick Road. Bellevue Road is also heavily parked and there are issue over space there.

• Content Avenue has no parking controls and is very busy with what is perceived to be student parking. Councillors are still hearing complaints from residents around the University areas regarding student parking, but these have lessened recently. It is understood that a large number of students and dog walkers now park in Holmston Road.

• Fotheringham Road has a bowling club and conflict has arisen between bowlers and residents, it was noted that residents pay council tax and should receive priority.

• The social services building on Galloway Avenue has caused lot of people to park on the dual carriageway (Whitletts Road).

• There is no particular concern regarding parking in Ayr from Newton and Heathfield Residents Association.

• Gemmell Crescent suffers from people stopping there who are shopping in Tesco, as well as visitors to the Sunday market. Parking in the town can be difficult on a Sunday.

• Driveways in Peggieshill Road have become obstructed due to Belmont Academy students parking there.


• Office staff park on the seafront and are reducing available parking for tourists, which the town are keen to encourage.

• Enforcement of parking near the county buildings and more recently the seafront are driving the people who park in those areas, who are mostly employees in the town into the Cromwell Road car park. The result is that the car park is now so full that people driving into Ayr to shop cannot find space in the Cromwell Road car park.

9

• Dongola Road, St Andrews Street, Ashgrove Street Road, these streets have a lot of guest houses with limited off street parking, enforcement of parking here may damage businesses.

• The enforcement, when it is carried out is successful because feedback suggests that prior to proper enforcement, visitors were staying away from the town due to the difficulty in finding car parking spaces.

• Changes in how people shop have affected the number of people coming into the town. TK Maxx now implement 4 hour parking restrictions and charge a £60 penalty fee.

• Council staff may object to charging for car parking along the Esplanade as so many of them use that area for free parking. The council might be perceived as caving-in to, or protecting its staff, if it does not enforce parking along the esplanade. Council staff do not have an automatic right to free parking.

• Members of the public find it difficult to park near and visit the council offices due to the volume of staff parking in the area.

Possible solutions

• Fotheringham Road and Content Avenue should be considered for some form of controlled parking, given the close proximity of Ayr College/University and the resultant long term parking by students.

• The Charlotte Street Car Park is well signed – static and VMS signs associated with it. Primark is at Ayr Central – the multi-storey car park is adjacent to the High Street - is privately owned, and much cheaper to park in, although it is unattractive and tight to drive into, that may put people off using it.

• In the current ‘pay and display’ car parking zoning system, residents have a concession to purchase parking permits for a fixed charge of £50/annum or £16/quarter – This price was introduced in 1993 and has remained unchanged for 20 years.

In the ‘Residents-Only’ parking streets, residents may obtain two parking permits for a ‘one-off’ purchase price of 50 pence and (should they require to be replaced) may obtain replacement permits for a 10 pence charge - These prices were introduced over forty years ago when the system was introduced by Ayr Burgh Council administration.

These prices require to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly as they are considerably out of date and some of these permit types do not even cover SAC costs to administer them.

• Many of the parking regulations in Ayr are related to controlled parking areas which were implemented 20 or more years ago, when the town was a different place i.e. (Former Ayr Hospital and Ayr Cattlemarket sites now gone.

• Some streets where there are single dwellings with large drives / off-street capacity for parking do not need controlled parking. Examples are; Park Crescent, Bellevue Crescent and parts of Fairfield Road.

• In addition, current controls are out of sync with the town as it now is, and the town needs a revised parking plan to reflect the current offer and location of services.

10

• The council are trying to promote the town as a place to visit, to stay in, in order to ‘revamp’ the town. The existing parking controls need to be completely reviewed, with a variety of different solutions for different areas of the town.

• Possibly refunding car parking charges with the purchase of goods, similar to the way rail stations charge for parking may be an incentive. This issue was raised by a Councillor, but is considered contentious.

• Does the town require enforcement or parking around the County Buildings (which is blamed for driving the council office staff and retail staff into the Cromwell Road car park?

• Does the cycleway along the seafront need to be on both sides of the road, could this be one side of the road to free up car parking? Should we remove the whole of the cycle facilities to create more car parking along the seafront?

• Examples of successful solutions are Park Circus, these areas are flats with limited on-street parking and controls work well here.

• People expect to pay to park on the seafront and there is no problem with this, council staff who work on the caretaking of the seafront are regularly asked where the parking meters are. The esplanade would easily support £2.00 per day car parking charges. Although parking charges may be a hard issue to sell politically.

• The provision of parking within new-build specifications is much too low and should be increased, particularly for nursing homes. The citadel Centre is an example of a planning failure as there are far too few spaces for parking.

• We should be seeking to create a High Street without car parking in it and try to create space where people can come along to shop and enjoy.

• A town centre coach service may be an option with a coach park at the rail station. Information has already gone out to potential companies about this.

• The seafront and esplanade are not well signposted from the town centre for pedestrians. If you are in Ayr, you would not currently know how to find the seafront on foot. Improving signing may help encourage people to park in the town and walk to the seafront.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page SCT3652 SCT3652-001d 1 South Ayrshire Council Residents Parking Study D1

Appendix D

Additional Consultation Notes

File Note

Page 1 of 2

Project: Residents Parking Study Job No: Reference

Subject: Meeting with Ayr Elected Members Date: 14/05/13 Present: Mike Newall George Fiddes Blair Wyllie Eric Kelty Graeme Senior Cllr Kirsty Darwent Cllr Allan Dorans Cllr Bill Grant Cllr Douglas Campbell Cllr Rita Miller Cllr Mary Kilpatrick Cllr Corri Wilson Cllr Ian Douglas Summary notes of discussion Overview of key points:

• A key consideration in the need to implement residents parking should be where the existing situation constitutes a ‘detriment to quality of life’ for residents;

• A ‘public engagement’ exercise would allow public opinion to inform/ steer any proposals to a degree at an early stage in the process. This may include feedback from the public on how much people would be prepared to pay for permits;

• The scheme should try to be a simple as possible to avoid needless complications and perceptions of inequality among residents;

• While a ‘big bang’ blanket approach may be seen to offer a consistent and fair approach, this would require massive administrative resources (and associated costs, errors and criticism);

• Could a tiered zoning system be explored? Eg Zone 1 – town centre; Zone 2 – pressure areas; Zone 3 – residential only; and unrestricted.

• That more than 2 permits per dwelling is unfair and unsustainable; • The existing charges for permits and replacements are far too low. The charges must make the

scheme ‘cost neutral’ to the Council; • Potential exists to have a rising pricing structure for second permits applied for, eg a second

permit may cost double the initial permit; • That any scheme would require to tie a parking permit to a specific vehicle, registered at an

address on the street in question (V5 form/ insurance details to be presented as evidence); • Is there sufficient parking availability in and around Ayr town centre to accommodate parking

displacement associated with the introduction of new residents parking streets? Areas/ streets of specific interest:

• River Street – potential to reopen? Need to encourage greater use of parking in this area. • Bath Place – handful of residents who feel overlooked in parking proposals • Fairfield Road – with garages and off street parking provision, is there a need for existing

residents parking to be continued?

File Note

Page 2 of 2

• Content Avenue/ Weaver Street/ Newton Green / Elba Street – resident parking competition from business/ student use

Existing/ potential problems to be overcome:

• Instances of permits being ‘passed on’ to non-residents for the use of visitors/ workers; • How to encourage employment car trip use of existing car parks over existing on-street

opportunities? Possible promotions or price reductions; • Generally speaking car parks are seen as facilities for longer stay parking, with on-street bays

intended as short-term with a high turnover. In specific areas where there are a number of short duration trip attractors (doctors, post office, etc) should a review of car parking pricing be undertaken to encourage more short-term use?;

• How to issue permits? Possibly tie into council tax, with barcode providing details when scanned on the duration left on permits;

• Consideration would be required for how businesses operating on residential streets considered for residents parking (such as a B&B or dentist) could allow for a degree of guest or visitor parking

File Note

Page 1 of 1

Project: Residents Parking Study Job No: Reference

Subject: Meeting with Prestwick Elected Members Date: 21/05/13 Present: George Fiddes Eric Kelty Graeme Senior Cllr Ian Cochrane Cllr Hugh Hunter Cllr Margaret Toner Cllr Helen Moonie Summary notes of discussion Overview of key points:

• The residents parking considerations within Prestwick will take cognisance of the data and themes collated within the 2010 parking study;

• Concerns were raised relating to Shawfarm Road, Blackford Crescent and Langcroft Avenue, with resident complaints received associated with airport parking demands;

• Concerns were raised with regards to the potential impact of traffic displacement associated with the introduction of any residents parking schemes. It was suggested that this process is likely to be iterative, and that several reviews over time are likely to be required with scope to extend any implemented scheme;

• Cllr Hunter expressed concerns that the introduction of double yellow lines at junctions had significantly reduced available parking opportunities, and asked if there was scope to reduce the double yellow lengths to create additional spaces. EK explained at length that the extent of double yellow lining is governed by visibility splay requirements, and that road safety must be considered paramount in this respect;

• The types of resident parking were discussed at length, with leaving all spaces as a ‘free for all’ at one end of the spectrum, and allocated bays for specific cars/ residences at the other. The consensus was that the practical solution lay between these points;

• Emphasis was placed on the fact that the parking demands within Prestwick are as a result of a combination of factors including residential, seasonal, retail and airport;

• Mansefield Road, Kingscroft Road and Pleasantfield area identified as being used as an informal ‘park and ride’ for the X77 service. A potential review of X77 stops may help to alleviate this issue;

• Public engagement of potential scheme options was recommended as the next step in the overall process – especially pertinent within Prestwick due to the previous difficulties in implementing restrictions due to received objections;

• There was debate as to whether the creation of new driveways should be promoted or discouraged – the argument for was that this reduces on-street demands by residents, and the argument against was that this would reduce on-street parking availability which could impact upon retail trips, etc;

• It was agreed that the best way forward is likely to continue to be a very polarising subject – discussion was held into the feasibility of a possible permit trial scheme – but it was clarified that TROs would be required and a temporary trial scheme would be very difficult from an administrative point of view.

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page SCT3652 SCT3652-001d 1 South Ayrshire Council Residents Parking Study E1

Appendix E

Streets Surveyed

USRN DescTxt Length of Road Length to be Surveyed

48700896 Ailsa Place 137.22 137.22

48700904 Alloway Park 135.29 135.29

48708212 Alloway Place 293.53 387.00

48707345 Alloway Street 179.20 179.20

48700911 Arran Terrace 157.99 157.99

48700913 Arthur Street 108.66 108.66

48700914 Ashgrove Street 458.45 458.45

48700920 Ballantine Drive 316.36 316.36

48700921 Barns Crescent 185.25 185.25

48700922 Barns Park 101.41 101.41

48700923 Barns Street 194.88 194.88

48700927 Bath Place 272.48 272.48

48700931 Bellevue Crescent 379.87 379.87

48700933 Bellevue Road 400.67 400.67

48700934 Bellevue Street 91.45 91.45

Unknown Bellrock Avenue 339.00 339.00

48700948 Beresford Terrace 250.00 78.00

48700956 Boswell Park 232.90 232.90

48700958 Bowman Road 85.38 85.38

Unknown Bruce Avenue 66.00 66.00

48700963 Bruce Crescent 92.67 92.67

48700966 Burns Statue Square 223.53 223.53

48700975 Carrick Road 582.72 305.00

48707105 Carrick Street 364.51 95.00

48700979 Cassillis Street 179.58 179.58

48700982 Cathcart Street 109.00 109.00

48700986 Charlotte Street 415.71 415.71

48700988 Citadel Place 98.56 98.56

48700990 Content Avenue 146.37 146.37

48700991 Content Street 109.54 109.54

48701004 Cromwell Road 278.00 210.00

48707087 Dalblair Road 385.45 385.45

48710362 Dalblair Way 81.70 81.70

48701014 Dongola Road 501.72 501.72

48701020 Douglas Street 93.30 93.30

48701024 Eglinton Terrace 219.00 219.00

48701025 Elba Street 358.91 165.00

48707100 Fairfield Road 206.47 516.00

48705709 Fort Street 475.57 366.00

48707232 Fotheringham Road 164.94 220.00

48701045 Fullarton Street 202.92 202.92

48707306 George Street 346.60 160.00

48701056 Gordon Terrace 266.65 266.65

48701059 Green Street 544.85 165.00

48707363 High Street 592.19 592.19

48703767 Inverkar Road 403.09 103.00

48707541 Killoch Place 67.44 67.44

48703778 Kyle Street 190.06 190.06

Unknown Lillybank Road 117.00 117.00

48703793 Macadam Place 143.67 80.00

48703798 Marchmont Road 155.14 65.00

48703808 Midton Road 639.30 246.00

48703809 Mill Street 460.54 460.54

48701124 Miller Road 422.03 422.03

48703811 Montgomerie Terrace 309.28 309.28

48707528 New Bridge Street 250.82 160.00

48703825 North Harbour Street 460.39 336.00

48703838 Park Circus 358.35 358.35

48707952 Park Terrace 213.90 213.90

48707679 Parkhouse Street 151.57 100.00

Unknown Pleasantfiled Road 169.00 169.00

48703852 Queen's Terrace 203.22 203.22

48703868 Sandgate 274.38 318.00

48703870 Seabank Road 48.51 48.51

48701192 Smith Street 343.98 266.00

48707120 South Harbour Street 931.60 342.00

48703885 St Andrew's Street 283.13 248.00

48703891 St Phillans Avenue 293.77 70.00

48707923 Taylor Street 371.34 90.00

Unknown Unnamed Street at Eglinton Terr 52.00 52.00

48705722 Waggon Road 443.11 85.00

Unknown Waterloo Road 357.00 357.00

48703913 Weaver Street 238.04 238.04

48708234 Wellington Square 464.59 464.59

48703931 York Street 553.71 165.00

20,242.73 16,407.35

USRN DescTxt Length of Road Length to be Surveyed

48700454 Alexandra Avenue 184.32 184.32

48700610 Annfield Road 110.01 110.01

48700611 Annfield Terrace 78.00 78.00

48708199 Ayr Road 12.40 12.40

48700615 Bank Street 193.45 193.45

48703433 Bellevue Road 207.04 175.00

48700467 Berelands Road 16.18 140.00

48700470 Boyd Street 166.44 166.44

48700471 Boydfield Avenue 16.18 151.00

48700473 Briarhill Road 16.47 148.00

48700620 Bridge Street 93.91 93.91

48700476 Broompark Avenue 14.82 175.00

48700478 Burnside Gardens 119.38 119.38

48700480 Caerlaverock Avenue 13.58 149.00

48700481 Caerlaverock Road 602.71 602.71

48700624 Cochrane Place 66.75 66.75

48707085 Crofthead Road 246.03 246.03

48700501 Gardiner Street 137.29 137.29

48703439 Hunter Street 131.34 131.34

48703442 Kirk Street 394.90 300.00

48703443 Kyle Street 155.32 155.32

48703444 Ladykirk Road 154.25 154.25

48703446 Leslie Terrace 136.85 136.85

48707758 Main Street 739.10 739.10

48703458 Meiklewood Avenue 296.00 127.00

48703549 Midton Avenue 112.03 112.03

48703460 Midton Road 670.15 670.15

48700534 Monkton Road 869.62 192.00

48703465 Morris Road 15.96 135.00

48707467 New Dykes Road 307.91 307.91

48703480 Salisbury Place 62.65 62.65

48703481 Sandfield Road 221.73 221.73

48703484 Saunterne Road 277.47 277.47

48707558 Smith Street 69.29 69.29

48703497 St John Street 15.67 147.00

48703498 St Quivox Road 215.48 394.00

48703500 Station Drive 215.53 215.53

48707870 Station Road 222.43 75.00

48703506 Templerigg Street 256.66 190.00

48700585 The Cross 54.71 54.71

48703510 The Riggs 153.62 153.62

Total Length 8,043.65 7,970.65

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page SCT3652 SCT3652-001d 1 South Ayrshire Council Residents Parking Study F1

Appendix F

Survey Results

Stre

et - A

yr

Ca

pa

cityS

urv

ey

Ty

pe

Th

ursd

ay

02

00

-

06

00

(VO

LUM

E)

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Occu

pa

ncy

Th

ursd

ay

10

00

-

12

00

(VO

LUM

E)

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Occu

pa

ncy

Frid

ay

02

00

-06

00

(VO

LUM

E)

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Occu

pa

ncy

Frid

ay

10

00

-12

00

(VO

LUM

E)

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Occu

pa

ncy

Sa

turd

ay

10

00

-

12

00

(VO

LUM

E)

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Occu

pa

ncy

Allo

wa

y S

tree

t1

3C

ya

n - E

ve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

00

%1

71

31

%4

31

%1

51

15

%1

81

38

%

Ailsa

Pla

ce4

0M

ag

en

ta - R

P - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

12

8%

92

3%

11

28

%7

18

%9

23

%

Allo

wa

y P

ark

14

Ma

ge

nta

- RP

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d6

43

%2

14

%5

36

%6

43

%2

14

%

Allo

wa

y P

lace

14

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d0

0%

13

93

%1

7%

14

10

0%

96

4%

Arra

n T

erra

ce4

6M

ag

en

ta - R

P - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

73

7%

14

30

%1

63

5%

11

24

%1

43

0%

Arth

ur S

tree

t2

Cy

an

- Eve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

00

%2

10

0%

00

%3

15

0%

15

0%

Ash

gro

ve

Stre

et

56

Ma

ge

nta

- RP

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

54

5%

25

45

%3

15

5%

27

48

%2

85

0%

Ba

llan

tine

Driv

e7

0G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d4

26

0%

25

36

%3

95

6%

39

56

%3

44

9%

Ba

rns C

resce

nt

31

Ma

ge

nta

- RP

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

96

1%

16

52

%1

44

5%

21

68

%1

34

2%

Ba

rns P

ark

13

Ma

ge

nta

- RP

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

23

%4

31

%2

15

%4

31

%3

23

%

Ba

rns S

tree

t4

7C

ya

n - E

ve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

10

21

%2

45

1%

81

7%

20

43

%1

73

6%

Ba

th P

lace

42

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d5

12

%4

31

02

%5

12

%3

37

9%

92

1%

Be

llevu

e C

resce

nt

92

Ma

ge

nta

- RP

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d9

71

05

%5

56

0%

10

71

16

%7

98

6%

73

79

%

Be

llevu

e R

oa

d9

2G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

84

1%

61

66

%3

84

1%

52

57

%3

43

7%

Be

llevu

e S

tree

t1

5G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

7%

96

0%

17

%9

60

%1

71

13

%

Be

llrock

Ave

nu

e5

8G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

72

9%

13

22

%2

03

4%

14

24

%2

03

4%

Be

resfo

rd T

erra

ce3

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d0

0%

26

7%

00

%3

10

0%

26

7%

Bo

swe

ll Pa

rk1

8C

ya

n - E

ve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

63

3%

11

61

%1

6%

15

83

%1

81

00

%

Bo

wm

an

Ro

ad

14

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d6

43

%9

64

%7

50

%1

17

9%

75

0%

Bru

ce A

ve

nu

e5

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

20

%1

20

%1

20

%1

20

%1

20

%

Bru

ce C

resce

nt

10

Ma

ge

nta

- RP

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d5

50

%4

40

%6

60

%3

30

%4

40

%

Bu

rns S

tatu

e S

qu

are

22

Cy

an

- Eve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

29

%1

46

4%

31

4%

13

59

%2

51

14

%

Ca

rrick R

oa

d4

8G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d4

8%

33

69

%3

6%

27

56

%1

83

8%

Ca

rrick S

tree

t0

Cy

an

- Eve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

00

%0

0%

00

%0

0%

00

%

Ca

ssillis Stre

et

56

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

01

8%

54

96

%1

73

0%

33

59

%4

58

0%

Ca

thca

rt Stre

et

10

Cy

an

- Eve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

77

0%

14

14

0%

99

0%

12

12

0%

10

10

0%

Ch

arlo

tte S

tree

t1

08

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

12

9%

50

46

%3

83

5%

47

44

%5

24

8%

Cita

de

l Pla

ce2

2C

ya

n - E

ve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

10

45

%2

09

1%

11

50

%1

56

8%

24

10

9%

Co

nte

nt A

ve

nu

e2

7G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

34

8%

17

63

%1

45

2%

17

63

%1

24

4%

Co

nte

nt S

tree

t1

0G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d6

60

%1

41

40

%6

60

%1

31

30

%1

11

10

%

Cro

mw

ell R

oa

d2

0M

ag

en

ta - R

P - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

36

5%

52

5%

10

50

%6

30

%9

45

%

Da

lbla

ir Ro

ad

12

Cy

an

- Eve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

13

10

8%

10

83

%1

21

00

%8

67

%1

51

25

%

Da

lbla

ir Wa

y0

Cy

an

- Eve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

00

%0

0%

00

%0

0%

00

%

Do

ng

ola

Ro

ad

10

1M

ag

en

ta - R

P - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

52

5%

19

19

%2

32

3%

21

21

%2

32

3%

Do

ug

las S

tree

t7

Cy

an

- Eve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

00

%6

86

%0

0%

57

1%

57

1%

Eg

linto

n T

erra

ce3

8M

ag

en

ta - R

P - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

59

2%

25

66

%3

81

00

%2

25

8%

35

92

%

Elb

a S

tree

t5

4G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d7

13

%2

54

6%

71

3%

17

31

%1

73

1%

Fa

irfield

Ro

ad

10

4M

ag

en

ta - R

P - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

92

8%

38

37

%2

72

6%

30

29

%2

42

3%

Fo

rt Stre

et

49

Cy

an

- Eve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

35

71

%3

98

0%

36

73

%3

67

3%

39

80

%

Fo

the

ring

ha

m R

oa

d4

9G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

06

1%

18

37

%3

36

7%

23

47

%2

65

3%

Fu

llarto

n S

tree

t1

1C

ya

n - E

ve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

21

8%

11

10

0%

21

8%

13

11

8%

16

14

5%

Ge

org

e S

tree

t5

8G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

03

4%

45

78

%1

62

8%

36

62

%3

25

5%

Go

rdo

n T

erra

ce2

4G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

25

0%

12

50

%1

45

8%

93

8%

14

58

%

Gre

en

Stre

et

28

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

45

0%

27

96

%1

65

7%

18

64

%1

24

3%

Hig

h S

tree

t2

3C

ya

n - E

ve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

31

3%

33

14

3%

52

2%

26

11

3%

29

12

6%

Inve

rka

r Ro

ad

21

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d8

38

%6

29

%6

29

%6

29

%5

24

%

Killo

ch P

lace

0C

ya

n - E

ve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

00

%0

0%

00

%0

0%

00

%

Ky

le S

tree

t1

4C

ya

n - E

ve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

32

1%

18

12

9%

32

1%

13

93

%1

61

14

%

Lillyb

an

k R

oa

d2

0G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

15

%1

89

0%

73

5%

11

55

%1

47

0%

Ma

cad

am

Pla

ce2

2G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

19

5%

33

15

0%

19

86

%2

31

05

%1

98

6%

Ma

rchm

on

t Ro

ad

14

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

17

9%

42

9%

10

71

%6

43

%6

43

%

Mid

ton

Ro

ad

21

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d6

29

%1

88

6%

52

4%

14

67

%1

04

8%

Mill S

tree

t7

3G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

72

3%

48

66

%1

92

6%

38

52

%5

57

5%

Mille

r Ro

ad

12

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

8%

75

8%

00

%1

41

17

%1

21

00

%

Mo

ntg

om

erie

Te

rrace

44

Ma

ge

nta

- RP

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

27

3%

13

30

%2

86

4%

17

39

%3

78

4%

Ne

w B

ridg

e S

tree

t0

Cy

an

- Eve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

00

%0

0%

00

%0

0%

00

%

No

rth H

arb

ou

r Stre

et

39

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

02

6%

23

59

%1

02

6%

27

69

%1

94

9%

Pa

rk C

ircus

65

Ma

ge

nta

- RP

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d5

78

8%

54

83

%6

19

4%

46

71

%5

07

7%

Pa

rk T

erra

ce2

6M

ag

en

ta - R

P - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

18

1%

14

54

%2

18

1%

22

85

%1

97

3%

Pa

rkh

ou

se S

tree

t1

2C

ya

n - E

ve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

00

%6

50

%0

0%

21

7%

86

7%

Ple

asa

ntfile

d R

oa

d2

3G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d7

30

%8

35

%8

35

%8

35

%1

35

7%

Qu

ee

n's T

erra

ce5

8M

ag

en

ta - R

P - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d4

37

4%

31

53

%4

37

4%

30

52

%3

05

2%

Sa

nd

ga

te3

1C

ya

n - E

ve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

61

9%

30

97

%6

19

%3

09

7%

45

14

5%

Se

ab

an

k R

oa

d7

Ma

ge

nta

- RP

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d0

0%

11

4%

00

%0

0%

00

%

Sm

ith S

tree

t2

3G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d5

22

%2

29

6%

31

3%

25

10

9%

24

10

4%

So

uth

Ha

rbo

ur S

tree

t4

7G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

94

0%

18

38

%2

04

3%

26

55

%1

53

2%

St A

nd

rew

's Stre

et

38

Ma

ge

nta

- RP

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d6

16

%6

16

%9

24

%6

16

%7

18

%

St P

hilla

ns A

ve

nu

e1

5G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d0

0%

21

3%

00

%2

13

%0

0%

Ta

ylo

r Stre

et

20

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d7

35

%8

40

%6

30

%8

40

%7

35

%

Un

na

me

d S

tree

t at E

glin

ton

Te

rr7

Ma

ge

nta

- RP

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d4

57

%5

71

%3

43

%5

71

%5

71

%

Wa

gg

on

Ro

ad

23

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

14

8%

13

57

%1

04

3%

17

74

%1

25

2%

Wa

terlo

o R

oa

d5

4G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

54

6%

13

24

%2

44

4%

21

39

%1

52

8%

We

ave

r Stre

et

26

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

97

3%

28

10

8%

23

88

%3

11

19

%1

86

9%

We

lling

ton

Sq

ua

re8

5C

ya

n - E

ve

nin

g o

nly

(TC

CP

Z)

45

%5

66

6%

45

%3

64

2%

24

28

%

Yo

rk S

tree

t3

8G

ree

n - D

ay

, Eve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

28

4%

26

68

%2

87

4%

25

66

%3

28

4%

US

RN

Stre

et - P

restw

ickC

ap

acity

Su

rve

y T

yp

eT

hu

rsda

y 0

20

0-

06

00

(VO

LUM

E)

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Occu

pa

ncy

Th

ursd

ay

10

00

-

12

00

(VO

LUM

E)

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Occu

pa

ncy

Frid

ay

02

00

-06

00

(VO

LUM

E)

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Occu

pa

ncy

Frid

ay

10

00

-12

00

(VO

LUM

E)

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Occu

pa

ncy

Sa

turd

ay

10

00

-

12

00

(VO

LUM

E)

Pe

rcen

tag

e

Occu

pa

ncy

48

70

04

54

Ale

xa

nd

ra A

ve

nu

e1

4G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

42

9%

85

7%

75

0%

11

79

%8

57

%

48

70

06

10

An

nfie

ld R

oa

d2

2G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

21

95

%1

15

0%

22

10

0%

18

82

%1

88

2%

48

70

06

11

An

nfie

ld T

erra

ce1

6G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

11

69

%6

38

%8

50

%8

50

%8

50

%

48

70

81

99

Ay

r Ro

ad

0G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

00

%0

0%

00

%0

0%

00

%

48

70

06

15

Ba

nk

Stre

et

45

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

65

8%

12

27

%2

45

3%

17

38

%3

27

1%

48

70

34

33

Be

llev

ue

Ro

ad

17

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

18

%7

41

%2

12

%6

35

%5

29

%

48

70

04

67

Be

rela

nd

s Ro

ad

14

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

07

1%

53

6%

10

71

%1

17

9%

53

6%

48

70

04

70

Bo

yd

Stre

et

18

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d8

44

%9

50

%8

44

%5

28

%7

39

%

48

70

04

71

Bo

yd

field

Av

en

ue

22

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

21

00

%2

21

00

%2

21

00

%1

67

3%

16

73

%

48

70

04

73

Bria

rhill R

oa

d1

3G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

18

%4

31

%2

15

%3

23

%4

31

%

48

70

06

20

Brid

ge

Stre

et

12

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

25

%9

75

%3

25

%1

19

2%

97

5%

48

70

04

76

Bro

om

pa

rk A

ve

nu

e1

9G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

12

63

%9

47

%1

26

3%

12

63

%1

47

4%

48

70

04

78

Bu

rnsid

e G

ard

en

s9

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

22

%2

22

%1

01

11

%9

10

0%

44

4%

48

70

04

80

Ca

erla

ve

rock

Av

en

ue

11

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d6

55

%1

09

1%

54

5%

76

4%

87

3%

48

70

04

81

Ca

erla

ve

rock

Ro

ad

47

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

06

4%

27

57

%3

16

6%

26

55

%2

75

7%

48

70

06

24

Co

chra

ne

Pla

ce1

1G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

00

%1

9%

21

8%

21

8%

32

7%

48

70

70

85

Cro

fthe

ad

Ro

ad

7G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

68

6%

10

14

3%

71

00

%6

86

%6

86

%

48

70

05

01

Ga

rdin

er S

tree

t1

4G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

10

71

%1

17

9%

10

71

%6

43

%1

28

6%

48

70

34

39

Hu

nte

r Stre

et

15

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

38

7%

18

12

0%

14

93

%2

11

40

%1

81

20

%

48

70

34

42

Kirk

Stre

et

25

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

49

6%

40

16

0%

24

96

%3

21

28

%2

91

16

%

48

70

34

43

Ky

le S

tree

t1

9G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

21

1%

11

58

%4

21

%9

47

%8

42

%

48

70

34

44

Lad

yk

irk R

oa

d1

0G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

99

0%

66

0%

55

0%

33

0%

10

10

0%

48

70

34

46

Leslie

Te

rrace

12

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d5

42

%9

75

%4

33

%7

58

%6

50

%

48

70

77

58

Ma

in S

tree

t6

2G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

81

3%

54

87

%6

10

%4

97

9%

42

68

%

48

70

34

58

Me

ikle

wo

od

Av

en

ue

11

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

11

00

%9

82

%1

21

09

%1

09

1%

10

91

%

48

70

35

49

Mid

ton

Av

en

ue

12

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d8

67

%3

25

%1

19

2%

43

3%

86

7%

48

70

34

60

Mid

ton

Ro

ad

67

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

03

0%

54

81

%2

23

3%

41

61

%4

16

1%

48

70

05

34

Mo

nk

ton

Ro

ad

0G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

00

%0

0%

00

%0

0%

00

%

48

70

34

65

Mo

rris Ro

ad

10

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

11

10

%6

60

%1

41

40

%8

80

%8

80

%

48

70

74

67

Ne

w D

yk

es R

oa

d2

5G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

17

68

%1

24

8%

15

60

%1

24

8%

15

60

%

48

70

34

80

Sa

lisbu

ry P

lace

10

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d9

90

%1

41

40

%9

90

%1

41

40

%1

51

50

%

48

70

34

81

Sa

nd

field

Ro

ad

17

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

18

%8

47

%3

18

%6

35

%5

29

%

48

70

34

84

Sa

un

tern

e R

oa

d1

3G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

96

9%

11

85

%8

62

%8

62

%8

62

%

48

70

75

58

Sm

ith S

tree

t4

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d3

75

%1

25

%3

75

%2

50

%3

75

%

48

70

34

97

St Jo

hn

Stre

et

17

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d1

37

6%

95

3%

13

76

%1

16

5%

14

82

%

48

70

34

98

St Q

uiv

ox R

oa

d3

3G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

17

52

%2

16

4%

18

55

%2

26

7%

19

58

%

48

70

35

00

Sta

tion

Driv

e2

7G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

62

2%

22

81

%8

30

%2

59

3%

12

44

%

48

70

78

70

Sta

tion

Ro

ad

7G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

71

00

%5

71

%6

86

%5

71

%6

86

%

48

70

35

06

Te

mp

lerig

g S

tree

t1

9G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

18

95

%9

47

%1

78

9%

11

58

%1

68

4%

48

70

05

85

Th

e C

ross

0G

ree

n - D

ay

, Ev

en

ing

& W

ee

ke

nd

00

%0

0%

00

%0

0%

00

%

48

70

35

10

Th

e R

igg

s9

Gre

en

- Da

y, E

ve

nin

g &

We

ek

en

d2

22

%2

22

%2

22

%3

33

%2

22

%

Job No Report No Issue no Report Name Page SCT3652 SCT3652-001d 1 South Ayrshire Council Residents Parking Study G1

Appendix G

Figures

south ayrshire council residents parking study final... · job no report no issue no report name...

Documents