Objecting to TRO/19/29

Currently the council are proposing adding parking spaces around Edinburgh, and particularly in front of the school. We object strongly to this. You can see the plans here: 


Select Zone 8 and view 1808, 1809 and 1867.

The formal Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) documents can be found below:




In order to object to these proposals, members of the public have until the 26th November to write to the council. Please consider doing so – the email address to write to is:


You should state in the email that you wish to object to TRO/19/29 and give your reasons why. You must also give your name and physical address when submitting your objection.

If it is helpful we have prepared the following example text:

I strongly object to the planned extra parking provision on Warrender Park Road outside James Gillespie’s Primary School, as shown in TRO/19/29, zone 8, figures 1808, 1809 and 1867. There are several reasons why this should not be considered.

— Existing situation.
Several years ago, the school gate was moved from Whitehouse Loan, where it had the correct “School Keep Clear” zig-zag markings (no waiting at any time), to its position now on Warrender Park Road. For reasons unknown, the keep-clear zig-zags were never moved along with the gate – this is clearly a failing that the school have long campaigned to have rectified. At present the school gate has a single yellow line outside it which is widely abused by drivers during peak hours.

— Congestion outside the school.
Already the traffic outside the school where the children arrive is excessive to the point where accidents have already occurred and many parents feel very scared to cross the road with their children. Increasing parking here would reduce space and add to the potential volume of traffic. The headteacher already spends a great deal of time ensuring this area is kept clear of parking and there are two prospective council plans to further reduce traffic in this area. Adding more parking spaces is a retrograde step at a time when it is vital we persuade people out of their cars.

— Pollution outside the school gates.
The school’s ECO-committee is actively engaged with monitoring air quality outside the school. It is clear already that the pollution levels near the school are at toxic levels – the stench of petrol and diesel fumes, particularly during the winter months, is physically sickening. Measurements of particulates in excess of the World Health Organisation (WHO) safe limits of 20 micrograms/m3 have been observed by local pollution monitors. Increasing traffic near the school will make this worse and be detrimental to the health of the children and anyone living nearby.

— Road safety initiatives.
The school has been at the forefront of promoting healthier and more active ways of travelling to school. There is a biweekly bike bus which brings around 100 children to the school safely. Other initiatives including walking buses are planned. Adding parking around this area jeopardises the safety of more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists at a time when we must be promoting more sustainable and active travel.

— General
Increasing the availability of parking within the city will attract more cars into the city and runs contrary to the council’s own policies of traffic reduction, travel hierarchy (walking, cycling and public transport prioritised first) and the global climate emergency.

— Remediation
I would be prepared to withdraw my objection if the plans are changed so that the yellow lines outside the school gate (on both sides of Warrender Park Road) are not converted to parking bays and that instead the proper “School – Keep Clear” zig-zag lines are installed outside the school gate.

Some other concerns that you may wish to consider including in your objection:

  1. Extra parking provision at the junction of Warrender Park Terrace and Spottiswoode St, zone 8, figure 1750.
    The extra parking provision (yellow lines converted to bays) on the north side of Warrender Pk Rd is currently where several large communal bins are located. If this area is converted to parking the bins will be moved further down the street and then block access to the footpaths on Bruntsfield Links for pedestrians. The bins already obstruct sightlines for pedestrians crossing. The additional end-on parking bays will further block sightlines – this will create additional danger to pedestrians.
    This is already a very difficult junction to cross for pedestrians given the long crossing distances, obstructed sightlines, and sweeping bend radii allowing fast motor vehicle movements.
  2. Extra parking provision, end-on bays at the junction of Meadow Place and Melville Drive, zone 8, figure 1750.
    The newly created end-on bays will create additional danger from reversing/manoeuvring cars to pedestrians and cyclists travelling along Meadow Place. This is a very popular walking and cycling route and pedestrians often walk in the carriageway (as they are entitled to do so) because of narrow pavements and the fact the street is blocked to motor traffic at one end.
  3. Removal of the loading bay at the junction of Warrender Park Rd and Spottiswoode St, zone 8, figure 1809.
    The double-yellow lines outside Margiotta’s are currently used as an informal loading bay to service the shop. If these are converted to parking bays, as per the TRO, there will be nowhere for the enormous 26tonne lorries that deliver to the shop to unload. They will end up double-parking, which will increase danger to road users, particularly vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists.
  4. Extra parking provision, Whitehouse Loan near the junction with Warrender Pk Rd, zone 8, figure 1808.
    This location is right next to the Primary School crossing, which is patrolled by a lollipop person. She already suffers a great deal of difficulty attending to both the Warrender Pk Rd crossing and the Whitehouse Loan crossing at the same time, due to poor driver behaviour. The conversion of single yellow lines to parking bays in this area will increase vehicle movements and restrict sightlines, which in turn will increase danger to the school children crossing (and indeed the lollipop person themselves).
  5. Future bike storage units (bike hangars).
    The conversion of double- and single-yellow lines to parking bays will make it more difficult in the future to increase the provision of on-street bike storage hangers. This is contrary to the council’s own transport hierarchy of walking, cycling, public transport, etc.
  6. General – extra parking provision.
    Increasing the availability of parking within the city will attract more cars into the city and runs contrary to the council’s own policies of traffic reduction, travel hierarchy (walking, cycling and public transport prioritised first) and the global climate emergency.
  7. Sunday parking restrictions.
    I support the additional restrictions to Sunday parking, it’s a shame that the council have conflated the Sunday parking restrictions with increased parking across the city in the same TRO.

General information on all TROs can be found here:


Response from the council

The Parking Action Plan offers responses to comments submitted by objectors.

Relating to the provision of new parking places alongside an existing section of pedestrian guardrail outside James Gillespies School in Warrender Park Road, the response from the council is as follows:

Zone 8 is the second most oversubscribed zone within the CPZ. There is a clear need to create additional parking opportunities for those who live in this part of the city centre.

The proposal is, therefore, for additional parking designed to serve an existing demand from permit holders in this densely populated area of the city, with a view to providing as close to 1:1 parking provision as possible. Provision at the present time stands at 1 space per 1.48 permits. Even with the proposed amendments to the layout of parking, it has not been possible to achieve a 1:1 ratio. It is, therefore, vitally important that we make use of as much of the kerbside space as we can in order to support those residents who pay to park their vehicles on-street.

With this in mind, it is highly likely that the spaces involved [outside the school gate] will be occupied much of the time by permit holders and that the presence of parked vehicles in this location will support the joint efforts of the school and the Council to discourage parent drop-off.

This is a very disappointing response because:

  • New spaces will generate new demand. This is known as “induced-demand”. The reason the ratio of permits to spaces is held at 1.48, and doesn’t rise exponentially until every household has 3 cars, is exactly because some people will look at how full the parking is and think, “it’s just not worth buying a permit (or second permit)”. Increasing the number of spaces will simply encourage more people to buy permits and the ratio will remain exactly the same (or may even get worse). Trying to achieve is 1:1 ratio would be completely impossible (without raising permit prices hugely) because the demand for parking space is insatiable.
  • The last paragraph is some fairly twisted logic: By letting people park outside the school gate, we’re discouraging people from parking outside the school gate? How can this do anything other than worsen safety for children?