-
Case ref:201002903
-
Date:June 2011
-
Body:The City of Edinburgh Council
-
Sector:Local Government
-
Outcome:Not upheld, no recommendations
-
Subject:disabled parking bays; tram works
Summary
As part of the Edinburgh Trams project, the City of Edinburgh Council have carried out works to alter the road network in some areas of Edinburgh City Centre. The changes to the road network to support the new tram infrastructure were carried out using a series of public consultations in conjunction with Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs).
The council decided to relocate the disabled parking bays in Frederick Street from near Princes Street to near George Street as part of this programme. Mrs C raised a number of specific issues about this change. These included the accessibility of the new location, the process of consultation (which she felt did not include disability groups or interaction with the blue badge scheme), and an assurance she said the council had given to reverse the change when possible. Mrs C was also unhappy with the reasons given to support the change and said that the changes breached her human rights and the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act.
Our investigation looked at the regulations that councils must follow when applying for TROs and at guidance issued by the Disability Rights Commission and the Scottish Government. As changes to road management can only be made as part of the TRO process, our investigation was restricted to considering whether the process had been followed out appropriately.
During the investigation, we found that the council had complied with the guidance and procedures. This included appropriate consultation with disability groups and compliance with the appropriate guidance. There was no link between the blue badge scheme and the positioning of disabled spaces that the council needed to consider and the reasons the council gave were reasonable. We found no evidence that the council had given a specific assurance that the change would be reversed.
While we did not uphold any aspect of the complaint, we accepted that Mrs C had been affected by the change. We noted that there would likely be a further opportunity for Mrs C and disability groups to comment on the change as part of any future TRO which would follow completion of the tram scheme itself.