This blog, plus additional exclusive content, was published last Friday on my free Mobility Matters newsletter. You can sign up for the newsletter by clicking here.

The debate over pavement parking in the United Kingdom has long been a battleground between the fundamental right to accessible footways and the practical realities of operating a highway. For years, campaigners representing the visually impaired, wheelchair users, and parents with pushchairs have called for a national, London-style ban on parking on the pavement. When the Department for Transport (DfT) recently confirmed its direction of travel—eschewing a blanket nationwide prohibition in favour of giving local authorities more targeted powers—the reaction from many advocacy groups was one of sharp, understandable disappointment.

As a matter of principle, I completely agree with them. Pavement parking is unacceptable, makes the lives of vulnerable people a misery, and yes it probably should be banned. But as I followed the reaction and digested the government response to the consultation, the practical side of my brain took hold. Might there actually be a method in what is seen as the DfT’s madness? Have they actually prioritised something that may be workable over something that is symbolic. I feel that they might just have done so.

Lincoln (Blanche Lincoln, not that other Lincoln you are likely thinking about) said that…

It certainly makes no sense to enact more laws if we cannot, or do not, enforce the ones we have.

This is a logic that I apply here. We can write laws and statute that make pavement parking illegal, but unless there is the capability to enforce it, then it counts for nothing. And as anyone who has walked down any British street recently might attest, our current parking laws are not strictly enforced.

A significant trend has emerged in British transport policy over the last three decades: the decriminalisation of stationary traffic offences. Historically, obstructing the highway was a matter for the police. However, as police resources have been stretched and prioritised toward violent crime and public safety, parking enforcement has transitioned into a civil matter managed by local authorities.

The 2020 Managing Pavement Parking consultation laid out three clear paths. Option 1 was a simple improvement to the existing Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process. Option 2 proposed allowing councils with Civil Parking Enforcement powers to enforce against unnecessary obstruction. Option 3 was the campaigners’ choice: a national prohibition.

While 71 per cent of individual respondents and 54 per cent of organisations favoured the national ban, the majority of local authorities—56 per cent—backed Option 2. Reading some of the responses of councils that have been published online (a good many have not), what emerges is not a lack of empathy on behalf of councils. It is the cold and hard reality of enforcement.

Councils understood that a national ban would require a significant administrative effort and physical audit of every single street in England to determine where exemptions were necessary. Without people on the ground to enforce such a ban, the law would exist only on paper.

The central factor often ignored by national campaigners is that the local government funding model in the United Kingdom is fundamentally broken. Councils are currently operating under a perfect storm of soaring inflation, a decade of real-term funding cuts, and an explosion in demand for statutory services. Meanwhile, the primary means of raising revenue (Council Tax) is effectively capped at 4.99% for highway and transport authorities. In this environment, adding a new statutory duty like a national pavement parking ban is not just a policy change; it is an unfunded mandate that risks pushing more authorities toward financial collapse.

As of 2026, the financial state of town halls is dire. Reports from the Local Government Association and UNISON highlight a funding gap exceeding £4 billion across the sector. Many councils, including high-profile examples like Birmingham, Shropshire, and Nottingham, have been forced to issue Section 114 notices—effectively declaring bankruptcy—or apply for exceptional financial support from the Government.

When a council is underfunded and under-resourced, every new duty involves a brutal trade-off. Unlike central government, councils must legally balance their budgets every year. If they are forced to spend millions on auditing streets, installing signs, and hiring enforcement officers for a pavement parking ban, that money must come from somewhere.

For councils that do not cover their enforcement costs through parking income—particularly those in rural or less affluent areas—this trade-off is zero-sum. To fund a pavement parking regime, a non-statutory service must go. This means closing libraries, shutting youth centres, or ceasing the maintenance of local parks. In these scenarios, one group of campaigners wins, but others—the families who rely on local play areas or the elderly who use library services—lose out entirely. Councils have increasingly become social care providers who also happen to run libraries, planning, trading standards, and highways. Every penny of discretionary spending has already been stripped to the bone to meet legal obligations in care and homelessness.

A recurring argument from those outside the local government bubble is that parking enforcement pays for itself through fines. The majority of councils do at least cover their parking service costs through parking income through fines and selling parking tickets. But there is nuance to this. While this ‘operating surplus’ is at nearly £1.2 billion across England in recent years, this income is heavily concentrated in London and major city centres. In fact, over half of the surplus is generated just within London, which already has a pavement parking ban.

The Department for Transport estimates the cost just in terms of capital to set up a national pavement parking ban to be as high as £35 million. This does not include payment for actually enforcing it, which is classed as revenue spend. Furthermore, parking income is strictly ring-fenced under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. These funds must be (and are) reinvested into transport-related expenditure, such as road maintenance and concessionary bus fares.

For a small district council, the upfront cost of establishing the ban, and the extra cost of running an enforcement team can easily outstrip the revenue generated by fines. When you are legally obliged to balance your budget each year, this is a significant challenge.

The implementation of Scotland’s national ban provides an interesting case study for England. In January 2024, Edinburgh became the first city in Scotland to actively enforce the new rules. While the moral victory for accessibility groups was clear, monitoring reports highlight the specific challenges of delivery.

In areas like Portobello and Muirhouse, the ban led to immediate parking displacement. Vehicles that previously tucked onto the pavement moved fully into the road. On narrow streets, this created a new form of obstruction: buses were unable to pass, and waste collection teams reported significant delays. Lothian Buses raised formal concerns about several routes where parked cars effectively narrowed the carriageway to a single lane, causing gridlock during peak hours that buses and their passengers got stuck in.

To fix these unintended consequences, the council has had to implement further waiting and loading restrictions—essentially double yellow lines—to keep the roads moving. This highlights the complexity of the issue. While moving cars off the pavement is arguably a right thing to do, it is more than likely that the majority of people will not sell these cars, and so they will need to go somewhere. That creates new problems that need fixing, sometimes for other sustainable transport users. For an underfunded council, the cost of managing this displacement is an added layer of financial strain they are ill-equipped to handle.

But there is hope. Perhaps the most compelling evidence that the Department for Transport may be (if by accident) getting it right lies in its push for Digital Traffic Regulation Orders (D-TROs). While a national ban sounds simple, the bureaucratic and physical infrastructure required to support it under current laws is staggering.

Traditional Traffic Regulation Orders are archaic, paper-based documents. To implement a local parking ban today, a council must often follow a process that has barely changed since the 1980s. This includes a mandatory requirement to advertise proposed changes in local print newspapers—a statutory burden that costs UK highway authorities millions every year. For many councils, this single administrative hurdle is enough to kill a small-scale pavement parking project before it even begins.

The shift to D-TROs, accelerated by the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, changes the financial calculus entirely. By moving to a standardised, map-based digital format, councils can bypass the printing press. More importantly for the pavement parking debate, digitalisation offers a way out of the repeater signage trap.

Currently, a prohibition is often only enforceable if it is accompanied by frequent physical signs. This creates a massive capital outlay for the council and significant street clutter for the community. In a digital-first world, the restriction lives in a centralised database accessed by enforcement software and sat-navs. The Department for Transport has already signalled that new interim civil enforcement powers will not require additional physical signage. This effectively removes the single biggest capital barrier to entry, allowing councils to protect footways with a click of a button rather than having a road crew go out, dig holes, put up a pole and sign, and watch it get taken out within 6 months by someone who struggles to reverse a two tonne metal box.

It is important to acknowledge that the frustration of campaigners is deeply rooted in lived experience. For a visually impaired person, a car on the pavement is not a minor inconvenience; it is a dangerous barrier that can force them into the path of moving traffic. The moral argument for a national ban is unimpeachable. You can also – rightly – make the case that delivering a ban is a matter of priorities and will. A view which has my 100% sympathy.

Yet, in my view at least, the shrewdest way to deliver the campaigners’ ultimate goal—clear pavements—is to ensure that the people who have to do the work believe the system is sustainable and workable. By listening to councils and choosing a targeted, digital-led approach to enforcement, the Department for Transport is building a regime that can actually be delivered on the ground.

A law that is ignored because it is too expensive to sign or too difficult to enforce is like having no law at all, as it breeds contempt for the rules of the road. By empowering councils to target the worst-affected areas first and allowing them to manage displacement through local knowledge and digital tools, the government is creating a foundation for a culture change in how we view our footways. The DfT has not abandoned the pedestrian; it has simply chosen a path that the enforcers can actually follow, within a financial reality too well known by Council officers across the land.

Having said all of this, if the Department for Transport had announced a national ban, I probably would have been jubilant about it. So strong is the moral case for doing it. We as professionals now owe it to campaigners who are bitterly disappointed that the approach chosen by the Government is made to work to improve their lives. That is the very least we can do.