It’s been five years since the government started a consultation on pavement parking and today, the government have announced new powers for local authorities to help keep accessible pavements for those who rely on them the most. This is clearly a step in the right direction but forgive me if I’m not jumping for joy just yet.

Clearer legal powers matter, there’s no question there. For years, councils have cited ambiguity, complexity and lack of authority as reasons for their lack of action around pavement parking. Removing that uncertainty is welcome.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: powers alone don’t guarantee that things will change. It’s not cynical to say that – it’s realistic.

What this pavement parking announcement does (and doesn’t) do

Let’s be clear about what’s actually changed.

This is not a nationwide ban on pavement parking, as Living Streets and myself were campaigning for. It doesn’t create a consistent, enforceable rule that applies equally wherever you live. Instead, it gives local authorities more discretion and flexibility to tackle the issue if they choose to. And that’s the problem.

This announcement makes accessibility optional. And when accessibility depends upon discretion rather than duty, outcomes become uneven. For disabled people, parents with pushchairs, the visually impaired or anyone who needs clear space to get around safely, uneven enforcement usually means continued exclusion.

Why concern isn’t cynicism

Most people affected by pavement parking already know how this plays out.

Blocked pavements are reported.
Complaints are logged.
Photos are submitted.
And nothing ever happens – or action only happens afters weeks, months or sadly, a near miss incident.

I’d like to think this isn’t because councils don’t care. It’s because they are stretched, under-resourced and often reluctant to enforce something that is both culturally normalised and politically unpopular.

Parking enforcement is rarely a vote-winner. Accessibility, all too often, is treated as a nice-to-have optional.

So when new powers are granted but without a clear expectation to use them, it’s reasonable to worry they will only be applied in the most extreme or visible cases – rather than preventing harm in the first place.

That’s not negativity. It’s lived experience.

The risk of postcode accessibility

One of the biggest dangers to this approach is inconsistency. Whilst some councils may act decisively (I’m still an optimist!), others may use the powers sparingly or not at all.

The result is a postcode lottery of accessibility. For wheelchair users, and those who use mobility aids and pushchairs, blocked pavements isn’t just an inconvenience – it’s a real safety issue which endangers lives.

Discretion without accountability doesn’t change behaviour

Another concern is that without clear guidance, monitoring, and reporting, these powers may remain reactive rather than preventative.

If enforcement only happens:

• After repeated complaints
• In high-profile locations
• Or once harm has already occurred

…then the underlying behaviour doesn’t change.

Drivers continue to park “just for a minute”. Pavements remain partially blocked. And the burden stays with the person affected to keep reporting, explaining, and justifying why access matters. The fatigue is real, take it from someone who knows.

That’s not a sustainable model.

What would turn this into real progress?

This announcement could be a turning point — but only if it’s followed by action.

Real progress would look like:

• Clear national guidance on when and how councils should use these powers
• Consistent enforcement, not selective application
• Transparent reporting on complaints received and action taken
• Meaningful involvement of disabled people and other affected groups in local decision-making

In other words: powers, yes — but also expectations, accountability, and follow-through.

A cautious welcome, not a standing ovation

It’s right to acknowledge movement in the right direction. Legal clarity helps. Recognition of the problem matters.

But many of us have learned the hard way that permission is not the same as progress.

Until clear pavements are treated as a basic access requirement — not a nice-to-have, not a courtesy, not something to be balanced against convenience — too many people will continue to be pushed aside.

Sometimes literally.

So no, being cautious isn’t cynical. It’s simply refusing to mistake an announcement for an outcome.

And hoping — firmly, persistently — that this time, the powers turn into action.