Churchill Retirement Living is consulting on the latest proposal to redevelop the empty supermarket site on Upper Galdeford. The proposal is for around 45 retirement flats, considerable increase on the 19 apartments in the previous proposal from Morris Property. There will two shops on the Upper Galdeford/Tower Street frontage but much smaller than under the Morris plans.

Whereas the Morris scheme had a fourth floor which was set back from the lower three floors, this scheme is four storeys straight up. The result is a building that looks far bulkier that the Morris scheme, which itself looked rather bulky.

The design is best described as uninspiring.

The consultation is open until 18 November after which a full planning application will be submitted.

The site has been unused since Budgens closed in 2018 (before Budgens it was the Co-op and before that Somerfield). The building is little more than a brick shed and has been in increasingly poor condition. There is no doubt that it needs to be demolished and replaced.

Typical of Churchill developments, such as Betjeman House on Corve Street, the style of the proposed building is traditional rather than modern. This is an important gateway into Ludlow and I don’t think the new plans do justice for such an important site.

Churchill Retirement Living are consulting on a scheme for 45 one and two bed apartments with 13 car parking spaces and a small private garden. There is a planning requirement for two small shops on the Tower Street and Upper Galdeford frontage.

The alley between the former Budgens and One Stop will remain and will be improved.

There is no doubt that there is demand for retirement properties across Shropshire as out population ages faster than the national average, mostly due to people retiring here. But the pressing need is for affordable housing and housing for younger people. However, there are no local or national planning rules that give a preference to housing for younger people.

There will be affordable housing, either for sale at least 20% discount or provided for rent by a social housing provider. The consultation document does not give details of affordable housing, which will be supplied in the full planning application.

The bulk of the proposal is such I expect it to be carefully scrutinised by Heritage England and Shropshire Council’s conservation team as it will impinge on views of the tower of St Laurence’s church.

The consultation runs until 18 November.

Ground floor plan
View from Upper Galdeford and Tower Street
East elevation (from car park entrance)
9 thought on “Another set of plans for the former Budgens in Ludlow out for consultation”
  1. Uninspiring and out of scale. Simply seeking to extract the maximum profit from the site. Emphasis should be on shops/workshops with affordable accommodation over.

  2. I agree – a design with nil consideration for the site position or the larger town context. Could have been prepared by a 16-year old.

    More importantly, it raises a larger question. Do we want Ludlow’s ‘food’ reputation (which is of considerable value to the local economy) to be gradually supplanted by a repuation for the largest concentration of retirement properties outside Bournemouth and suchlike? This further imbalances the demographic of the town and does not promote a sustainable future.

    1. 1. This is a monstrous piece of architecture out of scale with the surrounding buildings
      2. 45 flats is far too many especially as the demand for Churchill’s development in Corve Street is still struggling to sell of remaining flats. Plus with only 13 parking spaces it will impact on parking in the public car park used by visitors and shoppers who contribute to the towns economy already
      Ludlow needs sympathetically designed and truly affordable flats for YOUNG people and families.

    2. Sorry I moved to the area in 2017.
      The Ludlow ‘Food’, reputation is blown out of all proportion. Retirement properties may well bring in some decent ‘Food’ establishments. You are trying to live on a history that is no longer in existence, and is from a Ludlow of 10-15 years ago. Going out to eat in Ludlow is one of the most disappointing experiences going!

  3. Deeply uninspiring, and in size, overwhelming. How can 13 parking spaces possibly be adequate for over 40 apartments? Even if half are non-drivers (unlikely) that does not allow for the occupants. And at the top of the hill that identifies the town centre, and hence dominates the town, surely the architects can do better than this?

  4. I would echo concerns already stated, and in addition to the aesthetics and size of development, l would add that Churchill are extremely costly and vulture like in their rapacious pursuit of milking such developments to asset strip their residents. The apartments at Betjeman Lodge on Corfe street are expensive beyond compare and when they are sold on by the owner(s), most likely for less than they purchased them for, Churchill ensure they still get a percentage of that sale also to pop in their pockets. Such blatant exploitation is not the kind of development we need in Ludlow to support aging residents and l very much doubt their claiming to provide affordable housing at a 20% discount will be of any use – a 1 bedroom flat on the 2nd floor at Betjeman lodge 2 years ago cost £230000!

  5. I believe it to be better than what there is now. There are a number of eyesores in Ludlow just take a look around as it is not so difficult to find them!

  6. The sad fact that Ludlow already has ‘eyesores’ is absolutely no reason to add to them! To provide yet more housing for older people is misguided, when the clear need to sustain Ludlow for the future is to build affordable flats and houses for young people.
    Furthermore, the proposed building is unimaginative, and totally fails to provide an attractive entrance to the town centre. The site lends itself to shops and workshops at street level, with affordable housing above, aimed at younger people.
    The current proposal from Churchill should be emphatically rejected.

  7. Absolutely awful design and proposed usage. There must be a way by which the developers are forced to provide affordable accommodation, to buy/rent for people who are the core young labour force for other businesses in the town – health, retail, social services, hospitality etc. The lack of suitable accommodation for such workers is holding back the development of the regeneration of the town as a whole following the effects of Covid. The current cost of living pressures make travelling into town for work unviable.

Comments are closed.

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading