Shropshire Council has published draft Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIP) for the eight largest towns, including Ludlow.

There are many significant proposals in the Ludlow LCWIP. Some will be controversial. Some don’t seem practical. Some would need significant funding. That said, the consultation provides a useful starting point for discussions on walking and cycling in Ludlow and the surrounding area.

Among the proposals are closure of King Street and High Street to most traffic. Brand Lane might become lights controlled two way access to the centre. Residential traffic might be routed along Silk Mill Lane. Castle Street car park might be closed except for traders vans. Low Traffic Neighbourhoods might be created on Livesey and St Julians Road, along with Steventon New Road.

Consultation on these early stage proposals will close on 16 June.

Shropshire Council launched an online consultation. A drop in session will be held come rain or shine  from 9:00am to 12:30pm on Thursday 11 May, on Events Square in front of the Castle. Online seminars will be held at 6:00pm on 18 and 25 May. These will be countywide. Workshops will be held in schools during week beginning 16 June.

The LCWIP report and consultation makes an unhelpful distinction between proposals for walking and proposals for cycling when they are inextricably linked. There are more than 50 recommendations for improving pedestrian access and comfort and cycle routes and cyclist safety, some also apply to equestrian access. Below, I summarise the main themes:

  • Closures: Tower Street. King Street. Foldgate Lane, access only to create a cycle and equestrian route. High Street (except for market access) either by signalising Bell Lane or using Silk Mill Lane and Bell Lane as an in/out for resident access.
  • Rail Station. Improve streetscape outside the station, including a continuous footway. Make the connection between the station and the town centre to make easier to navigate.
  • Pavements. Increase width of footways along Corve Street by taking space from the wide carriageway. Increase crossing points along Corve Street and within the town centre, including dropped kerbs for disability access. Improve and extend shared path on Bromfield Road from Ludlow School, improve and increase pedestrian crossings and introduce cycle lanes.
  • Car parks. Convert Castle Street car park to an open community space and parking for market traders, reducing the traffic flow through the town centre.
  • 20mph speed limits: Extend town centre 20mph zone to Lower Corve Street 20mph zone.  Fishmore Road with restricted on-road parking, improvements to the roundabout. Sheet Village. Extend 20 mph on Bromfield Road.
  • Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: St Julians Avenue and Livesey Road to stop through traffic. Steventon New Road.
  • A49 bypass: A bridleway connection from Ledwyche Rise to Ludlow Business Park across the A49 passing the biodigester to Coder Road. A bridleway connection from Henley Grange across the A49 to the Riddings.
  • Cycle Lanes: Parys Road, improve existing cycle lanes including bypasses of traffic calming measures. Tower Street. King Street. Extend lanes on Bromfield Road.
  • Quiet Lanes: Caynham to Sheet. Steventon to Ludlow.
17 thought on “LCWIP: Consultation on walking and cycling plans for Ludlow begins”
  1. I don’t agree with any of these measures and it will destroy the local business and market footfall. I don’t agree with pitting a green space in castle square car park it’s the last thing we need here we want town centre access and parking for all. I don’t support these ideas one bit.

  2. The pavements in Corve Street are plenty wide enough for the foot traffic there. The wide carriageway is historic. However, dropped kerbs to assist wheelchair users are always a good idea, cost little, and don’t change the character of a street.

    As a cyclist, I generally walk my bike through the town centre anyway. I would like some proposals for traffic-free cycling heading out of Ludlow to the nearby villages.

    Traffic lights controlling 2-way access to Bell Lane would be frustrating and be hated by me and, I suspect, other motorists.

    As so often with the proposals listed above, much of it seems to me to merit the old adage “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

    Thank you for your web site and your consulting with townspeople in this way.

  3. We need a cycle/foot path along the A49, from the food centre through Rocks Green all the way to Sheet road and further to the new Ludlow Green estate. People are having to walk on the verge of this dangerous road. And there is ample room along the West of the road for most of the way.

  4. Reading through the proposals, it is quite obvious that the planners haven’t thought them through. The loss of a central car park will result in the death of the town centre and increase illegally parked cars. It is almost impossible to park in the town as it is, without removing capacity.
    Corve Street does not need wider pavements, but more dropped kerbs are needed.
    Why does the centre of Ludlow need an equestrian route ? Quite frankly cyclists do as they want via Tower Street and King Street. They do not adhere to the rules that both roads are an one way system and quite often ride the wrong way down King Street in to traffic and have no respect for pedestrians in Tower Street, which if I recall, does not allow traffic between 10am – 4pm (?). It is not the younger riders, but older riders, who when you try to ask them not to ride get extremely verbally aggressive. I have had more near misses walking through Ludlow with cyclists, than I have ever had with vehicles. Also they want cycle lanes, but don’t seem to use them where they are situated in Ludlow
    The low traffic proposal for Julian & Livesey makes no sense at all, this is a main route from the town to the Sandpits/Clee View/Dahn Drive and surrounding areas. The alternative routes would be either via Lower Galdeford/Sydney Road, or Gravel Hill. Both routes have their challenges, Sydney Road can be difficult to negotiate due to it effectively being a one track road due to it’s width and residents parking. Gravel Hill is also challenging due to parked cars, but also the shocking state of the road.
    I must agree with Mr Vowles, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Let’s concentrate on the real things that matter, such as the state of the roads in town, affordable housing and shops that cater for the majority of the population, not the visitors.

  5. Before pedestrianising Ludlow completely, remember that this is a very hilly town with a population more ageing than average. That is to say, not yet at the walking frame stage, but not up to getting to Events Square 30 minutes after the buses have stopped.
    To see the effects of such policies, take a look at the remains of Leatherhead, historic market town. RIP.

  6. We’ve just closed the town centre to traffic for several days due to the May Fair. Ask traders, and they all seem to say it was bad for business. Why inflict difficulty of access at all times? Nobody seemed concerned that access to the centre for the disabled etc was made very hard. I know it’s a side issue, but perhaps it’s time the fair moved to eg the rugby club like the Spring Festival, or to the park and ride site.

  7. So Shropshire council want to spend some money in Ludlow. About time however it’s all wrong. Widen the pavements in corve street. Really!!. How wide do you want them ? They are some of the widest in the town.
    Close off king street, what for ? To kill the town. How can the elderly, disabled get into town. It’s to far to walk from corve street bus stop up to the top end of town. As for driving down silk mill lane, are you mad? .Traffic lights in bell lane, good luck with that one. How do you think they are going to feel. Your also trying to make it access only to livesey which is a wider road yet your adding more traffic both ways to bell lane. I have no idea who sits in there office and thinks these things up.
    I agree with above comments. “If it’s not broke why change it”

    I think you have a fight on your hands with this one. Bring it on.

  8. I definitely agree with making Kim Street into a pedestrian zone. Having worked for 8 years for one of the shops in King Street some time ago we noticed that people would often hurry past because the pavement was so narrow. If it’s pedestrianised people would have space to stop and view what is in the shops and therefore increasing trade.
    Castle St car park not sure about. Nice idea but parking is surely needed there for the disabled.
    Agree with previous comment re Julian Avenue and Livesey Rd. That is the main thoroughfare for traffic to reach all the housing beyond and to divert traffic along Gravel Hill then Sandpits Rd is lunacy unless there are double yellow lines all along these roads which would make residents and non residents raging.
    Pavements in Corve St are plenty wide enough so don’t waste money but yes to more dropped kerbs.
    Yes to Rail Station improvements and again agree with suggestion of cycle lane from Bromfield to Rocks Green
    Another suggestion- a footpath leading from the Henley footpath along to Middleton. This is a dangerous road with blind bends but is only 3 miles from Ludlow so one should be able to walk into Ludlow from Henley. I am led to believe that children from Middleton have a special exemption regarding having a bus pass as the road is too dangerous for them to walk along

  9. As a cyclist we don’t need cycle lanes in the town, we need them outside of the town to connect the food centre and other villages. As for the cycle lane at Bromfield, people will not use this unless they are visiting the leisure centre as you need to find a way to get back on the road if you’re leaving town. If this lane connected to the food centre, I am sure it would be used more often. It’s also not sensible to have a proper cyclist doing 30mph+ right next to pedestrians so that’s why you see cyclists use the road and not the shared pavement, cycle lanes need to be separated from cars and pedestrians!

  10. I read this before most of the comments, and I’m not surprised by them. People will NOT give up their “human right” to drive into town and park. In our area we recently had a plan which involved replacing a ground level car park with multi-storey and social housing. The outcry was enormous!! Climate change? cyclists? active travel? Nah. You take my 3 tonne SUV out of my cold dead hands.

  11. My thanks for bringing this to my attention Andy, also for your summary of the proposed changes which is helpful.

    Although I would agree that Ludlow is far from broken, this does not mean that there are not a number of things which can and should be improved. I need to see more of the detail but this outline seems to highlight a number of the current weaknesses and as such is a welcome step forward. Although I would generally be of a “do more and go faster” frame of mind I recognise that this is not what everyone wants and as such the suggested improvements probably strike about the right balance particularly as considerable care will be required to mitigate any negative consequences of change for particular groups of people.

    A couple of specific points to make at this stage are:

    Conversion of the Castle Street car park into an open community space – For a town surrounded by fantastic views much of this is hidden to people visiting. Frankly it is bizarre that the most significant open space with a view in the top of the town is currently occupied by a bunch of cars and a toilet. There is potential for this to be turned into a magnificent community space for residents and visitors alike which would be particularly amazing in the late afternoon and evening with the sun going down over the hills. If we make it amazing enough it can not only be wonderful for residents but also a major part of the visitor experience and something people will want to keep coming back to Ludlow for.

    Pedestrianisation and cycling – I share the view that King Street is pretty horrible to walk down and that shops would likely benefit if people weren’t forced to rush down it, I for one would use them more. Improvements for pedestrians coming from the station also sounds like a very good idea. I would add in improvements to crossing points for pedestrians but would leave out cycle routes through town. Although I am very much in favour of improvements to cycling in general for that central core of the Town I see no point in removing the hazard of cars simply to replace it with the hazard of bikes. First and foremost we need to create a safe and wonderful environment for people to walk and spend time. Cyclists are very welcome but they/we can very easily get off and push.

  12. What a complete waste of taxpayers money. I agree with most of the comments already posted. Spend money on improving what we already have. Make it more attractive for visitors. Remove trip hazards from pavements and clean them up. The walk into town from Smithfield is dirty and unwelcoming, especially the pavement outside The Queens. Cycle paths outside town are a good idea, in town they are impractical. I’ve lived near Parys Road for many years and seen precisely 5 people using that cycle path. Yet another huge waste of money.
    And don’t get me started on closing Castle Street car park. Which idiot came up with that idea. We need more car parking areas not less. The charm of Ludlow is our narrow streets. Leave Corve Street alone. Do not try to funnel traffic down Silk Mill Lane and traffic lights in Brand Lane will not help anything. I agree that some pedestrian access into town from the new estates is essential, especially for children walking to school.
    If the Council does have this potentially huge pot of money could they please spend it on something practical, sensible and useful. Aesthetics are all well and good, but not to the detriment of the people of Ludlow. How about doing some proper road resurfacing not just patching up, which is another waste of time and money. I could go on, but you get the gist.

  13. King Street feels like it should be a pedestrian zone but I can’t see a way to achieve it without ruining Dinham and causing absolute chaos in Old Street.

    Removing the car park behind the square (and visitor on street parking) could improve the situation but I feel that a fair swop would be to build the extra layers in Upper Galdeford carpark that were proposed years ago and make the charge £2 all day to encourage visitors to stay in town longer rather than rushing off because the ticket is running out. This would need to happen before the other carpark closes. The park and ride is a waste of time that nobody uses as the buses are unreliable and infrequent.

    Non resident vehicle access would still be required for deliveries and workmen so disabled spaces might as well stay.

    Cycling wise, extending the cycle lane by the cemetery an extra 100 yards towards town would save a lot of dangerous overtaking as cyclists crawl up that short hill. Double yellow lines on Gravel Hill would do more to make cycling easier than messing about with the other roads with the bonus that it would save everyone fuel from stopping and starting.

  14. This is ill thought out and ill advised. I have yet to see horses being ridden thru the town ! Cyclists bring nothing to the town in terms of increased business/cash flow so why facilitate them even further. The cyclists who do come to town are not shoppers but sportspeople. If I have five bags of shopping a bike is of no use. Sometimes change just for the sake of it has no added value !

  15. Absolutely not in any way going to support local business. Cutting off the town centre for deliveries and parking? Who makes these decisions? Have they visited Ludlow?
    It will be the death of local business to reduce parking availability and make deliveries next to impossible for small businesses.

    Cyclists? Really? Why?
    Rubber stamping the ‘green initiative’ at the expense of the locally economy?

    It is an inappropriate, unwanted shambles of a concept and should be killed off in its infancy.

    Shame on whomever is responsible for the utter nonsense -try spending it on the roads. Disgraceful.

  16. I do not agree with any of these new measures. It will be the nail in the coffin for Ludlow! People already drive straight through the town and leave as they can’t park. People won’t explore an area if they have lot seen it by driving around it. Anyone in a wheelchair won’t be able to access the shops and cafes on the square easily or there carers won’t be able to drop them off and park nearby like I do with my mother.
    As for a “Community space” in the carpark, anyone who has passed the library community space will know that its just another area attracting drug taking and anti-social behavour even as early as 5pm. The people making these decisions are not the town traders or business people, they are often retired people that want a nice green space in town to sit in without traffic noise, well sorry, that does not do the local economy any good at all. We need shops and people need to park or they will be off to out of town big superstores. Cyclists can walk through town like everyone else. EASY and costs NOTHING!!!

  17. There is nothing much that is good about these proposals for Ludlow. The town centre is a vibrant part of the town. I live locally and come in to visit restaurants, pubs, attend concerts as well as doing shopping in local shops. I am not eligible for a blue badge but find it difficult to walk from Galdeford car park due to arthritis so the Castle car park is a must for me. If it was to close my excursions into the town centre in the evening would have to stop. I would not feel comfortable as a woman alone walking from the Assembly Rooms or St Lawrence’s at night back to Galdeford, and walking is a loose term for my progress! This will kill the heart of the town for traders and the hospitality industry both of which are still trying to recover from the pandemic. I have yet to see a horse in the middle of Ludlow and doubt the proposals are likely to attract our equestrian friends. The pavements in Corve Street are plenty wide enough. It is a very attractive street and a bit unique because it is so wide. The planners haven’t got a clue what the community wants. Traffic calming in certain streets which just push the problem onto other streets. I despair that anyone in their right mind would think this was a good idea.

Comments are closed.

Discover more from

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

Continue reading