Shropshire Council is currently consulting on ideas for a Ludlow Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan. This is one of a series of articles explaining the proposals.

There are more than 50 proposals, some welcome, some controversial, some impractical. In this article, I present a summary of a complex set of proposals.

These proposals are at concept stage. There has been no assessment of whether schemes are practical or affordable. It is not clear how Shropshire Council will take any the proposals forward after the consultation, which ends on 16 June.

You will have a chance to give you views directly to Shropshire Council and its consultants on Thursday, 11 May. Events Square (outside the castle), 9am to 12:30pm.

After listening to your feedback, I will set out my views in full at the beginning of June.

Proposals for walking and shared use

Pedestrian and shared use proposals

Shared use includes walking and cycling, and in some cases equestrian use. Click on the images in this article to view full screen.

Segregated shared use path along Henley Road. Upgraded path and cycle lanes along Coronation Avenue and Bromfield Road and new crossings.

Shared path through the Wheeler Road recreation area parallel to Sandpits Road.

A shared use path parallel to the A49. Improvement to the Toucan crossing at the Rocks Green roundabout, including a button back from road. Improvements to the crossing at the Sheet Road roundabout. Upgrade two footpaths across the A49 to bridleways: Coder Road to Ledwyche Rise and Henley Grange to Riddings.

Improvements to the crossings over the A49 at Rocks Green and Sheet Road will be welcome. A footbridge is needed at Rocks Green. The proposed bridleways crossing the A49 would be unsafe without Pegasus crossings, which National Highways would be unlikely to approve as they are close to other lights.

Proposals for cycling

Proposals for cycling

Cycle lanes are proposed on Lower Galdeford, Tower Street and King Street. On Lower Galdeford this could be at the expense of parking. Cycle lanes along Sheet Road to the A49 Sheet Road roundabout.

Improved cycle lanes on Parys Road with cycle bypasses through the traffic calming at the north end.

Weeping Cross should have double yellow lines along its length and land should be purchased for a cycle lane.

Cycle lanes from Old Street to Tesco, except through the Bull Ring. Lanes continue up Station Road to the traffic lights which will have a cycle bypass.

A cycle lane on Fishmore Road with reduced parking. A cycle lane uphill on New Road with reduced parking. Improvements for cyclists at the One Stop roundabout.

Improvements for cyclists at Dinham Bridge.

Cyclists need safe road space. However, the town is short of parking spaces for residents. Reducing car parking on Fishmore Road, for example, begs the question of where residents will park. Cycle lanes on King Street and Tower Street would be difficult to implement due to the narrowness of the streets.


Proposed closures

Close King Street and High Street to most traffic. Close Castle Street car park to vehicles except for traders. Close Foldgate Lane except for access to create route for cyclists and equestrians.

We have discussed closure of the town centre several times with no consensus. Closing Castle Street car park is a new idea. It would require substantial improvements to public transport to make that a viable proposition.

20mph limits

Current and proposed 20 mph limits

Sandpits Road, Gravel Hill, Steventon New Road, Corve Street to Bromfield Road, Fishmore Road and Temeside.

This is a piecemeal approach which will lead to varying speed limits across the town. The town area inside the bypass should be 20mph zone, with the exception perhaps of Sheet Road and Henley Road.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

Proposed low traffic neighbourhoods

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are designed to reduce through traffic and lower speeds.

Steventon New Road and Temeside east of Weeping Cross. Julian Avenue and Livesey Road.

The proposal for Steventon New Road and Temeside reflects existing use. With a town-wide 20mph limit this Low Traffic Neighbourhood would be unnecessary. Preventing through traffic on Julian Avenue and Livesey Road would displace traffic onto the One Stop roundabout and Sandpits Road past the school.

Out of town

Proposals for the wider area
23 thought on “LCWIP: A summary of walking and cycling proposals for Ludlow and the area”
  1. If Gravel Hill is a proposed 20mph speed limit then Upper and Lower Galdeford should be too. Cars come hurtling down Lower Galdeford, going dangerously fast due to it being a hill and often not slowing down or stopping at the pedestrian crossing. A 20mph limit for all roads in the town is needed.

  2. Stopping through traffic on Livesey Rd will push traffic onto Julian Rd which would be dangerous due to the narrowness of the street

  3. An epic project in its short sightedness and stupidity. This will guarantee that people will stop coming to Ludlow as traffic measures will annoy just about everyone. This will cost a fortune and give few if any conceivable benefits. In addition, no thought has been given to the requirements of those who can neither walk or ride bikes (wheelchair users or those with health conditions). Maybe they don’t matter to the woke minority who are making all the noise on this?

    1. Smooth safe cycle lanes would be very useful to mobility scooter users meaning they could be used for trips into town saving people from needing to drive in then get them out of cars. This would mean that the cyclists would mostly be using the road instead but with a 20mph limit they won’t be slowing people down.

      Would be good to see the carrot of improved paths come before the stick of reduced car parking and access though.

    2. Exactly, and no thought has been given to those who actually live in Ludlow either.

  4. An addendum to my previous comments:
    As Shropshire Council can’t even fund proper repairs to roads in Ludlow, how is this pie in the sky project going to be funded? Adding cycle lanes to roads is going to be fun, if the resulting unrepaired holes prove to be almost lethal for cyclists. Has a survey been done of the number of ACTUAL active cyclists in Ludlow? If so, what were the parameters and how were they arrived at? And finally (for now) its been shown elsewhere in the country where such measures have been introduced that emergency services vehicles have been unable to get to incidents as a result. Has any thought been given to the potential danger to life as a result?

  5. Traffic Lights on blind corners such as at the top of Gravel Hill and also that corner from Gravel Hill into Upper Galdeford near Queens Pub.

  6. Reducing car parking on Fishmore Road, for example, begs the question of where residents will park.
    All the houses have large front gardens, most have drives that would take 2 or 3 cars. Google satellite view shows a total of less than 10 vehicles parked on the road

  7. I don’t understand how most of these piecemeal things feed into a wider plan for safe, sustainable and useful travel across the county. Removing parking and closing some roads without understanding why people travel in their cars, where they travel to and from in their daily lives and how to make it easier to do all these things without a car is just going to annoy everyone. I would love to see a cycling network that joins up across the county, making it practical to cycle further than just around our towns safely, buses that actually run frequently, go where I need to go, late enough into the evenings and reliably enough to use regularly, and trains that actually run when they say they are going to – these are the things that will get me out of my car. I don’t see how any of these proposals address this? What’s the plan? How does it acknowledge how people in rural areas actually live their lives? How does it make things better for everyone? What’s the vision?

    1. No wonder there are “conspiracy theorists” out there as the proposals make no sense as Rachel Buchanan points out. and they certainly have not originated through democratic public demand.

      I would support such measures (or similar) if they were part of a coordinated national transport strategy with “carrots more than sticks”. But Rachel Buchanan’s post summarises the situation perfectly, they are not, its all uncoordinated and cart before the horse.

      No political party (inc LDs or Greens even ) has any intention of offering carrots, such as reducing rail fares by subsidy, or to renationalise rail, or to remove the rail unions stranglehold, to have an independent Pay/T&Cs Review body, or improve buses to a 24 hour secure service. Or to penalise the air commuters such as Sunak and probably many from Lab etc, who enjoy ever cheaper intra national flights. Or to stop the Road Investment Programmes (RIS1, 2, and 3) which the govt is defending rigorously from CO2 challenge in the High Court.

      The illogicality suggests just more oppression by stealth, and begs questions – who is the anonymous “party” behind these measures which are countrywide yet imposed through local govt. Are they for the benefit of tax paying citizens who will have to pay for them or are they to serve another interest, such as a 2 tier society? Do we have too much rather than too little government? Is this devolution in action?

      (Meanwhile Hereford revives its western bypass proposal, which of course, makes perfect sense as we supposedly transition to restricting car use )

  8. Alarming. Costly. Complex and potentially confusing in the short term. Are these proposals going to improve anything for anyone in a substantial way, cyclists, walkers, drivers, business owners or residents in the long term?

  9. Travelling home (by car) from the town centre this evening (10/05/23) – the Castle Street car park was half full, plenty of cars still parked on the market place and not a space to be seen down Mill Street, Broad Street, Raven Lane, Lower Raven Lane, Lower Galdeford – where are these people going to park ?- this idea will make Ludlow a dead town. The market and town centre will die if people aren’t able to park in the Castle Street car park – and who is going to come up and use the town centre facilities – especially at night, if they have to walk from the 2 Galdeford car parks? By all means make the whole of the town centre into 20mph, but please don’t kill off our town.

  10. Are the town service buses going to be allowed into the centre or not. These services are the lifeline for elderly residents, especially those with mobility issues.

  11. I think you’re all missing the point. The whole 15 min cities thing is all about restricting people’s movement.
    If you haven’t yet woken up to the fact that you’re living in a dictatorship, then God help you.
    I know what I say won’t be popular but I have said it.

    1. Excellent points Rachel and I absolutely agree. This woke nonsense will turn Ludlow into a ghost town, and I would speculate that some who live here now will be actively thinking of moving elsewhere as a result.

  12. Cheers David. I am told that these plans are part of something bigger called agenda 2030.

  13. Parking for residents who live in the town centre is already difficult. Closing Castle Street car park is a ridiculous idea. The new pub ‘The George’ in Market Square will have, I understand, over 100 covers and has no parking, Castle Lodge is becoming a hotel and has no parking. C&Sons on Millenium Green is extending and has no parking. The new electric charging posts have already reduced town centre parking so where are all these visitors going to park? Whilst we all wish Ludlow to be a vibrant, successful town that is attractive to tourists it is unfortunate that residents’ needs always have the lowest (if any) priority in new proposals.

  14. Sandpits Road and sandpits avenue is horrendous and definitely needs speed cameras put in and a 20mph speed limit. Not that my comment will matter but the cars use the road as a race course and the hump put in by the primary school makes no difference at all how long will it be before a person or child gets hurt or worse?

    1. Thanks. We have negotiated a scheme for speed reduction outside the school but there is as yet no date for implementation.

  15. I see very few people trying to cycle down either Tower Street or King Street. The council needs to do something to improve places for cyclists to leave their bikes. The current space outside Ludlow Library in Parkway is not sign posted or used, and would be the perfect place to leave a bike and walk into town.

  16. I have been reliably informed that the maps displayed in Castle Square on 11th were wrong and did not show the proposed routes correctly ! Then again, one of the individuals responsible said they had come all the way from Exeter, and upon further questioning said they were just ‘doing their job’, that old chestnut.
    It’s winter in Ludlow for 8 months of the year, lousy weather to cycle in, we have an ageing population and not enough cyclsts to justify that which shall be imposed on us . Perhaps it’s time that we ‘did our job’ and refused to be run roughshod over.

  17. when and if we get money for these proposals will Shrewsbury council actually spend it on them.
    more buses are needed and they propose electric buses but it is said we don’t have a enough drivers now and park and ride in the evening is a no no because they don’t operate in the evening and im sure lots of people don’t want to walk through town in the dark to get to a car park.
    keep king street open as it is also castle car park.

Comments are closed.

Discover more from

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

Continue reading