A group of not especially well-qualified individuals gathered in Ludlow last week to make a decision that could set a precedent for the gradual erosion of the architectural and historical integrity of one of the few remaining, least spoilt medieval towns in Britain. They had to decide whether they were for or against an application to erect five “executive” houses in a central site, almost entirely inaccessible and immediately adjacent to two of this town’s most historic buildings. Even well-conceived dwellings, designed to be sympathetic to their venerable neighbours, would be intolerably damaging. In this case the proposed houses are pedestrian, unvernacular and entirely without architectural merit.

The sole driver of this application is the grubby, small-minded greed of opportunistic developers and the current freeholders of the unlikely site – formerly the gardens of the Reader’s House, one of Ludlow’s most distinguished dwellings – seeking to maximize their profits on a lucky purchase of the garden at a knock down price. They manifestly have no interest in the town’s quite exceptional architectural and historical qualities; they are insensible to the overwhelming feelings of disgust of the inhabitants of the town, and have no regard for the massive disruption to the life of the town that their development would cause. 

The site has deliberately been allowed to become derelict, and a sliver of land adjoining it, backing on to two shop premises on King Street, has been included in the application. The developers, an individual called Andrew Sheldon and Shrewsbury architect, Graham Moss, hold an option to buy the site for £150,000 (the bulk of the ground – the abandoned garden – is currently owned, and was bought for just £3,000, by Alexandra Countryside  Developments (Robert Hughes and Charles Grant, who also own 9/10 King Street). The background to this extraordinary deal is obfuscated, and I would be grateful for more information regarding it; on this blog or privately via peterhenryburden@gmail.com)

The brief look at the history of this attempt to implant a large ugly wart in the very centre of Ludlow shows that the first application for a slightly higher density of dwellings was turned down by the then planning authority, South Shropshire District Council, only to be appealed to the DoE, whose inspector under deliberate misguidance, and to the astonishment and consternation of a huge majority of voters in the town, saw fit to allow it.

This plan turned out to be unbuildable, and the developers, emboldened by their first permission, have submitted a second, fresh plan. Some councillors – whether because they are friends or have connections with the developers, or are pusillanimous, or just plain dim is uncertain – were persuaded that as there was an extant, albeit entirely separate permission in situ, there was a financial risk to the Council in refusing this new one. With the help of the Chairman’s casting vote, these councillors passed this entirely irrational and unnecessary proposal to wreck the centre of an important historic town.

To put it into context, there is no pressing need for this additional housing in a town that has been extensively provided with new housing over the last decade – some still unsold –and where, anyway, several prominent, eminently suitable brown field sites exist as and when the need occurs.

Nor is it an exaggeration to describe this site as inaccessible. It would be hard to find a place less suited to any kind of development, let alone the building of five complete houses. A manner of transporting all the material and equipment required has yet to be identified. On the face of it, everything will have to be manhandled across St Laurence’s church yard, approached by narrow streets, in one case completely impassable by heavy goods vehicles.

The allowing of this gross, impractical plan shows local democracy in a very poor light, and points up the abysmal lack of taste, judgement and historical perspective among a majority councillors on Shropshire Council’s Strategic Planning Committee. It was committees like this that compounded the Luftwaffe’s efforts in the wholesale destruction of the once beautiful, now largely hideous cities of Gloucester and Worcester. Look at these cities and, closer at hand, the butchery that took place in the medieval heart of Shrewsbury in the 1960s; look at the two more recent major developments allowed by the local planning committee in Ludlow – Tesco and the Library, an ugly, out of scale and dysfunctional building – and ask yourself if you should lightly let them get away with it again.

I invite any assistance and provable information in building the case against this development in the hope that a chance to quash it becomes available. In the meantime everything possible that can be done, without breaking the law, to dissuade Messrs Sheldon and Moss from carrying through their plan is to be encouraged, and a careful eye must be kept for any signs of pre-emptive actions by them to breach the wall that marks the curtilage of St Laurence’s Church. The developers cannot commence without gaining access at several points along the wall, and the ownership of the wall is uncertain, however, that is in the process of being established and it most probably belongs to the Church, and the Diocese of Hereford have expressed their clear opposition to the scheme. There is a good chance that they can stop this development; I hope they do all they can to achieve this.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Hypocrisy from any quarter deserves to be exposed, and especially when it comes from the largest retailer in Britain who will do anything to increase the footfall through their stores.

Tesco have consistently vowed that they will support government in not encouraging young people to drink by offering very discounted booze.

Not so.

Popularity: 1% [?]