Ashford engagement summary

Ashford engagement summary

Thank you to everyone who took the time to come and speak to the project team in person or fill out our survey, either online or a hardcopy.

We have summarised the feedback from the engagement and want to share this with you as an update.

The engagement period ran from 19 September to 6 November 2025. The main platform for providing feedback was through our online engagement website, which hosted information about the proposals, a fly-through video, some frequently asked questions and answers and a survey for people to provide feedback.

During the engagement, we held three in person events at the Ashford Congregational Church – these were on 29 September, 10am to 2pm, 1 October, 3-7pm and 23 October, 4-7pm, to enable people to come and meet the project team, discuss the plans and ask questions. Over 300 people attended across the three in-person sessions. We also met separately with members of Ashford Youth Club on 5 November to talk through the proposals with them and listen to their feedback and questions. We also shared the proposals with the chair of Spelthorne Committee for Action Now (SCAN) and gathered feedback.

Throughout the engagement period, we promoted the online site and survey, using a mix of letters to residents, social media, posters and media coverage to ensure as many people had the opportunity to comment as possible.

Results

There were 456 responses received in total – 433 through the online platform, 11 hardcopies and 12 emails. 

The result for each question is broken down, showing the number and percentage for each option, and the total number of responses for that question. As the questions were not compulsory, not everyone answered each question. The data is also shown in graph format with a summary of the open-ended questions after. 

1a. I support improving public spaces on Church Road by adding more greenery, seating, and play areas.

The feedback on this question was quite mixed, with marginally more people supporting the changes than not. Strongly agree and agree numbers total 207, compared to strongly disagree and disagree numbers totalling 191. However, the most common answer was strongly disagree, showing more strength of opinion against this change. 

Open-ended responses summary

The open-ended responses show a lot of support for greenery and play spaces, with people interested in the variety of plants and suggesting options to be considered. However, there is some concern around maintenance of the planters and how this will be managed. The supportive comments show a desire for inclusive and well-maintained public spaces. 

However, there are concerns about loss of parking and the impact this will have, especially on businesses. There is also a perception from some that this is a waste of taxpayers money and that a busy road is not a suitable place of play areas or spending time, that the current seating is under-utilised so more is not required. There are also concerns about anti-social behaviour and the risk this would increase by encouraging people to spend time there.  

2a. I support providing more pedestrian crossings on Church Road to make it safer for people.

Showing a similar pattern as for Q1a, support for an additional pedestrian crossing on Church Road is mixed. 189 people said the strongly agree or agree, compared to 171 strongly disagree or disagree. The most common answer is agree with 128 people agreeing, but the second most common response is strongly disagree, with 120. 

Open-ended responses summary

There was strong support for pedestrian crossings, to make it safer, especially for children and those with disabilities. However, there was also concern about the enforcement of these, with cyclists especially viewed as not stopping for crossings, and the view that the proposed cycle lanes may make this worse. 

There were also comments about uneven pavements that need addressing as well as or instead of the crossings. 

Not everyone supported the need for more pedestrian crossings, with some believing that the current layout is adequate or that people will just cross wherever they want to, and fearing that additional crossings would slow traffic and therefore increase congestion. 

There was also further comments about the loss of parking, pot holes to be repaired and the view that that scheme is a waste of taxpayers’ money. 

3a. I support providing cycle lanes and spaces for cycle parking along Church Road.

Cycle parking and cycle lanes were generally not supported, with 204 people saying they strongly disagree or disagree, compared to only 152 people supporting this proposal. 

Open-ended responses summary

Those who are supportive of the proposal feel that Church Road is currently dangerous for cyclists and that the cycle lanes would improve safety and encourage more people to cycle. There is also a view that having clear separation of pedestrians, cyclists and cars improves safety for all. 

However, there were some concerns about the cycle parking and the need for it to be secure, the need for the cycle lanes to be free from pot holes and the number of lane crossings cutting across the cycle lane, which would be a hazard. It was also suggested that any cycle path on Church Road would need to be connected to cycle routes across the wider area. 

Those who are not supportive of this proposal believe that people in Ashford don’t cycle – so the cycle lanes are not needed, or that those who do cycle, don’t use cycle lanes anyway. There was also concern about narrowing the carriageway to create space for the cycle lane, and the impact this would have on drivers and the associated loss of parking. 

There was concern that the cycle lane will create more hostility between cyclists and motorists, and that cyclists don’t obey the rules of the road (i.e. sticking to speed limits and respecting crossings/ lights). 

There were a lot of comments about e-bikes, a few supportive but most against them, particularly with regards to speeding, unsafe driving and lack of enforcement of rules. 

4a. I like the idea of having flexible, multi-use spaces on Church Road to be used for markets or community events on certain days.

Space for community events is more popular than some other elements. 208 people supported this proposal in total (combining Agree and Strongly Agree) compared to 141 not supporting it (combining Disagree and Strongly Disagree). 

Open-ended responses summary 

Despite the general concerns around loss of parking that has been mentioned in all questions, there is a lot of support for spaces to hold community events, with many viewing this as a way to support local business and the wider high street. 

The support was coupled with valid suggestions, such as the pitches need electricity or options for making them weatherproof. 

However, there is some concern around anti-social behaviour and maintenance, especially tidying up after events. 

The main objection or concern was around parking availability, even amongst those who support the proposals. There was recognition that the parking numbers were contingent on the redevelopment of the multi storey car park (MSCP) so there was concern about this scheme progressing and then the MSCP not being redeveloped to replace the parking on Church Road. 

There was also some concern about parking for people with disabilities, particularly those needing to visit the doctors/ dentists on Church Road and how they would be able to access them if parking was reduced. 

There was some scepticism about the need for more community spaces, or that the space outside the gym is adequate. 

Some also believe this could take trade away from businesses on the high street and therefore be detrimental, or also that the loss of parking on event days would prohibit people coming to the events. 

There is also some concern around the safety of parking pockets, as reflected in responses on other questions. 

5a. I support introducing a 20mph speed limit on Church Road to help reduce traffic speeds and make the area safer.

There is fairly strong support for a 20mph limit along Church Road, with 205 people agreeing or strongly agreeing, compared to 150 disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. There is also more strength of opinion towards supporting this, with more people strongly agreeing, rather than just agreeing. 

Open-ended responses summary

There is overall a strong sentiment towards supporting a 20mph zone on Church Road, with the most popular view being that this would improve safety for pedestrians, especially children and those with disabilities. 

Some people were requesting that the 20 zone is expanded to include side roads as well. And there was a positive view that the reduction in speed limit would reduce noise pollution from speeding cars, especially in the evenings. 

There was a mixed opinion on speed tables, with some welcoming them to help enforce the speed limit, while others felt the raised crossings would be adequate. 

Some people questioned the need for a 20 zone, viewing that the congestion already limits vehicle speeds, or that slower speeds increase pollution and don’t improve safety. There was also the view that this is anti-driver sentiment and that pedestrians should be responsible for their own safety. 

As on other questions, a lack of parking was raised, and a concern that reducing the speed on Church Road would create rat runs on the side roads. 

6. On balance, I support the overall proposed improvements to Church Road.

Despite some support for some elements of the scheme, on balance, a higher number of people do not support the overall proposals, with 218 people saying they strongly disagree or disagree, compared to only 172 people supporting it. 

Open ended responses summary 

Main overall comments align strongly with the feedback throughout the survey. Whilst there is some support for elements of the scheme, such as the 20mph speed limit, greenery and community spaces, the overwhelming view is that this can’t be at the expense of parking availability. 

There is also consistent concern about congestion and traffic flow, anti-social behaviour and maintenance of the high street, both currently and potentially of the proposed new elements. 

There were some comments about how taxpayer money is spent, with some viewing that this is a waste of money but also calling for investment and regeneration of the high street – often through a better/ wider selection of shops. (It should be noted that Surrey County Council does not control the shops or business leases in Ashford.)

Conclusions and next steps

The project team has been reviewing and understanding all the valuable feedback given throughout the engagement period. The team will now be looking at the best options for a way forwards in Ashford that would still deliver benefits to renew and enhance the town while mitigating some of the concerns expressed by residents and businesses. 

Chief among these is the concern about the redevelopment of the multi-storey car park, given that its delivery and the proposals for Church Road are intrinsically linked.

In addition, the timing of this project, with local government reorganisation ahead, means funding for any implementation is currently to be confirmed.  This does not mean that the project is being stopped, but it is crucial that officers and councillors across Spelthorne Borough Council and Surrey County Council will need to continue to work closely together to understand what intentions or commitments the future West Surrey Council authority and cabinet will have regarding investment in community infrastructure. 

We will update this website further when there is more news available.