Traffic & Transport

Farnham Station Car Park

Farnham Station : 
by Ray Stanton, licensed under Creative Commons

Farnham Station : by Ray Stanton, licensed under Creative Commons

Changes to the car park at Farnham Station in 2016 added a new deck, to provide 170 additional parking spaces.

A presentation on the changes took place at Farnham Station, on 8 March.

Work was originally planned to run from April to August, however, the start date was postponed while emergency repair work was carried out on the line between Farnham and Alton.



For further information visit the South West Trains website.



It must be about five years ago that the idea of pedestrianisation of The Borough and Downing Street was brought up again as a possible solution to the narrow and crowded pavements in the town.  A single lane traffic scheme for Downing Street had been considered some years before but had been rejected on traffic grounds.

One must take cognisance that both The Borough and Downing Street carry not only local traffic but also two A class roads each.

The A31 Guildford to Southampton road, the A 325 Petersfield to Frimley and the A287 Hindhead to Hook roads which criss cross through Farnham carry large amounts of through traffic.  If The Borough and Downing Street were to be closed for pedestrianisation there would be a need for substantial alternative routes for this traffic by way of real bypasses, not just fiddling about in the town centre, so removing all but the local traffic which is so vital for the well-being of our town.

Such a proposal was put forward by the Farnham Urban District Council (FUDC) in 1968.  It consisted of three pieces of new road.

Firstly, a link between the A325 from Petersfield to the A31 near the Hampshire/Surrey county boundary, bypassing the bottlenecks in Wrecclesham.  Secondly a link from this junction on the A31 up to join the A287 near Beacon Hill.  Thirdly to continue the A287 passing the top of Folly Hill and running along the county boundary on military land, which they were then prepared to provide, down to join the A325 by Wellington’s statue in Aldershot near Tesco.

If these roads were to be built now, it would greatly improve life in Wrecclesham, South Farnham, Castle Street and Upper Hale.

Since 1968 the Blackwater Valley Route (BVR) has been built.  Due to a lack of proper planning, when you come to the Farnham end of the BVR you should turn left to go cross country to join the A3 instead of turning right to go through the middle of Farnham, then heading for Wrecclesham via Coxbridge, going under the sub-standard height rail bridge, up through the conservation area’s narrow “Street” and on via Bordon to join the A3 at Petersfield.

Without these new pieces of road, any idea of pedestrianising the centre of Farnham is a non-starter.  However, I am hopeful that these facts may have got through to the authors of a recent set of dwindling proposals to the point where they have now dropped the idea of pedestrianisation and replaced it with the concept of shared space!

All one can say to that is that The Borough and Downing Street are not for sharing.  The concept of shared space in confined road widths is very dangerous and quite unworkable.  Think of mothers with pushchairs and toddlers and Farnham’s ageing old folk.  Shared space means traffic but no pavements and the vision of people cowering in shop doorways afraid to step straight out into the maelstrom of lorries, cars, bicycles and pedestrians is a total nightmare.  But Surrey County Council have agreed to spend £7,000 of our money, to tell us what we already know.

About five years ago the idea of widening the narrow pavements in The Borough and Downing Street re-emerged.  Whilst we would all like more pavement room, it would mean narrowing the roads down to single carriageways which would make servicing some shops impossible and would constrict the traffic even more than it is already making gridlock a regular event.

Just think for yourself how you would get from Castle Street to Farnham Station if The Borough was closed or from Firgrove Hill to Castle Street if Downing Street and The Borough were closed to traffic.

The old chestnut of making Farnham Town centre more pedestrian-friendly appeared again.  The pros and cons have long been exercised but the facts remain.  In order to achieve what we want, Surrey County Council are going to have to provide alternative routing for the through traffic which does not wish to be in our town anyway.  This was noted by SCC in their  1980s document ‘Highway Schemes for Farnham Town Centre’, which considered a number of schemes, including part closure of  The Borough. The paper noted that schemes involving new road construction would not be implemented before the 1990s. Twenty years later we are no further forward.

Read Highway Schemes for Farnham Town Centre



Traffic Perspective

farnham traffic

In the late 1980’s Surrey County Council (SCC) produced a plan for the Farnham bisector through our town.  Basically an extravagant grade-separated junction, instead of the Shepherd and Flock roundabout, with sharply curved causeways across the Wey Valley with a bite out of the railway embankment and serious interference with the valley’s hydraulics and wildlife habitat.  From the Shepherd and Flock to Hickleys Corner the dual carriageway would have been three lanes each way.  At Hickley’s Corner the planned underpass had limited access to surrounding roads.  Their underpass plans would not fit into the constricted area available nor comply with the necessary road criteria.

We told them it would not work but “Nanny knows best!”

SCC submitted their plans to the government who promptly rejected them.  They resubmitted them twice more only to be rejected twice more.  One of our SCC elected members was asked “why and on what grounds?”  His reply was that he did not know as the government’s response was confidential!  This was nonsense so the Society’s then Chairman, Mary Neville, and I went to see our MP Virginia Bottomley.  She agreed it was nonsense and gave us a copy of the rejection letter from the Government of the South East (GOSE) which she said was in the public domain.  It gave the four reasons for rejection:-

  1.  The overall cost was so high it needed to be in the top tranche of UK road works which was not justifiable.
  2. The very high cost rendered the scheme not cost effective.
  3. The scheme would have serious detrimental effects on important wildlife habitat.
  4. The scheme did nothing to alleviate the traffic problem in Farnham.

Now we knew and so did our SCC members why it had failed.  The letter was passed to the Farnham Herald who printed it with our plan drawings.

The Farnham Society is sometimes criticised as being against everything.  However, as far as traffic is concerned, before we criticise, we make sure that there is a better way.  We started with a full traffic count at the Shepherd and Flock roundabout and quickly realised why, in the early rush hour, the bisector was blocked way back over the county boundary and up through Wrecclesham.  A careful survey under Firgrove Hill bridge gave us the answer for clearing the Hickley’s Corner congestion.  We drew the plans and presented our scheme to our three County Councillors as well as making a presentation at SCC headquarters in Kingston.  We heard nothing.

It was some seven years later that I met with a more recently elected member who told me that SCC had come up with the solution – what did I think of it? – obviously expecting criticism.  Very good, I replied, when can you start? I then pointed out that the SCC scheme was identical to ours submitted all those years ago.  I showed him the Farnham Herald article and the date.

Well, give them their due, they did do it and it is what we have today – the third lane under the bridge on the bisector, the traffic lights on the Shepherd and Flock and the separate lane for Guildford traffic on the Shepherd and Flock and the longer slip road up Station Hill.

Figures gleaned at the Hindhead tunnel inquiry showed the Hindhead crossroad traffic at 30,000 vehicles per day (VPD) and Hickleys Corner at 45,000.

The moral of this saga is “never dismiss or underrate local knowledge” it is often much superior to anything produced by “experts”.


Michael Murphy   December 2014

Farnborough Airfield

Farnborough Airfield

Farnborough Airfield

By Mike Bryan

Farnborough Airfield’s owner-operators have plans for expansion of flying, and earlier this year ran a consultation in collaboration with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). Details are available on the website

This is not about tinkering with flight-paths for little noticeable difference.  It’s about setting the principles for potential massive expansion of Farnborough, perhaps as a passenger airport using predominantly larger and noisier aircraft.  This is very significant to Farnham residents’ quality of life in the long term.

Farnborough Airfield is owned and run by TAG Aviation, a specialist provider of business-jet facilities.  Airspace operations and control near Farnborough are complex.  Although there were only 23,000 movements in 2012, TAG already has permission for up to 50,000 aircraft movements per year at Farnborough.

TAG briefed Farnham residents at Sandy Hill on 23 April that they hope to expand operations towards the 50,000 limit by 2019.  But their strategy for Farnborough development runs out in 2019.  Broadly, if they can’t double the volume of business jet activity in the next 5 years, commercial pressures could lead them to sell the airfield for commercial airline operations, in which role it could service London.

At page B22 of the Consultation papers: ‘CAA guidance for airspace change does not provide a method for assessing tranquillity.  …  You may wish to consider the potential effect on tranquillity when providing feedback.’  From a Farnham perspective, my own analysis of the consultation papers led to 4 main points.

Significant to residents of Folly Hill, Sandy Hill and Upper Hale: proposals for flight arrivals to Farnborough Runway 06 (at Figure B10) include authorising flight below 1000 ft (above mean sea level; amsl) from the Folly Hill and Odiham Road junction, where the ground is approximately 600 ft high.  That implies some aircraft on north-easterly approach to Farnborough flying at 400 ft above ground in that area.  That frightening prospect is unnecessary and unwanted.

Secondly, there is no apparent good reason for allowing flight between approximately 700 and 1700 ft in the area above central Farnham between Rowledge, Wrecclesham, Dippenhall, Upper Hale, Hale, Runfold, Compton and The Bourne (displayed on Figure B10 as 1000-2000ft amsl).  That is unnecessary and unwanted.  Establishing a protection zone around those areas would avoid apparent disregard for Farnham’s population centre.

Thirdly, in order to shorten ground tracks, reduce CO2 emissions and reduce noise footprints, flight arrivals from the north-west towards the predominantly used Runway 24 (at Figures B11 and E2) should primarily route direct to the start point for the final turn rather than to a runway-parallel holding leg.  Then any multiple arrivals could be separated by fanning them all out to the right (ie making them join the holding orbit earlier, as currently depicted and proposed).

Finally, the consultation did not specify details of proposed noise abatement procedures, which could significantly reduce the impact of increased flying activity at Farnborough.  The plans do not include maximum power settings related to aircraft altitude and distances from take-off.  This is routine for airports in city areas but has not  – yet – been included as consideration for local residents here.  That omission must be corrected and there should be further public consultation in that regard.

The closing date for public comments was Monday 12 May, and the Farnham Society commented before that date. A first report was published in August summarising responses to the consultation and recording that responses were predominantly negative. The report can be seen on the website

A further report will be published in the first quarter of 2015, giving more details of proposals under consideration following the consultation.