I am afraid that I disagree with David Quick’s opinion on what should happen with the Woolmead site.

While a landscaped area with a place to hold a market would be a nice idea, we already have the Central Car Park where the monthly farmers’ market is held, and the Market Square in the new development.

So why do we need another venue? Also, the site is a brownfield site, which makes it an ideal area for new housing/flats, in my opinion.

Why not utilise this site rather than continue to nibble away at our green countryside around Farnham, which has been happening for a number of years now?

I would suggest a development with car parking rather than retail units, as the units for retail we already have in Farnham cannot be filled.

Much as I hate to admit it, the internet has changed the traditional high street forever, and we need to accept that and not try to resurrect it.

Having more housing in the centre of town will surely benefit the hospitality trade more than housing in the countryside on the outskirts, as people will be able to walk to these venues and also our independent stores.

Patrick Ward

A Farnham resident for nearly 60 years

Given that we are a craft town, home to the UCA, and may be living with the awful hoardings around the Woolmead for years yet, why not ask the students to paint a suitable mural?

Ann Attryde Farnham

Here we go again! How long, and how much, did it take for the Brightwells site to actually get going from start to finish?

And the pre-planning, Farnham Town Council, Waverley Borough Council, all having their say. Ending up with a white elephant.

And the same thing is going to happen with the old Woolmead site. It needs a public meeting to get the ball rolling. Watch this space.

Lots of opinions, lots of paper flying around, and no action.

Les Wyld Sumner Road Farnham

The Farnham Herald’s front-page item on the Woolmead site (September 19) echoed what so many Farnham residents and visitors are thinking: seven years of vacant devastation!

The article told us that the site is currently owned by Homes England.

This is a government body. One of its functions is grant aid for affordable housing. Why hasn’t Waverley Borough Council got busy and applied for a grant to build some much-needed affordable housing in our town? And also get closer to the new higher homes target?

Come on, Lib Dem Waverley council leader Paul Follows – please get this under way before the unitary authority proposals result in your council being abolished.

Dave Shurlock Farnham Labour

I read the letter from Ash Dolan-Shakeri in The Alton Herald dated September 11, 2025, with interest, as I too was at the Kings Pond meeting on September 2. I too was disappointed, but mainly by the hostility directed to the Community and Stakeholder Focus Group by some attendees. In making the following comments, I would wish to make clear that I have no connection with the focus group.

I think it unfair to complain that the two undefined local community groups that Mr Dolan-Shakeri mentions have not been invited to participate in the focus group. My recollection is that earlier this year anyone who wished to participate was invited by Alton Town Council (ATC) to submit an application to be a member.

It would appear to me that the fault for non-representation lies with the members of Mr Dolan-Shakeri’s groups rather than ATC. If, as suggested by Mr Dolan-Shakeri, the work being done by SE Water is not known by ATC, I am sure that the appropriate liaison would be welcomed.

Regarding the potential for flooding, and as was made clear by Cllr Don Hammond in the meeting, it will be necessary, as part of the design of any changes to the river and pond, to carry out a flood-risk assessment, and I would expect that this would involve hydraulic modelling of the river regime either by the Environment Agency (EA) or by consulting engineers appointed by the EA. This clearly cannot be done until an amended river channel has been defined topographically.

In the meeting Mr Hammond was understandably reluctant to be drawn on any increased flood risk associated with the adoption of either Option 1 or Option 2, noting that the necessary assessment would rely on input parameters that were not presently available pending further design development. However, I would venture to suggest that it is not necessary to spend any money to form a considered view of the flood risk implications of the two options as presently understood.

Other things being equal, it is my opinion that if Option 1 is adopted the flood risk through the town will stay unchanged from the present state. On the other hand, if Option 2 is adopted the flood risk will stay the same or may be reduced upstream of the demolished weir, but it may increase downstream of the site of the weir.

In short, I think that Mr Dolan-Shakeri over-dramatises the situation in suggesting that there could be catastrophic flooding of the town caused by changes that may be made to Kings Pond.

Further, if Mr Dolan-Shakeri, and others, believe that a flood-risk assessment carried out now will kill off Option 2 and save a lot of money in design and construction costs, I think they are going to be disappointed. Option 1 is also going to cost a lot of money and, as stated in the meeting, there will be further costs for future generations when the pond needs to be dredged again. That being so, I have some sympathy for ATC in navigating to an affordable and acceptable solution.

My own opinion is that ATC should make every effort to retain the weir and the footprint of Kings Pond largely as it is today. Much was said in the meeting about improved biodiversity associated with taking the pond offline, but such biodiversity should be present in abundance in the water meadows and the open cut channel that forms most of the course of the river through the town. Kings Pond is different and should be retained to be enjoyed for what it is (or rather what it can be if properly cared for); one or two small ponds and wetlands will be no substitute. I think that the people of Alton will not thank ATC for destroying a resource that is every bit as important to the public as it is to wildlife.

Finally, if the Lasham Drain, discussed in the meeting, is feeding substantial quantities of untainted spring water into the river downstream of the pond, and presumably having a beneficial impact on water quality downstream, does this not reduce the case for taking the pond offline?

Jeremy Buck

Anstey Lane

Alton