Why are Farnham's Hickley's Corner safety plans being kept confidential?

Questions are mounting over confidential safety plans for Farnham's notorious Hickley's Corner junction, where a young man was killed and a teenager suffered life-changing injuries earlier this year.

Earlier this month, the Government abandoned a major A31 improvement scheme, yet key documents detailing proposed safety measures remain subject to confidentiality restrictions, leaving some elected representatives unable to scrutinise what was planned.

The Farnham Herald has now submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Surrey County Council seeking the release of the proposals, cost estimates and assessments behind the abandoned scheme.

The move follows a Farnham Town Council meeting last week, at which it emerged that many councillors had never seen proposals examining a possible footbridge or underpass linking the railway station with the town centre.

Others acknowledged they had seen the plans but said they were bound by confidentiality restrictions that prevented them from revealing their contents.

On New Year’s Day this year, James O'Mara, 21, died after being struck by a car at Hickley's Corner.

Just two months later, a 16-year-old boy suffered serious injuries in another collision, prompting renewed calls for improved pedestrian safety.

Figures released by Surrey County Council show there were 12 collisions in the area in the three years to August 2026, resulting in one death, three serious injuries and 13 slight injuries.

Despite that troubling safety record, the future of major improvements remains uncertain following the Government's decision not to fund the A31 scheme.

At the town council meeting, Cllr Mark Merryweather questioned why councillors had not been able to examine key documents setting out what had previously been proposed.

He identified two documents in particular: an options appraisal that reportedly ruled out a footbridge in favour of an underpass, and a strategic outline business case.

Cllr Michaela Martin confirmed she had seen the proposals but was bound by confidentiality.

It remains unclear who imposed the restrictions, whether they still apply or what justification exists for withholding the documents following the cancellation of the scheme.

Nor is it known how much the different options would have cost, what safety improvements they were expected to deliver or whether elements of the abandoned proposals could still be pursued.

Farnham Town Council voted to investigate alternative ways of improving safety at the junction.

Cllr Graham White argued that developers should contribute towards improvements, particularly given the importance of Farnham railway station to future housing development.

"The elephant in the room is the train station," he said.

"We have been told that one of the main reasons Farnham is up for development is the train station. There should be investment going from the developers towards helping things like pedestrian crossing at Hickley's Corner."

However, some councillors expressed concerns about the prospect of further major roadworks following years of disruption caused by the Farnham Infrastructure Programme.

Cllr Sally Dixon said: "We have just been through eight years of the FIP and, as a resident of the town, can we just breathe and have a few years without major roadworks?"

Cllr Tony Fairclough urged the council to make Hickley's Corner a priority at the next Farnham Board meeting, scheduled for January.

Surrey County Council has separately consulted on proposals to introduce a permanent 40mph speed limit at the junction, but calls for more substantial safety improvements have continued.

The Herald's information request seeks copies of the options appraisal, strategic outline business case, proposed designs and cost estimates, along with details of any confidentiality restrictions.

The newspaper also wants to establish why the documents were restricted and whether those restrictions remain justified following the Government's decision not to fund the scheme.

The information could reveal what safety improvements were considered, why particular options were rejected and whether any of the abandoned proposals could still offer a way forward.