Sir,– Whether the exhibition of proposed East Street plans was devious or feeble is surely beside the point: very few of us can "read" architects' drawings, which are documents in a code understood by fellow professionals.
Mr Simmonds' letter (Herald, August 16) shows what an architect can see in these illustrations – and, incidentally, the photograph of the old pre-Woolmead East Street on the same page should remind us what a mistake large-scale development (aka 'unencumbered'?) usually is.
And this is the point. Most of the world's attractive built environments appeal because of the contrasts and diversity which history, ownership, tensions, decay, and restoration combine to bring.
History does more than suggest that in the vast majority of cases the 'Theory of Higgeldy-Piggeldyness' rules. Bernini's Rome is the exception; the Woolead is the rule. Or, to keep the comparison close to home, there is probably general agreement that the Lion and Lamb Yard's variety and its jumble of old and new is more successful than the dated coherence of the Woolmead.
And, given the chance, that view would be likely to hold in 50 or a 100 years' time.
All this suggests that – as usual – to get where we ought to get to, we shouldn't start from here, and that the depressingly small number of freeholders remaining in the area concerned means that it must be at least ten to one against what eventuates being worthy of the rest of Farnham town.
And, given the size of the scheme in relation to the size of the town, that is a saddening prospect for the next 50 years.
Minimum response? Ensure that anything that is already there remains there, in order to maximize diversity – even the Redgrave!
Neal Burton
Address supplied