Castle Street & Castle Hill — Survey Findings#

Open data, living document. You are welcome to use and share this data, but please link back to this page rather than copying it. This report is regularly updated with corrections, new evidence, and clarifications — copied data will quickly become outdated.

On this page#

• Key findings
• Crossing the road
• Traffic speed
• Parking
• Overall safety
• Walking
• Driving
• Through-traffic
• When and where
• Top priorities
• Earlier evidence — Speed Calming Survey (2023)

Farnham Voice ran an open survey asking residents, visitors, and regular users of Castle Street and Castle Hill how they experience the street — covering safety, crossing, speed, parking, and transport. These are the initial findings.

These survey results feed directly into the Safe Crossings work. Traffic Calming is a separate topic that will build on this data alongside its own assessment — while the findings here are relevant, they are not specifically focused on traffic calming.

Key findings#

• 79% selected safer crossings as their top priority
• 71% selected reducing traffic speed as a top priority
• 64% rated crossing the road as difficult
• 90% of residents rated parking as difficult or worse
• 36% rated the street as unsafe; no respondent gave the highest safety rating
• Upper Castle Street (Nelson Arms to Park Row) — repeatedly identified as the worst stretch, with no crossing point

Crossing the road#

64% rated crossing as difficult (1 or 2 out of 5). Only one respondent rated it as easy. The upper half of Castle Street — from the Nelson Arms to Park Row — has no designated crossing point. Multiple respondents report vehicles not yielding to pedestrians already in the road. At the Borough end, pedestrians continue to use the former crossing point, which is no longer active.

Traffic speed#

71% selected reducing traffic speed as a top priority. Particularly heading uphill out of town. The stretch from the Masonic centre through Castle Hill to Folly Hill is identified as the worst section — high speeds combined with sharp bends and limited visibility. The width of Castle Street is noted as a contributing factor.

Parking#

90% of residents rated parking as difficult or worse. The issues raised:

• More permits have been issued than there are available bays — a gap that widened when spaces were removed during pavement widening and FIP works.
• Non-residents park in permit bays without penalty; enforcement is described as infrequent
• Pulling out of bays into traffic is described as unsafe
• Spaces remain scarce into the evening and overnight

Overall safety#

36% rated the street as unsafe (1 or 2 out of 5). 50% rated it a 4, though no respondent gave the highest safety rating. Those who feel less safe consistently cite the same factors: no crossing on the upper stretch, speeding traffic, and the difficulty of interacting with the road — whether crossing on foot or pulling out of a parking bay.

Walking#

64% rated walking as easy (4 or 5 out of 5). Pavement widening on the lower section has improved the experience. The path past the Nelson Arms is noted as narrow, and footpaths on Castle Hill become narrower and overgrown further uphill.

Driving#

Responses are split evenly — 43% rated driving as difficult, 43% as easy. Congestion and roadworks are the main difficulties cited. Residents specifically flag the danger of pulling out of parking bays into traffic.

Through-traffic#

Castle Street is identified by multiple respondents as a through-route used by drivers passing through Farnham rather than stopping.

When and where#

Worst times: morning school run (64%), weekends (50%), evening commute (36%). Several respondents said the problems are constant throughout the day.

Locations raised repeatedly:

• Upper Castle Street near the Nelson Arms and Park Row junction — no crossing, speeding, school-run traffic
• Castle Hill from the Masonic centre to the cricket club — high speeds on bends with limited visibility
• The Borough junction — confusion over the former crossing point
• Where the speed limit changes — vehicles accelerate leaving the restricted zone

Top priorities#

When asked to choose their top priorities for improvement:

Lighting was rated 4 or 5 out of 5 by 64% of respondents — it is not a significant concern.

Earlier evidence — Speed Calming Survey (2023)#

In 2023, the previous Castle Street Residents Association (CSRA) surveyed its members on speed calming proposals. The results closely align with the Farnham Voice findings and add weight to the same conclusions. These were shared with the relevant parties early on.

Speed and noise are the core issue. 90% of respondents said they are affected by speeding and noise on the street. In the Farnham Voice survey, 71% selected reducing traffic speed as a top priority.

Strong support for 20mph — but the limit alone is not enough. 92% of respondents agreed a 20mph limit is a good thing. However, 54% said a 20mph limit on its own would not make a noticeable difference — and 75% disagreed that pavement widening alone would address the problem. This matches what Farnham Voice respondents describe: the existing 20mph limit is widely disregarded, and physical changes to the road are needed to make drivers naturally slow down.

Road design is the practical path forward. 65% of respondents supported physical traffic calming measures — road design changes such as raised crossings, narrowed carriageways, and improved pedestrian infrastructure. Between 2020 and 2023, ten injury collisions were recorded on this corridor — five resulting in serious injuries — underlining that physical changes, not signage alone, are needed to make the street safer.

The Farnham Voice survey is open to all users of the street. The CSRA survey was conducted among association members (42 responses). Collision data is from validated police records via CrashMap. Together, these three sources tell a consistent story: the speed limits have broad support, but physical road design changes are what will make the difference.