The future of Sainsbury’s in Farnham is now uncertain, with the supermarket on South Street being marketed for £1.26 million.

Yet, more than four decades ago, the very idea of having a Sainsbury’s in Farnham sparked fierce debate in the council chambers, where the proposed store was considered by some to be “too big for the town.”

On Friday, September 7, 1979, the Herald reported that members of Waverley’s planning sub-committee had that week engaged in a heated two-hour discussion about the supermarket.

The subject was whether or not to allow the construction of a new supermarket, one that, at the time, would dwarf anything else in Farnham.

The plans proposed a 36,328-square-foot store, with 17,205 square feet of that dedicated to sales space. If approved, it would have become the largest supermarket in Farnham.

The committee initially voted to reject the proposal due to its size. Then, on the chairman’s casting vote, the sub-committee reversed course and decided to refer the application to the main planning committee with the suggestion it should be accepted.

However, following advice from Waverley’s administrative officer, Ken Wood, the body ultimately decided to pass the matter along without offering any recommendation at all.

The result was uproar. Several councillors protested that two contradictory decisions had been made and accused the chairman, Cllr Frank Cordier, of a lack of clear direction.

The meeting did agree to arrange a site inspection, but members rejected a proposal to call a special council meeting to consider the supermarket application separately. Instead, the matter would remain simply as an agenda item for the main planning committee.

Frustration among councillors grew. Castle Ward councillor Zora Bransby-Williams accused the Farnham Town Centre Working Party of a “cover-up” for failing to deliver a promised report on the supermarket plan to the consultative committee, which included all Waverley councillors representing Farnham.

She insisted that before the supermarket could even be discussed, the main planning committee—scheduled to meet on September 19—must first decide whether a public meeting in Farnham should be held.

Waverley’s Cllr Arthur Hurdle supported her concerns, declaring that the omission of the working party’s findings was an insult to both the consultative committee and the Farnham representatives.

Castle Ward councillor Marie King-Hele, also pressed for a decision on whether the public should be formally consulted before any final vote.

This suggestion sparked yet more disagreement. Cllr Cordier dismissed the idea, saying councillors would be poor representatives if they had to “hide behind the apron” of a public meeting before making decisions.

Cllr King-Hele quickly responded: “There is no need for any councillor to fear consulting the public. They are free to make a decision, but it should be in light of what the people of Farnham wanted.”

The size of the proposed store became the key point of contention. Cllr Norman Duncan Davies argued the supermarket was “excessive,” though he conceded Farnham would benefit from a larger Sainsbury’s, just not one exceeding 30,000 square feet.

Cllr King-Hele echoed this view, stressing the wider impact on the town. “It’s not only the mass of the building that is very worrying but the greater traffic it will bring. This is something Farnham is just not capable of taking. It’s not something that Farnham wants.

“We are not in the business to help Sainsbury’s compete with Tesco or International or whatever. We’re in the business of providing what is best for what this town needs.”

Not all councillors agreed. Cllr Roger Ford countered that Farnham risked falling behind rival shopping centres. “Farnham has been losing shoppers to Farnborough, Guildford and Aldershot, and they need to bring them back,” he said.

The clash in 1979 highlighted a town divided between those fearing overdevelopment and those keen to modernise its retail offering. Today, with Sainsbury’s Farnham facing an uncertain future, echoes of that original debate still resonate.