Background:
In response to recurring member feedback and in line with long-term course development goals, the idea of redesigning the 2nd hole has been revisited and developed further.
In recent years members have voted the current 2nd hole very poorly in the members' annual survey.
Proposal Objectives
- Deliver a more strategic, thoughtfully routed hole while maintaining its challenge and length.
- Remove the blind second shot – which detracts from the otherwise consistent architecture of the course.
- Introduce a dogleg left design, routing the hole toward the raised ground left of the 3rd tee.
- Improve safety by eliminating the blind shot over the hill and the need for ‘chicken wire safety fencing’.
- Improve course routing by reducing the long-ish walk from the 2nd green to the 3rd tee.
- Create a high-quality, conveniently located short game practice area closer to the clubhouse.
- Explore a new spare par-3 hole to support maintenance time flexibility.
Proposed Implementation Strategy (subject to further consultation process)
- A minimum two-year implementation period to allow turf establishment and minimise disruption.
- Proposed new green to be constructed using hollow cores from existing greens, ensuring consistency of playing surface.
- Work to be phased and scheduled with minimal impact to existing play or practice access.
- Designed in consultation with EDI – respected course architects known for their experience, including short game work area at Effingham, Stoneham, and The Wisley.
Q&A
Detailed Member Q&A
Course Strategy & Prioritisation
1. What is the primary motivation or strategic driver behind the proposed redesign of the second hole?
The second hole consistently receives some of the lowest ratings in the annual member survey. From a design perspective, a long, blind second shot over a hill is out of character with the otherwise strong strategic quality of the course. We believe Farnham deserves to be the best it can be — and the second hole is currently a clear weakness. Members have raised this possibility over many years, and the Board is now responding to that long-standing feedback by exploring the concept.
2. How does this project fit into the club’s longer-term course development plan?
This is a logical next step in the evolution of the course. Because the proposed green would be built on unused land, construction could take place with minimal disruption to existing play. It allows us to make progress on improving the course without interfering with regular member golf.
3. Why is the second hole being prioritised over other course improvements (e.g., fairways, greens, paths, tees)?
In short, it’s not being prioritised at the expense of other work. The project can run alongside ongoing improvements such as path upgrades and tee expansions. A separate contractor would carry out the build, meaning greenkeeping and regular maintenance will continue as planned.
4. Are other major course projects under consideration, and could a 3–5 year rolling improvement plan be shared with members?
Yes, other improvements are being considered. Our current commitments include rolling out bonded rubber bark path surfacing and widening teeing areas where possible. We aim to provide a more structured view of long-term plans in future communications.
Design & Safety
5. Where will the new second green be located, and how can members visualise this on the course?
The proposed green would sit in the vicinity of the temporary winter tee for the 3rd hole. An overhead image and concept sketch have been shared to help members visualise the location. Further design drawings will also assist.
6. Have safety concerns around the 3rd tee and 13th green been fully assessed?
Safety has been reviewed with our course architect. While no design is without compromise, the new layout has potential to offer a net safety improvement over the current second hole.
7. Will players leaving the new second green interfere with play on the 3rd tee or 13th green?
The area is more spacious than the concept image may suggest. Some proportions on the sketch are exaggerated, but there is ample room to manage this transition safely without compromising play on either hole.
8. Will visibility for second shots improve, and how is the blind shot issue being addressed?
Yes, visibility will significantly improve. The proposed location sits on a gentle rise, and from the fairway, players will have a much clearer view of the green compared to the current blind approach.
Practice Facilities
9. What is the impact on the short game practice area, and what are the plans for its relocation?
A new short game area is proposed near the current 2nd green and apron area. The exact design will be determined in collaboration with the architect.
10. How does the proposed new short game area compare to the current one?
FGC is known for its outstanding practice facilities, and any new short game area must match — or exceed — the current standard. The intention is to create an even better facility we can be proud of.
11. How will this affect junior coaching and group training sessions?
These sessions are a vital part of club life and will be factored into the redesign. Based on the architect’s previous work at clubs like Stoneham, Effingham, and The Wisley, we are confident the new facility will support and enhance coaching opportunities.
Course Flow & Temporary Setups
12. What are the implications for the 3rd hole’s winter tee?
The main 3rd tee will remain unaffected. A forward or winter tee may be relocated, but if this is a trade-off for a significantly improved 2nd hole, it is considered a worthwhile compromise.
13. If the old 2nd green is retained as a spare hole, how would it be used?
While rarely needed, the concept of a spare hole has value for flexibility. The architect will explore how this could fit into the new practice area layout.
14. How will player flow be managed to avoid slowing down play?
Any waiting on the 3rd tee is already familiar to members. These proposals are not expected to worsen this. The broader topic of tee time spacing could be revisited if needed, but it is separate from this design project.
Cost & Funding
15. What is the estimated cost of the proposed redesign, and what’s included?
The estimated cost for a new green complex, including bunkers and surrounding work, is around £75,000. Factoring in a second green for the practice area, plus turfing, shaping, drainage, and irrigation, the total would be higher.
16. How will the project be funded?
No borrowing will be required. The plan is to phase the work over at least two years, spreading the cost and giving the new green time to mature.
17. What are the opportunity costs — what won’t go ahead if this does?
Projects are prioritised in a planned, phased manner. This proposal will not affect ongoing work like path improvements or tee refurbishments. It will be delivered alongside them, not instead of them.
18. Will members see a breakdown of costs before a decision is made?
Yes — a detailed presentation, including costings, will be provided at the Shareholders’ AGM (assuming detailed designs and full costings have been secured by then).
Member Involvement & Governance
19. Will there be a formal vote, and how will member feedback be used?
Member feedback is central to this process. We will soon issue a dedicated survey to gather further views.
20. Who makes the final decision, and how is transparency maintained?
According to Club rules, significant projects require member consultation. This idea originated from member feedback and is being explored transparently by the Board.
21. How can members submit questions, feedback, or ideas?
Members are welcome to share their views via email to manager@farnhamgolfclub.co.uk and a follow-up questionaire will be circulated shortly to gather more structured feedback.
22. Will there be a member presentation and Q&A before anything is finalised?
Yes — member feedback has been encouraging, and we are progressing to the next phase. Detailed designs will be shared, and a presentation and Q&A session will take place.
