Coming to a golf course in Milford soon – 190 homes.


Despite objections from residents, Witley Parish Council and local councillors – including ‘Your Waverley’s Leader – a haven for wildlife is going under bricks and mortar.

Cala Homes received consent from Waverley’s eastern planning committee with only two abstentions and two refusals. Anyone’s guess how many voted for it as the numpty bean-counters can’t even manage to announce the decision. Or did the Website drop … again!

So the fight to get a decent, acceptable housing density on land opposite Milford Golf Course is over – bar the shouting. No doubt there will be plenty of shouting once the earthmovers and construction traffic heads to the site pictured below. Watch out, wildlife. Otters, dormice, bats, birds and badgers, ‘YW’s’ eco credentials have just bitten the dust because the Statutory Authorities don’t give a damn!

Soon you will see this...


Replaced by this in a bid to meet the Government’s 300,000 housing target and secure Waverley’s housing land supply.

Cllr Martin D’Arcy slammed the SANG. (Suitable Alternative Green Space). Sounding like Mr Meldrew, 

He said: “I couldn’t believe it! Has the Environment Agency actually read the paperwork? Don’t they know that SANGS are another word for dog toilets, and here they are suggesting that children play there too!

Due to the high density of the development, the SANG has been “scrunched up” and fenced because nobody wants dogs roaming across the golf course – or did he mean what’s left of it?

After referring to what he called an “astonishing list of endangered species  Water Voles, Otters, Great Crested Newts, Badgers, bats and dormice, to name a few, including removal of trees and hedges, he asked how could this be called – a biodiversity net gain?

“I have pages of environmental arguments, but enough of that. I am getting angry – very angry.”

 Chief planning officer Zac Ellwood provided a chink of hope, saying it was up to councillors to decide on the merits of the design and landscaping. But that was short-lived. Up popped Waverley Lawyer Barry Devlin, who warned everyone that the Council could be in trouble if they refused up to 200 homes.- Big trouble!

He said: When Outline consent was granted, despite assurances, there could be changes when the detailed scheme was considered – this did not mean reducing the number. The Council could leave itself open to the costs of an appeal and compensation to the developer. Oh, dear! That frightened everyone witless. Except for Vice-Chairman Cllr David Else (Con Elstead) who, after slapping down a member of the public – Mr Tim House – featured in the clip below – he told him rudely if he interrupted, he would turn off his microphone. The man had only spoken once! Doesn’t he have a covenant on the land? Should councillors be permitted to treat a member of the public so rudely?

Here’s what neighbour Mr House had to say:

Said Uncle Elsey – “I never voted for this when the outline scheme was considered,” then took a side-swipe at his colleagues, the majority of whom  he said had been “hoodwinked.”

There was much discussion about landscaping boundaries, the type of homes – 10/14 per hectare – to include one-bed flats and houses, detached two three and four-bedroom properties and 13 or 14 bungalows, 30% (57) of which would be “affordable” for shared ownership and rent.

Witley Parish Council Chairman Gillian McCalden argued 190 homes had been “squeezed” onto the site. Far too many.   She said insufficient outside space was provided for the “affordable” flats, none of which was in line with the Witley Neighbourhood Plan.

The only – happy soul among the eastern planning committee was Michael Goodridge (Con Wonersh), who believed the development and boundary were quite acceptable. Perhaps somebody will tell us how many homes will be built in Wonersh? Because ‘Martini Man’  Goodridge never opposes anything, anywhere anytime in the eastern villages. 

A String of conditions included this on the update sheet.

 The Council published its latest Five-Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement, with a base date of the 1 st of April 2021 on   November 3 2021. It concluded the Council had a housing land supply of 5.2 years. It should also be noted that this site is within the 5 year supply of deliverable sites, with 160 units anticipated to be completed within the 5 year period, and anticipated that the remaining 30 would come forward within the next supply period.


5 thoughts on “Coming to a golf course in Milford soon – 190 homes.”

  1. “Doesn’t he have a covenant on the land?” This has zero relevance for planning purposes. There’s not even a requirement to own the land you apply to planning permission on. There’s a legally defined set of considerations, anything outside that doesn’t have nay impact on if permission should be given.
    If he does have a covenant that is a private legal matter between himself and the landowner, not something the council has any business is spending taxpayers money thinking about.

    1. Thank you for the explanation. So, presumably, any little legal difficulties will not delay the development?

  2. WW – I am expecting that either Stretton or CALA will now trot off and make an application to the Lands Tribunal for removal of the covenant and use the grant of planning permission as the justification/grounds for it being removed. I am not sure what if any part Waverley will play in all this but they certainly have an interest in the outcome! As do the other residents of Milford, like myself.

    Meanwhile I expect Milford GC’s contribution to the 5 year supply to be hotly disputed at the forthcoming appeals at Red Court and on the Thakeham site given what was said about MGC at Badshot Lea appeal where the Inspector said …….

    “Evidence submitted to the Local Plan Part 2 Allocation and Development Plan Policies Examination states that there is a restrictive covenant on the site that limits density to one dwelling per acre. Moreover, it is stated that the current owner of the site has conceded the validity of the restrictive covenant and made no application to vary or discharge it. The beneficiary of the covenant has stated that he has no intention of relinquishing it. On this basis it seems that the planning permission could not be implemented at the present time even if the reserved matters were approved. I appreciate that the situation may change in the future, however at the present time I am not persuaded that this site is deliverable, or will contribute to the housing land supply in the next 5 years. I therefore agree with the appellant that 176 dwellings should be removed from the Councils housing land supply.”

    The current owner of the site is still Stretton Milford so this is saying is that Stretton has apparently accepted that the covenant is valid but it hasn’t yet applied to the Lands Tribunal for discharge or modification. As I say above, I think that’s probably their next step.

    It’s certainly shaping up to be interesting…..

    1. Very grateful for this vital information – which, as you so rightly say, could be shaping up to be interesting, very interesting. Thank you, Kathy. We will use this as a post.

  3. Once again Waverley planning committee had its hands tied behind its back, prior permission was given for this development just before the last council election meaning that the only things that the recent planning committee could change were design, layout, and landscaping ,etc the deed had already been done and the last Tory led council had said go ahead, all we could do was to try and ameliorated the damage done.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.