Campaigners are saddened 'beyond words' to see heavy machinery move in before a judicial review has taken place on a decision to permit a golf course, hotel and spa to be created on a historic estate near Leatherhead.

Cherkley Campaign has secured a judicial review of the Mole Valley District Council (MVDC) decision to grant planning permission for development at Cherkley Court, the former home of press baron Lord Beaverbrook.

Last week Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd started removing topsoil on the estate after the High Court permitted certain activities under a new injunction ahead of the judicial review within the next few months.

Andy Smith, Surrey branch director of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), which backs campaigners, said: "We are extremely dismayed that Longshot's contractors have gone ahead and are working there despite the fact that a full judicial review is imminent and they cannot possibly know how that case will come out."

Mr Smith said Longshot had promised to repair damage if they and the council lose the judicial review. He said: "This assurance the court has required them to give us.

"But even so it is sad beyond words to see mechanical diggers churning up such a beautiful piece of countryside, and to realise that some of this damage will be quite literally irreparable."

He added that an injunction had halted some of the ‘most destructive’ work and saved some meadows while the judge had cited 'three main grounds' when ruling the judicial review could go ahead.

He said: "In essence we believe that Mole Valley Council made a bad decision regarding Cherkley and did so as a consequence of a fundamentally flawed decision-making process."

The council said the judicial review will concentrate on the need for a golf course, provision of water for the golf course and whether the council had enough environmental information to make the decision.

Andy Bircher, corporate head of service at the council, said: "MVDC is confident it has a strong case to refute the three grounds and that the review will be dismissed."

He said the council could not reveal how much it has spent on legal costs at this stage, adding: "It is not, at this time, pursuing claiming damages from the Cherkley Court campaign group but will keep this under review."

In March campaigners won an injunction to halt construction of the golf course, but the court later ruled that certain preparatory activities could be carried out.

Longshot spokesman Nick Kilby also refused to say how much money the legal challenge has cost the company in delays and legal costs.

Last week Mr Kilby claimed the judge 'rejected' five of the campaigners’ grounds for the review and deemed the remaining three grounds to be ‘arguable’.

He said: "Longshot welcomes the judgement and remains supremely confident that when the judicial review finally takes place in the coming weeks, the three remaining points will be dismissed."

But Mr Smith hit back, saying the judge had actually mentioned three grounds, which he felt "had merit", and there was still scope for other grounds to be cited.

He said: "This is what he meant when he said these grounds are 'arguable'.

"He was not saying, as Longshot's spokesman suggests, that our arguments are shaky but rather the opposite - that our arguments are compelling and worthy of being aired at a full judicial review."