Dismayed countryside campaigners have lost their legal battle to prevent a historic greenbelt estate from being turned into an exclusive golf course.

The Cherkley Campaign has been refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court over the £50m development of Lord Beaverbrook’s former home near Leatherhead.

The decision signals an end to a costly series of escalating court cases as Mole Valley Council's original green light has been overturned and then reinstated.

Poet Rudyard Kipling first introduced the legendary Lord Beaverbrook, who was an influential politician and newspaper proprietor of the Daily Express and Evening Standard, to Cherkley Court.

Lord Beaverbrook bought the mansion and hosted some of Britain's most powerful people of the day there, including Winston Churchill who had his own room.

In May the Court of Appeal had overturned an earlier High Court ruling quashing planning permission granted by the council for a luxury hotel, spa and golf course.

Your Local Guardian:

But the Supreme Court has ruled in a decision which emerged today that the campaign's appeal against the Court of Appeal did not “raise an arguable point of law of general public importance”.

Andy Smith, Surrey branch director of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “It is a tragedy that the environmental and planning process issues which this case raises will not be aired before the Supreme Court after the conflicting judgments in the courts below.

"It is becoming clear to us that, due to the Government's 'planning reforms', the whole planning system has been subverted to advance a political agenda, which is to push economic growth at any cost and to give carte blanche to developers at the expense of the environment.

"The consequences of this latest judgment will be felt for many years to come and will greatly increase the risk to countryside and green spaces throughout England."

Your Local Guardian:

The campaign won a judicial review at the High Court after challenging Mole Valley District Council’s decision to grant planning permission to developer Longshot Cherkley Court in 2012.

But Law Lords at the Court of Appeal later overturned this ruling, reinstated planning permission and ordered the campaigners to pay costs to the council and developer.

Entrepreneur Joel Cadbury, of the chocolate dynasty, is one of the directors of Longshot Cherkley Court. 

A Longshot spokesman said: “We very much hope today marks the end of the road for those who have opposed us and the beginning of our work to truly transform Cherkley Court and its beautiful estate.

“We would like to thank everyone who supported us and for now we will get on with the job in hand."

Tim Harrold, chairman of the Cherkley Campaign said: "Obviously we are extremely disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision.

“We had hoped to restore the original robust judgment of Mr Justice Haddon-Cave that Mole Valley Council’s grant of planning permission to Longshot was contrary to planning policy, and that it was irrational and unlawful.

“Cherkley Campaign has at all times acted in accordance with best-quality legal advice. But the courts go their own way, and are free to disagree with one another.

“We are very grateful to all our supporters.

“The majority of the area’s residents are unhappy with this commercial development of a beautiful landscape, and we continue to believe that the natural landscape was worth fighting for.”

Your Local Guardian:

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave had ruled that "very exclusive private demand" was contrary to public need and highlighted the number of golf facilities already in the area.

He said a majority of councillors had made a "perverse" decision that the character of the landscape of Cherkley Court, in an area of outstanding natural beauty would not be compromised.

After the Court of Appeal’s decision, Yvonne Rees, chief executive of Mole Valley District Council, said: "The appeal raised a number of important planning principles which are of significant interest to other planning authorities across the country.

"Such a decision reinforces the validity of the decision-making process that Mole Valley District Council undertook."