News

Transparency and accountability are key values for the Council, all income, spending, and financial decisions are open for anyone to inspect, unless there is an overriding reason otherwise (e.g. commercial sensitivity).

We publish as much as we can on the website, but if you would like any information which isn’t published below please get in touch.

2026/27 Budget

27 November 2025

At tonight’s Parish Council meeting Members voted to approve the Precept for 2026/27 at £295,431. This is a 4.32% increase from the previous year, but owing to an increased Council Tax base, equates to a 3.1% increase for the average Band D property. In monetary terms, this is a £2.49 per year increase in Council Tax for the average Band D property.

Parking Restrictions – Church Road Milford

6 November 2025

Residents will hopefully be pleased to hear than following objections from the Parish Council, along with many other objections made by concerned local organisations and residents, Surrey County Council have made the decision not to progress parking restrictions by St John’s Church on Church Road in Milford. Further information can be found here.

Have your say on a new pedestrian bridge over the Ock

6 October 2025

The Milford golf course development has provided the parish with a unique opportunity to improve pedestrian movement around the village.

The proposal would be  to build a footbridge between Busdens Way and the golf course development. This would provide a shorter and safer way for pedestrians coming from the Milford Lodge estate, Oxted Green, and New Road who wish to access Milford rail station, or Tescos and Squires.  It avoids having to use Rake Lane, which is unlit, lacks pavements, and has poor sight lines, making it one of the most dangerous roads in the area.

The bridge could  be wide enough and strong enough to take mobility scooters as well as people on foot. It would be accessed by a new footpath from the golf course development and by using an existing footpath between Busdens Way and the adjoining garages (as shown on the drawing).  Should such a facility be built at this time it is likely that it could be paid for using external funds at no cost to the ratepayers.

Witley & Milford Parish Council believes that this a one-time opportunity to provide an upgrade to the footpath network which improves safety, and shortens walking distances, but before we progress any further with the proposal we are seeking your views.

Please visit our Survey Monkey poll www.surveymonkey.com/r/R8BCVZZ to make your views known.

If you are unable to access Survey Monkey online please call the office on 01483 422044 and speak to the Clerk.

Witley & Milford Parish Council

Local Government Reorganisation

1 August 2025

Here is the Parish Council’s response to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government consultation on local government reorganisation.

Witley and Milford Parish Council (WMPC) wish to respond to the consultation on the future shape of local government in Surrey, following the submissions from Surrey County Council and the majority of the districts in the county.

WMPC lies within Waverley Borough, where it is the fifth largest settlement, with a population of 9,500. It is characterised by a mix of large and small villages, and is dominated in economic terms by service industries such as education, and by commuting to Guildford and Farnham, and to London to a lesser extent. The parish is scheduled to add over 400 additional houses in the current Local Plan, and many more under the latest housing allocations.

The Council strongly supports the option for three unitary councils in preference to the two proposed by Surrey County Council for reasons of financial stability, development policy, service delivery and democratic community engagement, specifically:

  • Under the two unitary option, west Surrey would include not just the heavily indebted Woking, but also Spelthorne and Surrey Heath, both of which have substantial borrowing.  The unitary inheriting these districts will be under intense pressure to raise rates, cut services, and sell assets to the detriment of other areas who have a more prudent history. With three unitaries the burden of indebted districts is spread more widely compared to the two unitary option and is therefore more sustainable.
  • Under the two unitary option, west Surrey would stretch from the Piccadilly Line at Heathrow to the High Weald in Sussex.  There are no common development or planning policies that could possibly unite the area, and there is a serious risk that the new authority would be constantly struggling to reconcile conflicting pressures to unify its policies. The three unitary option recognises that the Thames-side districts share characteristics, such as the economically dominant Heathrow, and housing, industrial development, and transport links which are an extension of the Greater London area – characteristics which are not shared with the rest of Surrey.
  • In terms of service delivery, whether it is highways, health, social services, or education, the delivery already splits the western part of Surrey into three or more divisions, which align much more closely with the boundaries of the three unitary option.  There are no identifiable services up for devolution which require a two unitary option to keep them together.
  • Democratic community engagement is fundamental to local government.  With two unitaries, the number of elected councillors (taking county and district councillors together) would be approximately halved – and yet that reduced number have the same county plus district functions, if not more, to supervise and control. The two unitary option tacitly recognises the issue with its plan for Neighbourhood Area Committees – but these would be unelected, undemocratic, unfinanced, powerless talking shops which would merely get in the way of the present representational work of democratically elected town and parish councils. We await the promised White Paper on the future role of town and parish councils, but whatever that may bring, the three unitary option at least provides the basis for maintaining the present level of democratic representation.

In sum, the two unitary option will miss most of the Government’s objectives and create more remote authorities which lack credibility with the communities they are supposed to be serving just for the sake of making small theoretical savings which will be dwarfed by the much larger budgets involved.  The three unitary option at least provides for more democratic authorities which can better identify with their local communities.

Last modified on December 8th, 2022