SEASIDE communities dotted along the borough’s coast need to stand together to have any chance of getting government to pay for sea defences or compensation for those who lose their homes if they don’t.

The call came from Malcolm Kerby of Happisburgh who is fighting for social justice on a national stage, on Thursday in Ormesby St Margaret.

The campaigner, widely regarded as the most knowledgeable person outside Government on coastal erosion, was in the village urging people to sensibly object to the emerging second draft of the Shoreline Management Plan.

Widely criticised, the document sets out the Government’s policy on coastal erosion which campaigners say takes no account of the human and social costs, and – since those living near rivers get a better deal – discriminates against people who live by the sea.

Around 70 people who packed the village centre were told that accepting the SMP would mean tumbling property values for those on the front line – and for others up to two miles inland – affecting everyone with the NR29 postcode.

But they were told to be reasonable in their total opposition and to foster “togetherness” rather than lobbing grenades at each other and taking up positions.

Chris Hogg, chairman of Scratby Coastal Erosion Group (SCEG) said the SMP was a flawed document that was technical and nothing to do with management. He said the shift in policy from hold the line to no active intervention at Scratby would scupper the rock berm project, spelling disaster for tourism, the dunes and amenities.

He said: “They say they did listen and there were certain changes made. However I have read it three or four times and there are statements there that are meant to make us feel better. But they are littered with ‘ifs’, ‘buts’ and ‘maybes’. It is aspirational rather than definitive.”

Mr Kerby, chairman of the National Voice of Coastal Communities, said: “There is no going alone. We have to stand together. I do not believe there is any way our elected representatives can accept this on our behalf. But it’s not a question of having a blazing row and pointing the finger – just make it very clear that not in my name will you accept the Shoreline Management Plan. There is a huge cost to doing nothing and we need to encourage them along that route.”

Also present was Peter Boggis from Eastern Bavents near Southwold in Suffolk who has had an ongoing battle with the authorities to be allowed to protect his own section of coastline at his own expense.

A show of hands were unanimous in requesting SCEG to write to the relevant authorities urging them not to accept the Shoreline Management Plan without provision for social justice and a change from ‘no active intervention’ to ‘hold the line’.

The group has received 20 comment forms protesting about the SMP which will be forwarded to Coastal Management in North Norfolk. No representatives from Great Yarmouth Borough Council were present although a message of support was received from councillor Charles Reynolds. Lewis Roberts, case worker for MP Brandon Lewis was present as was Tony Wright who pledged his continuing support. The document will be re-presented to Great Yarmouth Borough Council in October.

Story in the Great Yarmouth Mercury

A £1.5million project to help protect the Suffolk coast against the threat of erosion was last night branded a “talking shop” that will not provide the immediate action desperately needed.

The Suffolk Coastal Change Pathfinder Project has been set up with government funding to help villagers in Corton, near Lowestoft, and Easton Bavents, near Southwold, look at ways to adapt to the changing shoreline.

But last night campaigners said it did not go far enough to provide the practical solutions that were needed.

However, those behind the initiative launched a vigorous defence saying they could only come up with appropriate solutions following consultation with local communities.

Over the next 10 months, people living and working in the two villages will have the chance to take part in workshops and events aimed at creating ideas and planning for the future.

It will try to establish what options there are for managing the effects of coastal erosion and its impacts on community life and businesses.

Their suggestions – which could include relocation and re-use of land – will then be handed to the Department for food, environment and rural affairs (Defra) in April next year for consideration in the future development of coastal change policy.

But Graham Henderson, chairman of Suffolk Coast Against Retreat (SCAR), said: “It is not offering any actual solutions.

“The people of Easton Bavents thought they were going to get some practical help, but all they are getting is an opportunity for consultation.

“That will take up money that would be better used for practical applications such as relocating properties that are close to the cliff edge.

“The knowledge of what needs to be done is already in the hands of local organisations.

“There are three properties at Easton Bavents close to the edge at the moment and they will probably go into the sea before this project is concluded.”

Retired engineer Peter Boggis has spent years creating his own costal defences from some 250,000 tonnes of compacted clay soils near his home in Easton Bavents.

Last night he said: “It is a great shame. This is purely a talking shop. It does not provide any physical help. I believe its purely a holding operation to placate the general public.”

The Pathfinder Project was launched in Lowestoft on Tuesday and is being led by Waveney District Council along with Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal Futures.

It is one of 15 Pathfinder projects across the country which was set up with money from Defra last year.

Last night Waveney District Council’s David McGinnis, project officer for the initiative, said it was a great opportunity for communities to have their say on what should be done.

“We need to find sustainable and practical solutions,” he said. “The whole idea is that we want to listen to local opinion and engage with the community to enable us to identify what they consider to be issues and concerns and work with them to form solutions.

“We need to listen to what people have to say and understand the pressures and concerns to see where we can help in the short and long term.

“For the most favourable options to be identified, it is essential that they are worked through in consultation. It is vital that the local communities have a say in their future.”

For more details about the Pathfinder project, visit www.waveney-pathfinder.com.

Story by Craig Robinson in the East Anglian Daily Times

A successful multi million pound bid to solve major coastal problems in Norfolk and Suffolk was hailed by experts and campaigners last night as the most important step ever taken in the management of the coast.

And as three local authorities – North Norfolk, Waveney and Great Yarmouth – celebrated winning nearly £5m out of a national pot of £11m to address a range of challenges, officials in charge of managing the coast said the money would help individuals about to lose their homes to erosion, the two counties as a whole and also build future policies for the rest of the country in the face of climate change.

A small number of people teetering on the very edges of some cliff tops, including in the now internationally known erosion hotspot of Happisburgh, were for the first time guaranteed payments for the loss of their homes where they had previously faced walking away with nothing.

But although those compensatory payments are set to grab many of the headlines, those behind the successful bids stressed this element was only one part of a wider policy-influencing mandate which the government has handed to Norfolk and Suffolk along with the money.

North Norfolk has been given £3m, Waveney £1.5m and Great Yarmouth £296,500. After North Norfolk and Waveney, the largest handout was East Riding, where £1.2m was made available.

The weighting of the North Norfolk bid has been interpreted as demonstrating how council officials, politicians and campaigners from the district have led the way in the battle against erosion, its impacts and the government’s attitude to the coast.

All 15 councils around the country which won money will now be referred to as ‘pathfinders’ and they will have 18 months to spend the money on a range of schemes, while feeding back the lessons they learn so government can look further into the future.

Last night, leading campaigner and the coordinator of the Happisburgh based Coastal Concern Action Group (CCAG), Malcolm Kerby said: “This is ground breaking. For the first time ever we have genuine recognition from central government that these problems exist.

“And for the first time the local authorities will be able to properly manage the coast and the consequences of change along that coast.

“It quite simply is the most important step ever taken in the management of our coastline.”

One of the homeowners set to be offered a financial package for her home where previously she thought she would lose everything is Di Wrightson, who lives on Beach Road in Happisburgh.

“After many years of anxiety and stress, watching the storm clouds gather and imagining the difficulties ahead, I suddenly feel as if I have stepped into sunlight,” she said.

North Norfolk MP Norman Lamb said: “This is an enormous achievement, something which we have collectively fought for in north Norfolk across many years.

“It is the first recognition that there is a need for social justice on this matter.

“The scale of this breakthrough cannot be underestimated, although it is by no means the end point.”

Peter Frew, head of coastal strategy at North Norfolk District Council, said: “I have been working here on the coast since 1992 and in terms of coast management this is the biggest thing that has happened in that time.”

Welcoming the smallest of the three bids, which will be spent on a project for the village of Scratby, Great Yarmouth MP Tony Wright said: “By taking part in this programme we can help to formulate effective future policy on this important issue.

“The £300,000 will test different approaches to adapt to coastal erosion and change, such as roll-back and business support programmes.”

A Defra spokesman said: “The pathfinders will road-test new and innovative approaches to planning for and managing change.”

The money will go towards a number of central themes, including:

Story by Ed Foss in the Eastern Daily Press

How the Yarmouth and Waveney areas could benefit

WAVENEY

The Waveney £1.5m will see work undertaken with communities at Corton and Easton Bavents to explore and deliver practical solutions to the impacts of Suffolk’s ever-changing coastline.

The bid is the second largest in the country after North Norfolk.

Council officials said work would commence immediately on exploring new ways of adapting to coastal change.

They added that, working in partnership with the two identified communities, the project would road-test innovative approaches to planning for and managing change.

Two projects will run at Corton. The first will look at developing the amenity level and accessibility of the beach and enhancing facilities, effectively handing the beach back to the community.

The second will see work commence with the people and businesses of Corton to find a long-term solution to the issue of coastal erosion and its impact on the village over the next 20 to 50 years. The aim is to ensure Corton continues to remain a secure and viable community.

Work at Easton Bavents will focus on long-term planning solutions for those living in vulnerable areas. It will approach the issue of coastal erosion from a planning perspective, looking at adapting policies, possible relocations and the impact on Easton Bavents and its surrounding communities.

Easton Bavents has become particularly well known because of the activities of resident Peter Boggis in building his own sea defences – and the legal complications which have arisen from those actions.

Ken Sale, Waveney District Council’s portfolio holder for environment, said: “We are delighted that we have received funding for this important programme of work.

“Our communities are facing the reality of coastal change and we need to gain a greater understanding of the implications for the future.

“We hope that these projects and the learning we share with our pathfinder colleagues help us find strong, long-term solutions to this issue and help secure a prosperous future for those communities on the front line.”

GREATYARMOUTH

The borough council will receive almost £300,000 for a joint project in conjunction with the Scratby Coastal Erosion Group.

The success was welcomed by Great Yarmouth MP Tony Wright: “I am pleased that Great Yarmouth has been selected in conjunction with Scratby to participate in the pathfinder programme.

“I have always campaigned on behalf of those people affected by coastal erosion and by taking part in this programme we can help to formulate effective future policy on this important issue.

“The £300,000 will test different approaches to adapt to coastal erosion and change, such as roll-back and business support programmes, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Scratby Coastal Erosion Group and the borough council on this project.”

At last, ‘joined up’ coastal management

Life changed in Happisburgh yesterday.

The village – a calm, pretty outpost of Norfolk which has become an international icon in the battle to address the impacts of coastal erosion, climate change and an emerging Whitehall-driven policy of managed retreat – was abuzz, albeit rather gently, with the news that their local authority had been awarded £3m to tackle coastal challenges.

Part of that money – and this would have been a quite staggering concept just a few months ago – will be used to buy the half a dozen most at risk homes and allow people to walk away with far more than what they thought they would receive – which was, until yesterday, nothing.

Another chunk will be put towards a “buy and lease back” scheme for a group of slightly less at risk homes, again an idea which few people saw coming until very recently.

This is a community with strength of character, no little patience, a beautiful beach, an eye-catching sentinel church, charming candy- striped lighthouse and relatively small but charismatic businesses – a wet fish shop, pub, general store and caravan site.

But Happisburgh, along with other communities in Norfolk, Suffolk and around the country, has been blighted by the spectre of coastal erosion.

Not purely blighted by name, but also by a suffering property market. Houses still sell here, but often for less than they would if they were elsewhere, away from both the erosion itself and the perception of how serious that erosion is.

The hope is that the dual purchasing schemes, alongside other parts of the project such as helping businesses move backwards physically on to new land as the cliff crumbles before them and tidying up areas which have become eyesores because of erosion, will breathe new life into such communities as Happisburgh, restore confidence and allow the property market to find a new level.

That market level may never be the same as it would be for an inland village, but the key point is that it should allow a community which feels it was once led to believe it would have sea defences for perpetuity to spread the cost of losing those defences over more than one unfortunate generation – which for so long appeared to be the current one.

Clive Stockton, who holds the coastal portfolio at North Norfolk District Council as well as running the Hill House pub in Happisburgh, explained: “To date we have had an all or nothing situation, where we applied for government funding for coastal defences for an area or a community and if successful it was all well and good.

“But more and more there were cases of defences being turned down – and that was effectively the end of the story, with communities left to their own devices.

“This is all about addressing the consequences of not defending and coming up with mechanisms to deal with the reality people are left with if funding for defences is not forthcoming.

“This is the first time that has happened.

“With new options, a lot of the blight and the problems which come with not giving a community a future can be removed.

“This is not about backing away from building sea defences; it is about producing a management scheme where there are alternatives.”

The full public explanation of what this project is and how it will work in practice is going to take some time because it is both detailed and unprecedented, but steps are expected to be taken quickly and the emotional impact has been immediate.

Di Wrightson has become something of an accidental Happisburgh celebrity and not only because she used to run a thriving village tearoom. She lives in a pair of houses on Beach Road which will, quite probably within a few months, be demolished and a payment made under the pathfinder project so she can look forward to buying another home.

She said: “The Beach Road residents can now breathe a sigh of relief, but there is still a need for every coastal community to feel properly protected against the uncertainties of erosion and climate change.

“My personal response to this announcement is one of joy and elation that, after many years of anxiety and stress, watching the storm clouds gather and imagining the difficulties ahead, I suddenly feel as if I had stepped into sunlight.

“Please don’t pinch me – I might wake up and find it’s all a beautiful dream!”

Her near neighbour Jane Archer, a founder member of the Coastal Concern Action Group who was infamously told her home was worth £1 last year when applying to borrow against it, looks set to fall into the “buy and lease back” category.

“If this were to happen – and we really don’t know the detail yet – the value of the house would change from nothing to something,” she said.

“It’s just that we don’t know what that something is yet. And we also don’t know the terms of any lease back.

“But we now have some hope we will end up with something, where we previously did not.”

There are many unknowns at this stage. By no means is this a solution to a hugely complicated topic and these projects must be seen as they are: pilots designed to inform and educate.

The pessimist would point out that these purchases may be one-offs and the government may never agree to carry such a policy through to a fully fledged version.

The pessimist might also suggest this is a sop to calm a troublesome bunch of East Anglian campaigners in the short term. That would be a mistake on the part of government. There is now so much knowledge of this subject both in Happisburgh and at North Norfolk District Council’s headquarters in Cromer that it would be unwise to believe the problem will go away with no long-term attempts at a solution.

And it is vitally important to point out that this is not just about Happisburgh, but many other parts of north and west Norfolk, the village of Scratby near Great Yarmouth and also Waveney.

But Happisburgh, and particularly Beach Road, will undoubtedly retain the glare of the media spotlight and it will be fascinating to watch the next few months pass by.

A retired engineer has been dealt a blow in his battle to prevent his home from falling into the North Sea after an appeal was upheld.

Conservation watchdog Natural England has today won an appeal against a court judgment to allow the cliffs below Peter Boggis’ home at Easton Bavents, near Southwold, to erode naturally.

Since 2002, the 78-year-old has spent tens of thousands of pounds installing his own “soft” sea defences built of 250,000 tonnes of compacted clay soil in front of the cliffs near his home.

The work was carried out without planning permission and the Court of Appeal said today that the only lawful course open to Mr Boggis and other members of Easton Bavents Conservation was to apply for permission and go through the correct planning process.

Mr Boggis, whose house, The Warren, is 302ft from the cliff edge, says his sea defences have so far saved more than eight acres of land and four properties “at no cost to the nation”.

He wants to be allowed to maintain his defences to prevent further erosion of the cliffs.

In 2006, Natural England notified a coastal Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) between Southwold in the south and Kessingland in the north.

In the High Court, Mr Justice Blair said the evidence showed that part of the intention of the SSSI was to allow the destruction of Mr Boggis’ defences and the rapid erosion of the cliffs behind them.

He said: “I am not unsympathetic to the plight of Mr Boggis and the other residents who can see the cliff face remorselessly approaching the boundaries of their properties.

“But they were aiming at the wrong target in challenging the SSSI. The lawful course would be to apply for planning permission and coastal protection consent so that all material considerations, including their human rights and the SSSI, could be taken into account.”

Story in the Eastern Daily Press, and also featured in the Independent, the Guardian and the Telegraph

Watch a video clip on BBC News

Read the full judgment

A film and radio programme highlighting the future of Norfolk and Suffolk’s threatened coastline has received its premiere. The programme made by a group of youngsters aged 13 to 19 was shown at The Cut arts venue in Halesworth on Friday .

With its apt title Canute, the film details the youngsters’ concerns over the loss of land and homes to the North Sea due to global climate change.

The group, under the tutelage of Suffolk-based theatre director James Holloway, recorded scenes at Easton Bavents, near Lowestoft.

Canute Project on YouTube

The man dubbed East Anglia’s King Canute says he will seek formal planning permission before doing work to repair the DIY sea defences beneath his clifftop home.

Peter Boggis, who lives in Easton Bavents, near Southwold, has spent thousands of pounds building sea defences out of compacted clays at the base of the cliffs near his house.

He was banned from maintaining the defences in December 2005 after a four-year dispute with Waveney District Council over the legality of the structures, for which he never had planning permission.

As a result, he estimates that only about 50,000 tonnes of the 250,000 tonnes of earth remains, the rest having been washed away by the North Sea.

The soft cliffs at Easton Bavents have retreated more than 3.5km since 1640 and the process is continuing at a rate of one or two metres a year. A destructive storm in 2001 took away about 10m of earth from the cliff face near to his house.

It is estimated that Mr Boggis’ home, called The Warren, and the 13 other houses in the small community will all disappear within the next 50 years unless they are protected.

Now the retired engineer has said he will apply for planning permission before doing any work to rebuild the defences.

He said: “I have informed Waveney District Council that I will not be proceeding any further with the defences – other then in an emergency, such as a tidal surge – without settling this matter with them first. It would give them their chance to look at the evidence and have their say.”

In December last year, Natural England was taken to the High Court by Mr Boggis, who claimed that that the body’s officers should have carried out an appropriate assessment required under EU law to see if declaring the cliffs at Easton Bavents part of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) might have an adverse effect on birds in nearby Easton Broad.

Natural England announced last week that it is appealing the judge’s decision and the appeal is expected to be heard at the end of February.

A spokesman for Natural England said: “We really think this is a constructive move and a good way forward. We have always said that this issue should be resolved through the local planning process and we will be pleased to see Mr Boggis taking things down that road.

“We will be happy to work with him in the future to help him pursue this course of action.”

Story by Haley Mace in the Eastern Daily Press

Natural England yesterday lodged an appeal against the judgment in the Easton Bavents High Court case brought last month by Mr Peter Boggis.

Shaun Thomas, Regional Director of Natural England, said: “The High Court’s judgment has unintended consequences that go far beyond the specifics of the case. It threatens to stifle the ways in which advice and expert opinion can be used to inform planning and development decisions and poses a real risk of unnecessary bureaucracy. Natural England wishes to work with Mr Boggis to find a solution to the predicament he faces, but we need to resolve the unworkable precedent that the judgment threatens to create.”

Contrary to recent publicity, the High Court was not asked to determine whether Mr Boggis should be allowed to build sea defences at Easton Bavents in an attempt to save his home from erosion. Instead, it considered whether Natural England acted lawfully in designating parts of the fossil-rich Easton Bavents cliffs as a site of national geological conservation importance. In the High Court hearing, the Hon. Mr Justice Blair confirmed that Natural England was entirely justified in notifying the Easton Bavents site on the conservation grounds that it did.

However in his judgment, Hon. Mr Justice Blair referred to comments made by Natural England officers at the time of notification of the site suggesting that they would be unlikely to consent to sea defences being built in front of the Easton Bavents site. Although no consent application has ever been made by Mr Boggis for Natural England to formally consider, Hon. Mr Justice Blair ruled that these comments amounted to a plan and, as such, an assessment of the effects of this plan on a nearby European Habitats Directive designated conservation site should have been carried out as part of the notification process.

Natural England disputes this part of the judgment and is concerned that Justice Blair’s definition of what constitutes a plan for the purposes of the Habitats Directive has been cast so wide that advice and consultation given in routine development and planning situations could easily become compromised by the need to carry out environmental assessments that are entirely unnecessary.

Shaun Thomas, concluded: “Natural England sympathises with the situation Mr Boggis faces but we believe that sea defences of the type and of the scale that he has put in place should be assessed by appropriate planning authorities. We would encourage Mr Boggis to make a suitable planning application to Waveney District Council to enable them to judge the matter and properly weigh the interests of the Easton Bavents conservation site, of adjacent homeowners and of the ways in which his sea defences impact coastal and erosion processes elsewhere along the coast.”

A retired engineer dubbed ‘King Canute” after winning the right to protect his cliff top home from the sea faces a challenge from the Government agency in charge of conservation.

Peter Boggis, 77, spent tens of thousands of pounds building earth barriers to protect his home at Easton Bavents, near Southwold, Suffolk, and those of his neighbours which are threatened by erosion to the cliffs on they stand.

He claimed victory in the High Court last month when a judge ruled that it was unlawful to allow the houses to be sacrificed to the sea for scientific reasons.

However, Natural England, who want the fossil rich cliffs to wear away exposing strata of soil and rock for study, have now announced they are to appeal the case.

Shaun Thomas, regional director of Natural England, said the original decision could impact on future efforts to protect the countryside.

He said: “The High Court’s judgment has unintended consequences that go far beyond the specifics of the case. It threatens to stifle the ways in which advice and expert opinion can be used to inform planning and development decision and poses a real risk of unnecessary bureaucracy.

“Natural England wishes to work with Mr Boggis to find a solution to the predicament he faces, but we need to resolve the unworkable precedent that the judgment threatens to create.”

Mr Boggis spent tens of thousands of pounds protecting his home and that of his neighbours with earth barriers.

However Mr Thomas said the plans were never properly assessed.

He concluded: “Natural England sympathises with the situation Mr Boggis faces but we believe that sea defences of the type and of the scale that he has put in place should be assessed by appropriate planning authorities.”

Story by Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent in the Telegraph

On crumbling coastline from Humberside to Felixstowe they will cheer his name: Peter Boggis, 77, retired engineer and gallant knight battling for the right of all Englishmen to defend their homes against the encroaching sea. Mr Boggis has spent at least £400,000 building clay barriers to defend his house and his hamlet against the North Sea. He has spent another eyewatering sum fighting a legal battle against Natural England, the government body that argued that his defences were unlawful.

It designated his stretch of coastline a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and argued that, as such, it was in the interests of science to allow the ground beneath his home to erode naturally. Yesterday, in the High Court, he won a remarkable victory. Mr Justice Blair rejected the arguments of Natural England on a technicality. Both sides now plan to appeal.

Last night, Mr Boggis returned to his home in Easton Bavents, north of Southwold, and declared himself “mildy elated”. The price of defending his home, which may be worth £300,000 if his defences remain, and £30,000 if they are removed, has never deterred him. The principle was far more valuable.

“I’m fighting in the interests of everyone who lives on the coast of England,” he said. “If we can save one inch of the coast of Britain it’s worth it. If we can save one house it’s worth as much as a castle anywhere else.”

Up and down the coast of England yesterday, coastal defenders cheered the man whom they have called the Clifftop Crusader.

In the Norfolk village of Happisburgh, which has already lost 26 properties to the sea, Malcolm Kerby, head of a local coastal defence action group, said: “We’re absolutely delighted. When a man takes on the Goliath of the Government and beats it, it just makes you think that perhaps England still exists.”

John Gummer, the MP for Southwold, called The Times from Paris. “I think we will all take heart from this,” he said. Though this legal skirmish was won on a technicality, he said: “You have to fight on the minutiae. That’s how you win these battles. It will mean that Natural England will have to think again before it imposes these sorts of things on individuals.”

He also believed it would “bring more pressure on a very important issue, which is that if you don’t allow someone to defend their own property then you must compensate them”.

Not only are some clifftop householders barred from defending their property, they may have to pay at least £3,000 for its demolition by the council.

“In shoreline management plans. . . serious efforts are afoot to withdraw from any sort of defence of coastline,” Mr Gummer said. “This will show people that they can fight and they can win.”

Mr Boggis’s family bought the land upon which his home stands in 1904, buying part of an estate, much of which has since been swallowed by the sea. The pace of erosion appeared to increase in the 1980s and just over a decade ago Mr Boggis began casting around for a means to beat back the waves.

“I have to do something with my retirement, to get the grey cells going,” he said. Thirty folders of research on the subject of sea defence piled up in his study, and from 2002 until the end of 2005, he embarked on an ambitious project on the beach beneath the cliffs, with 250,000 tonnes of clay.

He cut an impressive figure on the rampart, with his greying beard and timbrous voice. He had no doubt that the money for his project would come, “with a little help and the grace of God. I believe if you put your shoulder to the wheel the rest of the world will fall into step beside you,” he said.

Natural England halted his work in the winter of 2005. It argued in the High Court that its concern related to some rather older residents of the area, signs of life from the Pleistocene era 1.8 millions years ago, now fossilised in the rock. John Horwell, QC, for Natural England, argued that many sites were designated SSSIs “because the process of erosion makes them interesting to scientists”.

In the event, Mr Justice Blair’s ruling was strictly for the birds. Attempting to stop the protection of the coastline by imposing an SSSI might have an adverse effect on a Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds to the north. The judge ruled that Natural England should have performed an assessment first of the risk to the SPA.

Mr Boggis called it an indictment of the tangled mess in which Britain’s “environmental lobby” were caught, the “yellow-bellied cowards who should never have been put in charge of the welfare of this nation”.

He believes that his rampart may last at most another five years. Then, if the legal battle is finally won, he may start building another one.

Story by Will Pavia by the Times

A retired engineer has won the latest stage of his fight to protect his Suffolk home from falling into the sea.

Natural England wanted fossil-bearing cliffs near Southwold to be allowed to erode raising the prospect that some homes could fall into the sea.

But Peter Boggis, 77, installed his own defences near his Easton Bavents home.

High Court judge Mr Justice Blair ruled Natural England’s decision to permit erosion for “scientific reasons” was unlawful but an appeal can be made.

Living a nightmare

Mr Boggis said: “Mr Justice Blair’s judgment lifts a great shadow from my mind and gives hope for the future for those that live by the coast of Britain.

“We have lived a nightmare in recent years. Inconvenient or not to bureaucracy, the defence of the coast should not be walked away from.”

Natural England declared the area a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in 2006, which prevented Mr Boggis from maintaining his sea defence barrier.

I think it is obviously in the interests of the people whose homes are threatened that the sooner this matter is brought on the better Mr Justice Blair

But he had argued that Natural England had no legal right to stop him saving his home.

Mr Boggis spent tens of thousands of pounds building his own sea defences using 250,000 tonnes of compacted clay soils to prevent his home and 13 others nearby from eventually slipping into the North Sea.

But the ruling means he will not be able to resume maintenance of his sea defences until the outcome of any appeal by Natural England.

The judge ruled that the intention behind the SSSI was to allow the destruction of Mr Boggis’s “soft sea defences” and the rapid erosion of the cliffs behind them.

Mr Justice Blair said this amounted to “a plan or project” which might have an adverse effect on a special protection area (SPA) for birds to the north of the Mr Boggis’ sea defences.

The judge ruled an “appropriate assessment” of the risk to the SPA should have been carried out to comply with the EU Habitats Directive. Natural England’s failure to do so was contrary to its duties under European law.

The judge said: “I think it is obviously in the interests of the people whose homes are threatened that the sooner this matter is brought on the better.”

In a statement Natural England said it did not want to prevent Mr Boggis from protecting his home but he had not obtained planning permission from his local authority or a waste licence from the Environment Agency.

A spokeswoman said the principle of “conservation instead of preservation” had been upheld and believed the judge had backed their case in principle, but not the process used to designate the site.

Natural England would be appealing and remained “very confident”, she said.

Helen Phillips, chief executive of Natural England, said they had a legal duty to designate “areas of national conservation importance”.

A spokesperson for Waveney District Council, the local authority where Mr Boggis lives, said: “This is a complex matter in ‘unusual circumstances’ yet the judgement shows that Waveney District Council acted appropriately throughout.

“We are content that our actions have been vindicated.”

The judge awarded Mr Boggis 80% of his legal costs.

Story on BBC News