A couple’s aspiration to launch a seaside campsite was dashed when they were informed their chosen location might eventually erode into the sea. They allege a planning officer mocked their proposal.

Phil Merry and his wife, Amy Parkinson, were heartbroken after learning they couldn’t relocate to their desired spot in Trimingham, Norfolk.

Having already initiated the sale of their Nottingham bungalow and with Mr. Merry winding down his locksmith business, the news came as a crushing blow.

During a distressing conversation with North Norfolk District Council, the couple claims a ‘trainee planning officer’ handled their case while a colleague was audibly laughing in the background.

Now, they are faced with the prospect of living in a touring caravan while they urgently explore alternative solutions.

“The trainee officer seemed at a loss for words. Every time I asked a question, there was a pause, and it sounded like someone was whispering instructions to her,” said Mr. Merry, 42.

‘I could hear someone in the background laughing and saying “Not a chance” and “No, no, no”.’

The phone call – which went ahead last month after the couple paid a £50 fee – ended with the trainee saying the ‘site was at risk of falling or coastal erosion and they’re not going to allow any building’.

Phil Merry and his wife Amy Parkinson, both 42, were told they couldn’t live in a static caravan and open five tent pitches in this field in Trimingham, Norfolk, due to risk of cliff erosion – despite other properties – including a house seen in the top left, being much closer to the precipice

‘I’ve been torn to shreds. That was going to be our escape. It’s totally blown our plans,’ Mr Merry added.

The sole trader and his 42-year-old wife, a self-employed landscape gardener, had planned to escape the rat race by moving to the picturesque spot, which overlooks the North Sea.

Although the sand and clay coastline is notorious for dramatic erosion, they had seen other caravans and a brick-built house situated much closer to the cliff edge than their home and business would be.

They also didn’t want to spend hundreds of pounds on the planning application before they knew the land was theirs, so went ahead with the £30,000 purchase.

Their confidence was boosted by deeds which showed just 16ft of land had been lost to the sea since 1997, while official documents indicated the leading edge of their land – which is actually 65ft from the cliff face – would only be at risk by 2065.

They forked out the five-figure sum for the 0.7 acre plot before learning in the phone call with the planning department that their plans to live in a static caravan and set up five pitches for tents with access to a toilet and shower was being dismissed as a non-starter.

In a further blow, Mr Merry said local district councillor Angie Fitch-Tillet told him in a call that he ‘should have done his research first’ and commented he had ‘bought a piece of land that is only good for grazing goats’.

‘We didn’t know about the blanket ban on new developments,’ said Mr Merry, who has been holidaying in the area with his parents since he was born.

The couple complained a council planning officer could be laughing at their request during a phone call

‘We have bought a pig in a poke but it was meant to be our little slice of heaven.’

The district council raised the issue of people buying at-risk properties at a recent inquiry into coastal erosion led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Coastal manager Rob Goodliffe told ministers estate agents were not required to declare coastal erosion risk and prospective purchasers were expected to make ‘informed decisions’.

In October, estate agents were criticised by nearby Great Yarmouth Borough Council for not making it clearer that clifftop homes selling for around £10,000 were at a site where properties were being demolished for health and safety reasons before they plunged into the sea.

Natasha Hayes, the borough council’s executive director, claimed some were being sold for cash in hand without surveys being carried out.

Mr Merry has not criticised Watsons, the estate agents who sold him his land, and said they had offered to ‘do their best to get our money back’.

But he fears the plot will have plummeted in value as its commercial or other uses are now limited and he has already spent around £5,000 on fees and other costs.

Some of the money has gone towards appointing a planning consultant to look at their case but he has already warned: ‘Don’t hold out any hopes.’

The future is now uncertain for the couple as they have sold their home in Nottingham and are due to complete the deal next month. They will be living in a touring caravan for the time being 

Trimingham – along with other spots on the Norfolk coast – is notorious for coastal erosion. Homes, including the one pictured, have been left teetering on the edge of oblivion following landslides

The district council had also demanded there would have to be ‘five different surveys’ at an estimated cost of around £6,000 prior to any use of the land, Mr Merry said – even though ‘it’s just scrubland and there’s only one conifer tree which is leaning at a 45-degree angle because of the wind’.

Watsons said it provided clients with relevant information related to coastal erosion during the sales process and Mr Merry’s plot had been marked as ‘amenity land’.

Ms Fitch-Tillett accepted she was ‘a little blunt’ with Mr Merry but explained she wanted to explain the reality of his situation.

A district council spokesman added: ‘This part of the north Norfolk Coast has been eroding for many thousands of years due to the action of the sea and impact of groundwater.

‘Erosion is not always identified or flagged in sales particulars or as part of the conveyancing process.

‘We believe that coastal erosion is already considered as “material information” and when properties are advertised for sale they should include information on the risk from erosion.

‘If a property owner believes they have been mis-sold, there are routes for this to be considered further.’