King’s Lodging: Couple awarded £3.3m after flood work damages Kent home that once hosted King Henry VIII

A retired couple once married King Henry VIII. Henry’s historic Tudor riverside home was awarded a £3.3m payout after it was heavily damaged by floods.

In 1991, keen amateur historians Roger and Suzanne Brookhouse discovered the Second World War, a timber-framed medieval house on the River Stour in Sandwich, Kent. They bought the grade-listed King’s Lodging. The property, which includes an outdoor swimming pool, was built by King Henry VIII in 1520 as he surveyed his fleet before sailing to the summit of the Field of the Cloth of Gold. hosted Henry.

Despite its age, the residence was in “satisfactory” condition in 2013. However, subsequent flood defense works by the Environment Agency led to an increase in groundwater levels. The result was cracked and bulging walls, a swampy garden and a dilapidated outdoor pool.

The couple filed a lawsuit against the Agency in the Superior Court; where the judge awarded them more than £3.3 million to cover the cost of the damage.

The total compensation of £3,315,200 ordered includes more than £800,000 for remedial works carried out after the garden was “covered in salt water” and was left “uncultivable”.

The couple were also awarded around £1.2 million to restore groundwater levels and around £200,000 for a new swimming pool.

Tribunal judge Elizabeth Cooke said the case was “of vital importance to the plaintiffs, whose lives were disrupted by the works and their consequences over more than 12 years as the property was a nursing home”.

“Like the Environment Agency, we acknowledge their grievance and reiterate our expressed view that the participant did his best and acted fairly throughout,” he added.

The case reached court in March, following Judge Cooke’s previous decision in 2023; In that decision, Judge Cooke found that the Agency was liable to pay compensation because its work had damaged the house by causing higher groundwater levels in its gardens.

In the earlier ruling, Judge Cooke described the property’s storied history and its recent plight due to water from the river.

“In 1520, King Henry VIII stood at the window of the building now known as the King’s Lodgings at Sandwich to inspect his fleet before sailing for the Field of the Cloth of Gold,” he said.

“The most striking feature when viewed from the same window today is the wall between the property and the River Stour, built by the Environment Agency as part of the Sandwich Town Tidal Defense Scheme.

“The plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Brookhouse, are the owners of The King’s Lodging and they say their property has been and will continue to be damaged by rising groundwater levels caused by the defendant’s works.”

The house and its garden were separated from the river by a wall for many years, but in 2014 the Agency built a new wall one meter from the river and filled the space between them with drainage material.

But the couple complained that water regularly appeared in their garden after the work was completed, and Mr Brookhouse said it had never been a “swamp” before.

The judge was shown videos of water leaking into the garden through the new wall; In the incident that occurred in 2019, river water was seen leaking along the entire 53-meter length of the garden.

The timber-framed house, dating to the 15th or early 16th century, was inspected prior to work and was found to be in a “satisfactory” condition, with some hairline cracks and dampness on the ground floor.

But by the time the work was done, the couple said, the cracks had widened, more had been exposed, the paint and plaster had deteriorated and part of the front of the house was now “leaning outwards”.

Mr and Mrs Brookhouse claimed that the rise in groundwater levels as a result of flood protection works meant the house was left on wet ground, leading to damage and further risk in the future.

They were also told that their previously “thriving” garden had become uncultivable due to water levels and salt in the soil.

The couple also claimed that the outdoor swimming pool they built in the 1980s was damaged by the movement of concrete and was damaged beyond repair.

They didn’t need to prove that the Environment Agency’s work was negligent, just that it was the groundwater rise that caused the damage.

After hearing evidence from experts, Judge Cooke ruled in favor of the couple, saying groundwater rose up to one meter after the work.

The case returns to court for a ruling on how much compensation the couple will receive, with their lawyer James Pereira KC saying: “The building appears to have suffered more damage in the last few years than it has in the last few hundred years.”

“Like many, their home has significance beyond personal survival. It is a place of family memories, a connection to water, and an expression of their passion for history and historic buildings.

“They recognize their role as custodians of this special place, where the national interest is recognized in its legal listing, preservation and preservation. This is a unique property.”

However, the Agency disputed the size of the claim, arguing that the sum claimed was “excessive and disproportionate” and pointing out that the £4.5 million they were claiming was more than double the home’s maximum value of £1.9 million.

Judge Cooke said the Corps had made “bold attempts” to prevent further flooding, but its own consultant engineers agreed with Brookhouses’ expert that a “flow path” had been created under the wall of the plaintiffs’ harbor and that the remedial work was addressing symptoms of the problem rather than its cause.

He agreed with the couple’s expert’s suggestion of a £1.2 million “targeted solution” to fix rising water levels in the garden; The existing wall was demolished and replaced with steel piles driven “deep into the river bed”.

“It was agreed that the garage at the beginning of the pier should be demolished so that the quay wall works could be carried out and the garden could be restored to its former state.”

“From the moment the works were first proposed it was clear that the garden would be damaged. The defendant needed a works corridor parallel to the river and it was always going to be necessary to replace the vegetation in that part of the garden.”

“As a result, due to the need for repeated remedial works after 2014, this part of the garden has been excavated much more extensively than originally envisaged and has also been flooded with salt water due to extra high tidal currents.

“There is no dispute that the defendant should pay for the restoration of the garden.

“This will be a major operation. The soil needs to be removed and replaced, plants and trees need to be planted, and then… there is a five-year monitoring period and the requirement to replace any plants that fail during that period.”

“The parties agree that the garage will need to be demolished and rebuilt at a cost of £104,884. They also agree that the garden wall will need to be restored.”

Turning to the work that needs to be done on the house itself, he continued: “Work that needs to be done includes replacing some external stonework and brickwork and connecting where the east wall of the house leans outwards.

“Restoration of wooden posts in the living room whose bases were damaged by water, replacement of some panels and plaster, replacement of Yorkstone floors and some panels in the dining room, repair of various fireplaces, replacement of panels, plaster and tiles in the drawing room and bedrooms.”

The judge also accepted the couple’s claim that the swimming pool had failed due to the work of the Environment Agency and not simply because it was old.

“Given the sensitivity of this type of pool to groundwater levels, we found that the probable cause… was the participant’s works, which means the participant must pay the cost of removing and replacing the pool,” he said.