A couple whose dream of opening a coastal campsite was ‘torn to shreds’ when they were told it might fall into the sea have complained that a planning officer ‘laughed’ at their plans.

Phil Merry and his wife Amy Parkinson were left devastated when they were given the bombshell news that they couldn’t move to the spot in Trimingham, Norfolk.

They had already arranged the sale of their bungalow in Nottingham and Mr Merry had started winding down his locksmith business.

In an upsetting call with North Norfolk District Council, they say they were spoken to by a ‘trainee planning officer’ whose colleague could be heard in the background chuckling.

They now face living in a touring caravan while they desperately look into their options.

‘She [the trainee planning officer] didn’t know what on earth to say. Every question I put to her, she’d go quiet and someone was whispering 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’.

‘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.

‘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 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.’