A retired couple have won a £3.3million payout after their £2million Tudor home that once accommodated Henry VIII was ruined by flood damage caused by the Environment Agency (EA).

Keen amateur historians Roger and Suzanne Brookhouse watched as the gardens and swimming pool of their Grade II-listed house on the banks of the River Stour in Sandwich, Kent, were slowly destroyed by rising water levels.

Henry VIII stayed within its timber-framed walls and surveyed his fleet from its windows before sailing for The Field of the Cloth of Gold diplomatic summit with King Francis in 1520.

The house had been in 'satisfactory' condition in 2013, despite its mighty age, but soon began to suffer after the EA built a tidal defence wall.

Erected a metre into the River Stour, which borders the Brookhouses' garden, the wall caused the groundwater level to rise, and effectively left the house sitting in a puddle.

The walls cracked and bulged, the garden became boggy as never before, and the outdoor pool was ruined.

Mr and Mrs Brookhouse took the Agency to the Upper Tribunal, where a judge ruled it must hand them more than £3.3m to cover the costs of the damage.

The total compensation ordered of £3,315,200 includes more than £800,000 for remedial work to the garden, after it was 'inundated with salt water' and left 'unplantable'.

The couple were also awarded about £1.2m to rectify the groundwater level - and nearly £200,000 for a new swimming pool.

Tribunal judge Elizabeth Cooke said the case was 'of crucial importance to the claimants, for whom the property is their retirement home and whose lives have been disrupted for over 12 years now by the works and their consequences'.

She said: 'We acknowledge their distress, as does the Environment Agency, and we reiterate the view we expressed... that the respondent has done its best and has acted fairly throughout.'

The case reached the tribunal in March after a previous ruling in 2023, when Judge Cooke found the Agency liable to pay compensation, as its work had damaged the house with higher groundwater levels.

In the earlier decision, Judge Cooke recounted the storied history of the property and its more recent plight due to water from the river.

She said: 'In 1520, King Henry VIII stood at the window of the building now known as The King's Lodging in Sandwich to review his fleet before setting sail for the Field of the Cloth of Gold.

'From the same window today, the most striking feature is the wall between the property and the River Stour, built by the Environment Agency, as part of the Sandwich Town Tidal Defence Scheme.

'The claimants, Mr and Mrs Brookhouse, are the owners of The King's Lodging and they say that their property has been damaged, and will continue to be damaged, by raised groundwater levels caused by the respondent's works.'

The house and its garden had for many years been separated from the river by a wall, but in 2014 the Agency put a new wall a metre further out into the river and filled the space between the two with drainage material.

But the couple complained that, after the work was done, water appeared regularly in their garden, which Mr Brookhouse said had never previously been 'boggy.'

The judge was shown videos of water leaking through the new wall into the garden, with an incident in 2019 showing river water seeping in along the entire 53-metre length of the garden.

The wooden-framed house, which dates back to the 15th or early 16th century, had been surveyed before the work and found in 'satisfactory' condition, with only some hairline cracks and damp on the ground floor.

Since the work was completed, the cracks have widened, more have appeared, paint and plasterwork has deteriorated, and part of the front of the house now 'bows outwards', the couple said.

Mr and Mrs Brookhouse claimed this was because the house now stood in wet ground, owing to the rise in groundwater levels.

They had also been told that their previously 'thriving' garden had been left unplantable due to the water levels and the salt in the soil.

Their 1980s-installed outdoor swimming pool had also been damaged by movement in the concrete, leaving it damaged beyond repair, the couple claimed.

They did not need to prove that the Environment Agency work was negligent, only that it was the cause of the groundwater rise which led to the damage.

And after hearing expert evidence, Judge Cooke found in favour of the couple, noting that groundwater after the work was up to a metre higher.

The case returned to the tribunal for a decision on how much the couple were due in compensation, with their barrister, James Pereira KC, arguing: 'The building appears to have suffered more in the last few years than it has done in the last few hundred.'

The Agency contested the size of the claim, insisting the sum requested was 'excessive and disproportionate' and pointing out the £4.5m they claimed was more than twice the £1.9 million maximum value of the house.

Ruling, Judge Cooke said the Agency had made 'valiant attempts' to prevent further flooding, but that its own consulting engineers had agreed with the Brookhouses' expert that a 'flow path' had been established beneath the wall of the claimants' dock.

She said that remediation work had addressed the symptoms of the problem but not the cause.

The judge agreed with the couple's expert's suggestion of a £1.2m 'targeted solution' to remedy the raised water levels in the garden, demolishing the current wall and replacing it with one with steel piles driven 'deep below the river-bed'.

She said that the garage would have to be demolished in the course of the work. 

She said: 'The work that it is agreed needs to be done includes the replacement of some external stonework and brick, and the tying back of the east wall of the house where it has bowed outwards.

'The restoration of timber posts in the hall which have been damaged by water at their base, together with the replacement of some panelling and plaster, replacement of Yorkstone paving and some panelling in the dining room, repair of several fireplaces, replacement of panelling, plaster and tiling in the drawing room and bedrooms.'

The judge also agreed with the couple's claim that the swimming pool failed due to the Environment Agency work, and not simply because it was old.

'Given the sensitivity of this type of pool to groundwater levels, we find that the probable cause...was the respondent's works, which means that the respondent must pay the cost of removing and replacing the pool,' she said.