Nicholls Ltd Statement - 26/09/2025

 

Since 2018, Nicholls Limited has been engaged in ongoing litigation with the Environment Agency for contractual work undertaken between 2016-2018. The trial concluded today at Ipswich Crown Court. 

Nicholls Limited cooperated fully with the Environment Agency throughout the legal process and has accepted the sentence for depositing a quantity of soils when there was no environmental permit in force. Now that the legal process has concluded, Guy Nicholls, Chief Executive Officer, has made a statement on behalf of the company:

“Nicholls Limited believed it was contributing to a project which would benefit the local community and protect against a very real risk of flooding, moving clay at the behest of a government body and delivering it to a site with the consent of the landowners.

At no stage did Nicholls Limited or its directors intend to break the law. Everything we did was carried out openly, at the direct request of the East Suffolk Internal Drainage Board (now known as the East Suffolk Water Management Alliance), which is a local public authority responsible for water management. The work was known about and widely supported by the local community.

After the devastating tidal surge in 2013, the Drainage Board asked Nicholls Limited to transport surplus soils and clay from local building sites to land near Iken. This material was intended to strengthen the estuary wall defences. The project has long been backed by the Alde and Ore Partnership, local businesses, the Water Management Alliance, and the landowners who agreed to accept the clay.

It is disappointing that, after seven years, the Environment Agency decided that it was in the public interest to prosecute Nicholls Limited and other local family businesses. The inefficiency, and cost to the public of this decision are hard to understand and difficult to justify, especially given the Environment Agency’s wider struggles to deliver on its core responsibilities across the UK. Meanwhile, the estuary walls have remained unrepaired, and further flooding has remained a real concern for local people.

While we accept the court’s sentence, we do not believe this matter has been handled properly. All parties, including the Environment Agency itself, have accepted that the clay is suitable for use in flood defences and that any environmental impact from the deposits has been very limited. The clay could — and should — be permitted for use in local flood defences. We suspect that will still happen, which only highlights how wasteful and costly the decision by the Environment Agency has been to pursue a legal process.

Had the Environment Agency used its powers to properly oversee this project from the start, the matter would have been resolved years ago and at a much lower cost to the taxpayer. Everyone involved — landowners, community groups, and local companies — believed the Agency knew about this work. The Agency’s claim that it did not understand the full extent of the deposits remains surprising to us, given how many parties were involved and how closely the Water Management Alliance normally works with them. If the Agency did not know, it certainly had the chance and responsibility to find out, especially with such an important scheme to protect local homes and businesses at stake.

Throughout this process, Nicholls Limited and its directors have fully cooperated with the investigation. We have also reviewed and updated our compliance processes, including commissioning several independent audits by recognised environmental experts.  During the investigation we also commissioned a forensic accountant who showed that that we did not make profit on this project, the main purpose of which was community benefit.”