A Norfolk man who lost his home to coastal erosion has appeared at the High Court where he is challenging the government over its "deficient" climate plans.

Kevin Jordan lived in Hemsby until last December when his chalet was one of five demolished by Great Yarmouth Borough Council contractors, after coastal erosion left them on the verge of falling into the sea.

He is bringing his case alongside disability activisit Doug Paulley and environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth who say that the government's National Adaptation Plan (NAP) fails to properly respond to 61 climate change risks.

These include the health risks posed by high temperatures, the threat to communities and buildings from coastal flooding, erosion and extreme weather events and the potential issues for forestry and farming due to changing climate conditions, the court was told.

READ MORE: Campaigners call on government for sea defence funding promise

The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) opposed the legal challenge at the two-day hearing in London last week.

David Wolfe KC, representing campaigners, said: “How the defendant responds to these climate risks has far-reaching consequences for society, including the safety of at-risk individuals from harm.

“Unfortunately, climate change is predicted to worsen for the foreseeable future.”

The barrister said the NAP, which is required every five years under the 2008 Climate Change Act, “perpetuated” ministers’ “history of failure in climate adaptation” and should be quashed and rewritten.

Before the hearing, Mr Jordan said: “The government’s adaptation plans are completely inadequate for dealing with the threat that climate change pose to people and the economy.”

READ MORE: Hemsby Marrams evacuee in temporary home now faces eviction

Mark Westmoreland Smith KC, for Defra, said in written arguments that the campaigners’ case was based on “fundamental factual errors” and was a “unfair characterisation” of the approach taken by ministers.

He said campaigners were making “semantic” arguments and that ministers had not misunderstood the law.

The hearing before Mr Justice Chamberlain end on Wednesday, July 24, with a ruling expected at a later date.