TITANIC star Kate Winslet is facing a battle with a conservation group over plans to build a 550ft-long wall at her multimillion-pound beachside home.

Natural England has filed an objection to a planning application for a new sea wall at the Academy Award winner’s idyllic West Wittering home.

The multiple BAFTA winner lives at a £3.25 million eight-bedroom property with her husband, Richard Branson’s nephew Ned Rocknroll, and her three children.

The environmental body has recommended Chichester District Council reject the application due to concerns over the impacts it will have on the natural habitat. She previously owned a £2 million home in Treyford, near Chichester, but sold the property in 2014 following another planning spat with locals after she proposed to install gates at the entrance.

The new application would see a boulder and gravel seawall placed along her estate in an effort to protect the property and its grounds from flooding and erosion.

The planning document states: “The proposed privately funded sea defences will ensure that the existing vegetation and public footpath will be protected into the future.

“Furthermore it should be considered that the footpath is liable to become dangerous in areas without protection from further erosion of the existing banks.”

The latest planned addition to the property, purchased in 2013, follows a number of other planning permission requests for work including the building of an underground swimming pool, garage and pool house.

The 39-year-old property backs onto a designated special protection area and Natural England argue that the development could impact on the local wildlife.

Wildlife living in and around West Wittering beach includes waders, geese, ducks, herons, terns and cormorants.

A spokesman for Natural England said: “Our objection centres on the fact that the application site falls within land which is protected as a Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area, Ramsar and Site of Special Scientific Interest.

“The proposal would result in direct loss of protected habitat and would be likely to have a significant, adverse effect on these designated sites.

“The application did not include any information to address the likely impacts and no mitigation was proposed.

“We will continue to liaise with the applicant about alternatives which would avoid loss of designated habitat.”

The council has set aside more time for the planning application to be explored futher. No date has been set for a decision.