THE county’s MP has backed a campaign to see a path between Drem and Gullane upgraded.

More than 60 campaigners met in November calling for the final stretch of path between the two villages, which is less than a mile long, to be completed.

A bid to see a path created and upgraded has been ongoing for more than a decade.

Currently, there are core paths in place across much of East Lothian, including a series of paths stretching south from Gullane to Drem.

East Lothian Council maps show a short route, called 357, which has legal status as a core path, but is not surfaced.

There is no timescale for the path to be improved and MP George Kerevan has now given his “unqualified support” to the campaign. He said: “The campaign to establish a safe cycle path between Gullane and Drem would benefit the safety and enjoyment of local cyclists and motorists.

“The completion of this path would be an excellent addition to an already extensive network of cycling paths in East Lothian.

“The fact that this specific part of the project is not finished displays a failure of the council to take the initiative and come to a suitable resolution for all stakeholders.

“I have approached the campaigners to suggest an early meeting to discuss the current stalemate. The disagreement is on the placement of the final link in the 1.2km section that will link these two beautiful villages.

"East Lothian Council has already spent £5,000 in preparation for the path and has earmarked a further £30,000 for development. It is embarrassing for the council that, after so much time and investment, a positive outcome has not yet been achieved.”

A council spokeswoman said both the local authority and East Lothian Access Forum were “disappointed” that the campaign group continued to attack the council for a lack of progress.

She added: “The work carried out to resolve this has been extensive and the council and forum remain in agreement to support the aspiration for this path.”

Councillor Norman Hampshire, the local authority’s spokesman for housing and environment, agreed the route “could benefit” from some upgrades.

He added: “However, the council does not have powers to upgrade this route without the permission of the landowner. We have not managed to obtain such permission, but the landowner has offered an alternative route.

“The alternative was not considered suitable by many members of the community.

“In the absence of a collective agreement between the campaign group, the landowner and other members of the community, the council is unable to pursue this matter any further.”