Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme: Petition launched against plans

Organisers claim the plan is based on “incomplete data” from experts appointed by East Lothian Council and are calling for more nature-based solutions to be considered.

They say that walls will be introduced down the River Esk and mature trees are at risk of being felled, arguing that the scheme is centred on “hard engineering” and bridge replacement.

They claim: “The outline design of the scheme will be presented in June for public approval of a flood scheme that will introduce walls down the River Esk and along the coast from the mouth of the river to the Brunstane Burn.

“The mature trees that line the river are all at risk of being cut down.”

“The experts want us to engage in arguments about what constitutes a ‘wall’ and what does the ideal wall look like.

“Meanwhile, the only option available is a flood scheme that has from day one centred on hard engineering and bridge replacement.

Roger Crofts and Marina Naylor at a 'Save Our Trees' sign tied to one one of the trees along the River Esk at Musselburgh

“Only eight per cent of the current proposal relates to nature-based solutions.

“In consultation meetings, no alternative vision, with nature at its heart, is being offered to the people of Musselburgh.

“If it is pushed through now, the scheme will already be out of step with modern thinking about nature restoration, ecology and biodiversity, even before the first digger appears on the banks of the river.”

They said: “There are alternative approaches that work with nature and East Lothian Council must bring these to the table. These should be provided by independent experts who work with environmental approaches first and foremost, not as an afterthought.

“What’s the rush? Let’s go carefully and get this right.”

They are urging people to sign the petition to tell the council to pause the scheme until residents can be given “a real choice about how best to protect against the risk of flooding while working with nature to protect our river and our shore”.

“We need to raise our voices now, because this scheme will change Musselburgh forever,” they add.

More than 1,000 supporters have signed the petition which is available online and via paper copies.

A 'Save Our Trees' sign tied to one one of the trees along the River Esk at Musselburgh

Roger Crofts, a retired civil servant and environmental adviser, who lives near the Esk, joined others at the Store Bridge (Shorthope Street footbridge), one of three bridges earmarked for replacement under the scheme, and Fisherrow Harbour on Saturday to highlight their concerns and urge people to sign the petition.

He claimed: “At present, the consultants have only talked about hard engineering: barriers down the river and along the coast with fixed foundations, a tree catcher up the river by the A1 bridge, and the use of two small redundant reservoirs on the South Esk.

“They have consistently dismissed what are globally known as nature-based solutions aimed at slowing water flow into and down the river such as placing wood, known as leaky dams, across the rivers and streams at key points, blocking field drains, planting trees and digging ponds.

“Their reason is that it would have no effect on the scenario 4, which is the extreme case. Unfortunately, that is what East Lothian Council and its consultants call ‘the preferred scheme’.

“At least the consultants have now heeded representations from scientists that alternative scenarios should be considered, hence their scenarios 2 and 3. But even in these schemes, there is no allowance for the internationally accepted types of nature-based solutions.

“It is ironic that these approaches are now being used extensively down south, led by the Environment Agency, whereas SEPA do not seem to be adopting this naturally sensitive and sensible approach in Scotland.

“So what many people are asking for, following our straw poll at a locally organised public meeting a few weeks ago and emphasis by the very significant response to a petition, is a thorough assessment of nature-based solutions to be undertaken, reported on publicly and included in the designs to be displayed to the public in June.

“Without that, the people of Musselburgh have no basis to consider the various options in a modern and realistic way to safeguard our town from flood risk.”

‘Horrified’

David Sugden, Professor Emeritus in the School of GeoSciences at the University of Edinburgh, has lived in the Esk catchment area in Midlothian for many decades.

He claimed: “I must say I am horrified by such an insensitive and old-fashioned scheme to control floods.

“The plan to build walls on both sides of the river in Musselburgh will damage the environmental quality of one of the urban gems of East Lothian. It seems a harsh approach to a problem that can be tackled by more environmentally sensitive nature-based approaches.

“There seem to be two issues inflated in the current proposals, namely sea-level rise and flooding of the River Esk. The problems are different, operate on different timescales, and require different solutions. For example, reduction in the risk of flooding by the Esk is one that could be solved by a catchment approach to run-off, farming and forestry, and could be achieved in the near future at modest cost.

“The rate of future sea-level rise in the Firth of Forth is still uncertain and there is a risk of overreaction.

“For example, the loss of ice in Greenland will not materially affect Scotland because, although global sea level will rise, there is a gravitational counter effect in the North Atlantic caused by the loss of ice mass in Greenland.

“I trust there is still time to investigate alternative approaches.”

'Extremely important'

A spokesperson for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) said: “Nature-based solutions are an extremely important part of flood risk management in Scotland. They involve balancing and integrating the restoration of natural features and processes alongside more traditional engineering methods to help reduce flood risk to communities.

“These solutions are being actively investigated for the Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme by the local authority. Delivery of such solutions, including more detailed assessments of the potential for natural flood management and other engineering to reduce flood risk, is the responsibility of local authorities, not SEPA.”

The initial outline design will be unveiled at a major public event on June 20 and 21. It will form part of a 3D animation to “maximise the potential for delivering a clear vision” of how the scheme’s physical defences – which could be concrete or glass walls, embankments, sand dunes or rock armours – environmental changes and river restoration will look within the town’s existing historic and build landscape.

Individuals, businesses and other interested parties will have the opportunity to seek clarification on aspects of the initial outline scheme and provide feedback.

The project team will then compile a report to allow work to start on the revision of the outline design based on feedback collected.

It is expected that recommendations will be brought to the council’s elected members for consideration and approval next January.

The flood protection plan, costing £43.5 million – 20 per cent East Lothian Council and 80 per cent Scottish Government Flood Programme – aims to introduce defences against a one-in-200-year risk of flooding in the town.

Another two separate projects have been brought together with the flood protection plan – future-proofing the ash lagoons sea wall at a cost of £52.4 million, with talks ongoing between the council and ScottishPower; and parts of the Musselburgh Active Toun project to provide enhanced footpaths, pathways and cycleways with £122,000 from Sustrans.

The petition is at change.org/p/tell-east-lothian-council-to-pause-the-musselburgh-flood-protection-scheme

'Misinformation'

In response to the petition against the Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme, Conor Price, project manager, said: “We are extremely disappointed, and frankly dismayed, with the misinformation and disinformation that is associated with this petition.

“We consider that such efforts are distorting the real facts and messages around the scheme, and that this is leading to confusion and unnecessarily raising fears amongst people within Musselburgh.

“The following key pieces of misinformation are highlighted (from within the petition text):

• That “East Lothian Council is rushing to approve a flood protection scheme”. We do not consider that this is true. The project commenced in late 2016 and is ongoing to a timetable that has been approved through a full meeting of East Lothian Council and which has been clearly published via the council website.
• That “the scheme is costing £100m”. This is simply not true. A clear summary of costs was provided in a council report in October 2022 which is publicly available via the council website. It has been documented that the preferred scheme costs have risen from c.£42m to c.£43m due to Covid impact.
• That “the outline design of the scheme will be presented in June for public approval of a flood scheme that will introduce walls down the River Esk and along the coast”. It is correct that we will present the outline design for the first time in June. It is not correct that the outline design is completed, therefore it is not yet determined what form the new physical defences will have. There may be some walls; however, this is not determined.
• That “only eight per cent of the current proposals relate to nature-based solutions”. This is not true. We are considering a range of nature-based solutions which covers a diverse array of concepts and can include: the re-creation or enhancement of habitats; the use of organic materials in structures; and ecological enhancement of existing hard infrastructure. However, the extent cannot be known as the outline design is not completed.

“The scheme’s project team are currently undertaking a major consultation exercise through public meetings, and we are also available in The Brunton every Friday for individual discussions.

"I would like to reiterate my invitation to come and meet us and/or participate in our public consultations – so that you may be provided with the actual facts and become involved in shaping the design.”