A PROTEST petition calling on the Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme (MFPS) to be paused immediately is due to be re-presented tomorrow (Wednesday) after East Lothian Council officers rejected it.

Petition organisers claim that the council has "unfairly and undemocratically" rejected the petition, which was signed by 2,300 people, and are calling on it to reconsider its actions.

Musselburgh resident George Wanless, a former councillor and chairman of East Lothian District Council, is expected to join petition organisers at the council's John Muir House headquarters in Haddington at 11am to resubmit the rejected petition.

A statement issued on behalf of petition organisers said: "Musselburgh residents are shocked by the reasons stated by East Lothian Council for rejecting their petition from being heard and considered by East Lothian Council’s petitions committee on Thursday, June 8."

A council spokesperson said: "A comprehensive report was provided to the lead petitioner who submitted the petition advising the grounds for rejection, namely that the petition contained false and misleading statements.

"If the proposed visit is to re-present the same petition then unfortunately it too will be rejected."

READ MORE: Initial outline plan for Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme on the way

The statement from petition organisers added: "The petition calling for the immediate pause of the Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme (MFPS) has been signed by over 2,300 concerned citizens asking for the proposed scheme to be paused, having become alarmed by the plans, the costs, the effect on green spaces and the timelines outlined by East Lothian Council’s MFPS project team.

"The petition is signed by local residents and visitors, as well as on behalf of several of the town’s local residents’ associations, numerous local business owners, leading academics and five former elected East Lothian councillors including George Wanless OBE.

"Numerous experts have spoken out against East Lothian Council’s Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme as harmful to the local amenity, the economy of Musselburgh and calling for a more progressive catchment based natural flood management system."

The statement said: "East Lothian Council’s website states petitioners may freely disagree with the council or call for changes of policy. There will be no attempt to exclude critical views."

It claimed: "The rejection is a direct attempt to silence the community of Musselburgh who hold critical views of the proposed scheme.

"The Musselburgh community holds critical views of the scheme design, the underlying flood modelling used, the scheme’s ballooning costs, and of East Lothian Council’s lack of transparency and unwillingness to properly engage with the community rather than running through tick-box exercises."

The statement added: "There were four statements taken from our petition that East Lothian Council’s democratic services team apparently decided independently were false statements and we are considering taking legal action to challenge their decision."

READ MORE: Petition calls for flood protection scheme pause

The objectors claim that East Lothian Council was "rushing to approve a flood protection scheme" was not upheld at the petition competency checks by officers.

The council stated: "The project has been consulting and progressing both in public consultation and governance since 2016 and is working to a timetable approved through a full meeting of East Lothian Council.

"The timescales allocated to each stage of the project are considered to be equivalent to such stages for other flood protection schemes and other equivalent projects.

"That said, current stage has already been extended from c.12 months to c.4 years, partly due to the pandemic but also following feedback received from public consultations in summer 2021.

"The revised timeline allowed the council to undertake a major piece of additional consultation with stakeholders and Musselburgh residents.

"It is currently estimated that the scheme would not be approved under the legislation before the end of 2024."

'Factually incorrect'

Meanwhile, the petition statement that the scheme was costing £100 million was deemed "factually incorrect".

The council said: "At no point has a figure of £100m been stated.

"A clear summary of costs was provided in a council report in October 2022. In this report, it was documented that the preferred scheme costs (publicly stated in January 2020 as the cost estimate) had risen from c.£42m to c.£43m due to the impact of Covid-19.

"The scheme is now required to provide additional flood protection due to the new climate change data released in December 2018, alongside multiple-benefits including: a major active travel pathway investment, and the inclusion of the ScottishPower ash lagoons seawall which will become a council liability with additional costs of c.£122k and c.£56m respectively."

The petition statement that "the outline design of the scheme will be presented in June 2023 for public approval of a flood scheme that will introduce walls down the River Esk and along the coast" was considered "premature".

The council argued: "It is correct that the outline design will be presented for the first time in June 2023.

"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.

"It is also not being presented for public approval: it is being presented for public consideration and comment.

"It is therefore untrue to state this as fact and presumes the outcome of a process that is currently ongoing.

"The defences may also be earthen embankments or sand dunes, as advised local area consultations in February 2023.

"The petition makes comment on a design which has not yet been presented to the community."

The petition statement that only eight per cent of the current proposals relate to nature-based solutions was also dismissed as "factually incorrect and a premature assessment".

The council stated: "Natured-based solutions are being considered, 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.

"These concepts can be used to provide flood risk management, water quality improvement, storm water management and carbon sequestration.

"However, the extent cannot be known as the outline design is not completed and it has not been presented to the town."