Ninety-five-year-old former chairman of East Lothian District Council, George Wanless, led a protest outside John Muir house today to re-present a petition in opposition to the Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme.

Mr Wanless joined a number of protestors outside the council office to re-present the petition, which had previously been rejected by East Lothian Council.

The initial petition, calling for the pause of the flood protection scheme, garnered more than 2,300 signatures and was rejected on the grounds that it contained “misinformation” by claiming that the scheme would cost £100 million.

Mr Wanless, who served as chairman of East Lothian District Council until 1996, held up a sign at the demonstration which read: “2,300 voices silenced by East Lothian Council”.

Protesters were pictured with their hands over their mouths to symbolise that they were being silenced.

Those attending said that they had hoped to be met by a councillor; however, no councillor came to meet them, with East Lothian Council saying ahead of the demonstration: “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.”

Mr Wanless said that he was disappointed by the way that the council had handled the situation.

He said: “What we really wanted was to see a councillor, preferably the provost or the leader of the council.

”It is very disappointing that they didn’t have the decency to come and say: ‘Thank you for your petition, we understand your concerns.’

“This is just a small petition but it is big enough to represent the views of people. It does express the concerns that local people have.

“We really hope that [the council] realise the seriousness and the concerns that the people have and really take into account the effect it’s going to have on the environment.”

Jeff Wright, one of those behind the petition, added: “It was disappointing that no one from the council would take time to come down and meet the community and take part in the democratic process.

“We feel we have been very harshly treated by the rejection of our petition. We will continue to protest to get a nature-based solution that allows our amenity to serve the people that live there.”

An earlier statement from petition organisers said that they were “considering taking legal action” to challenge the council’s claim that four statements in the petition were false.

A claim in the petition that the council was “rushing to approve a flood protection scheme” was not upheld at the petition competency checks by officers; the statement that the scheme was costing £100 million was deemed “factually incorrect”; the 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”; and the statement that only eight per cent of the current proposals related to nature-based solutions was also dismissed as “factually incorrect and a premature assessment”.