A CONTROVERSIAL £54 million flood protection scheme has attracted almost 800 objections.
However, 357 responses to the plan for Musselburgh were rejected as invalid with a total of 470 accepted as valid.
Reasons for the rejections included late submission, lack of the objector’s address, not being in writing or a duplication of another.
READ MORE: Scotland is 'critical' to achieving goal of 'restoring biodiversity globally'
East Lothian Council has now written to “relevant” objectors with an offer to meet to discuss their concerns.
The letter states: “The purpose of this meeting would be to determine whether any aspect of the design of the proposed scheme, as published in March 2024, could be modified to our mutual satisfaction such that you would be willing to withdraw your objection.”
The outline design for the Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme (MFPS) was approved by the council in January despite protests that it is unsuitable for the town.
Councillors were told the plan had to be submitted to the Scottish Government by the end of March in order to qualify for 80% of the funding before the next financial year.
Protesters want the Musselburgh plan to be paused and reviewed because of fears that high concrete walls which will be built along the River Esk and harbour seafront will scar the town’s green spaces, damage the environment and involve the felling of mature trees along the riverside.
The town’s former lord provost, five former East Lothian councillors and the former first chief executive of NatureScot have signed the petition, along with experts in climate change and architecture.
Angus Macdonald, emeritus professor of architectural structures at the University of Edinburgh, also questioned the approach being developed by Jacobs, East Lothian Council’s consultants.
READ MORE: Spotlight shines on craft businesses across Scotland
“The use of hard engineering in the past is not an argument for using it in future, especially if it will have grave effects on the amenity of Musselburgh,” he said.
“As a structural engineer myself, I am well aware that nature-based solutions constitute an important part of the broad-based approach to flood control that is currently favoured by the majority of the civil engineering profession.
“What is now required is a second opinion, from other consultants with expertise in river-catchment-scale and nature-based flood protection, alongside which the recommendations of the current consultants may be properly scrutinised. This is normal practice for major infrastructure projects.”
The consultants say the project will provide formal flood protection to around 3000 properties in the town at risk from a major flood event.
East Lothian Council leader Norman Hampshire said: “While this represents a substantial investment, by providing a higher level of flood protection we can mitigate the wider cost to the town which would result from significant flooding and damage.”
A final decision on whether to go ahead with the project is still to be taken.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here