This is a template. Download a template file in word / docx format Official Scottish Government guidance on objections can be found here. Follow the instructions IN CAPITALS below to ensure your objection letter is valid. Adapt and add to the lower-case text to reflect your key concerns. Include as many objections as possible. If you need more information to help you write your objections, contact us via this form or email pausethefloodscheme@gmail.com
Sample letter
INSERT YOUR FULL HOME ADDRESS HERE
INCLUDE POSTCODE
INCLUDE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS IF YOU HAVE ONE
INCLUDE THE DATE OF YOUR LETTER HERE
ADDRESS THE OBJECTION LETTER TO:
Carlo Grilli
Service Manager – Governance
Legal Services
East Lothian Council
John Muir House
Haddington
EH41 3HA
mfpsobjections@eastlothian.gov.uk
Dear xxx
I am writing to object to the recently published Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme. NOW SAY WHAT IS YOUR INTEREST IN THE SCHEME – ARE YOU DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE SCHEME? DOES ANY PART OF THE SCHEME ENTER/ADJOIN/DIRECTLY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY? DO YOU LIVE ON THE RIVER OR BY THE COAST? IS YOUR HOME SHOWN IN THE FLOOD MAPS AS AT RISK OF FLOODING? WHAT AMENITIES DO YOU USE IN THE TOWN THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THE SCHEME? OR OTHER REASON SUCH AS LOCAL BUSINESS, VISIT FOR LEISURE ETC.
Note: Anyone can object to a flood scheme but the more directly affected you are, the more weight your objection is likely to carry. However, even if you are only indirectly affected, it is still worthwhile stating objection(s). For example, as a taxpayer, do you agree to this amount of public expenditure on the Musselburgh flood scheme?
I object to the published scheme because:
- LIST FIRST GROUND OF OBJECTION
- LIST SECOND GROUND OF OBJECTION
- ADD MORE GROUNDS YOU WANT TO INCLUDE
SEE APPENDIX FOR SUGGESTED GROUNDS WHICH YOUR OBJECTION COULD INCLUDE. WHERE POSSIBLE, USE YOUR OWN WORDS AND ADD YOUR OWN THOUGHTS.
Please acknowledge receipt of my letter of objection, in writing. Please advise me of next steps, and timescales.
Yours Faithfully,
INCLUDE YOUR FIRST AND SECOND NAME HERE.
Appendix of possible grounds to include in your letter
The proposed scheme
The public notice will state the reason for the scheme and the suggested benefits.
- Are the statements true?
- Do you agree that the scheme will achieve the stated benefits?
- What is your direct response, including counter arguments or evidence that disproves the statements?
Cost
The scheme is currently costed at £132m in total, including £53m for the flood protection part. Note that there are no cost breakdowns in the public domain. The Council has been told the cost is likely to rise. How can the Council have voted this through with so little information? Why has no cap been put on the cost?
£4m has been spent by December 2023 on design and consultations against a decreasing budget available for core Council services such as care for the elderly, essential community health and wellbeing amenities: libraries, leisure and culture (e.g. Brunton Hall repairs). Budget/spending priorities are wrong.
The Scottish Government & COSLA working group on flooding has recognised the model of uncapped funding (known as Cycle 1) allows project consultants/developers to expand flood schemes into much larger, and more costly, projects. The escalating costs of this project should be scrutinised and capped to prevent further inflation of project and costs.
The Council has been told that if they do not secure the Cycle 1 funding, they will get nothing. But that is not true, there will be funding in Cycle 2, which should be onstream after April 2024, and Musselburgh would be eligible.
ADD ALL YOUR RELATED CONCERNS ABOUT COSTS.
Science/data
The MFPS does not offer alternative scenarios. It is tied to a 1:200 year +climate change event. Scottish Government guidance says that a range of scenarios should be included. How could the Council judge what is necessary protection without being given a range of options?
East Lothian Council has commissioned a report on the coast from Dynamic Coast, but this is not yet available publicly – why and how is the Council making a decision without being open about all the evidence?
Local residents have asked to see the data underpinning the scientific calculations of the project team, but these requests have been ignored. What is the reason for the lack of transparency?
The project team say they have adjusted flood defence heights in response to local feedback. This amounts to fitting the science around the preferred outcome, rather than science/data leading to a properly calculated outcome. This makes no sense.
The last major flood in Musselburgh was in 1948. Climate change may mean there is increased risk of flooding in future, but there are communities at much greater and more immediate risk – Dumfries, Haddington, Perthshire etc. Scarce resources should be applied in order of need.
The Council was informed that Natural Flood Management (NFM) should be restricted to 3 interventions (use of 2 small reservoirs in the Pentlands, and a tree-catcher in Dalkeith Country Park). NFM could include a whole range of techniques to slow the flow of the river throughout the catchments, and to encourage the natural dune system along the coast. The fact these were discounted at the start is wrong and the situation is made worse by the exclusion of NFM decided upon in October.
The Council halted inclusion of NFM on the advice of the project team in October 2023. The evidence to support this was a report on the Eddleston Water project. That report is flawed, and the science behind the report was presented to the Council in a misleading way. NFM can and should take centre-stage in flood protection.
All the indications are that the use of NFM, nature-based solutions and a flood resilience (rather than prevention) approach are preferred over building flood walls. Even in massive river catchments like the Severn, these approaches are being discussed and trialled. The flood walls in Brechin (built/renewed 2015) recently failed. The flood gates in Perth recently failed. Man-made interventions cannot prevent flooding downstream – we need to do more upstream to slow/store the water so it doesn’t rush down through the town.
The Scottish Government is heading towards NFM. On 23 December 2023, the Minister stated “The Scottish Government recognizes the importance of natural flood management (NFM) measures in reducing, slowing or otherwise managing flood waters across catchments and along the coast while also delivering multiple environmental benefits.” Why is ELC not in step with the Scottish Government?
ADD ALL YOUR RELATED CONCERNS ABOUT SCIENCE/DATA.
WHAT ARE THE GAPS IN EVIDENCE? WHAT HAS BEEN IGNORED?
Transparency and process
The engineers appointed to design the project have also been allowed to write the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). They carried out an options appraisal that ruled out all alternatives to the current scheme, without those options being made available for public scrutiny or debate. Throughout the scheme the consultants and engineers have not been subject to challenge or adequate scrutiny.
On 23 January 2024, the Council agreed to the scheme progressing, even though they had not had sight of the full EIA, only a ‘non-technical summary’.
In January 2020, East Lothian Council cabinet voted through the preferred scheme. Given the value of the scheme, this should have been approved by the full Council. The Cabinet did not have the power to vote on a scheme of this magnitude.
Local residents have tried to engage with their Councillors (GIVE YOUR OWN EXAMPLE IF THIS WAS SOMETHING YOU DID) but letters and emails that were responded to were sent to the Project team to provide the response. If challenged, the Project team advise they are taking instruction from the Council. The lines between the Council and the project team are totally blurred.
Many people have sent letters and emails and received nor response at all. GIVE EXAMPLES IF THIS IS YOUR EXPERIENCE.
ADD ALL YOUR RELATED CONCERNS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND PROCESS.
Multiple benefits and active travel
The scheme has become entwined with the Musselburgh Active Toun (MAT) proposals. But the cost of the MAT scheme is unknown and is likely to require a 30% contribution from ELC, which has never been openly discussed.
MAT proposals do not contribute to flood protection. Planning permission should be required for these paths and bridges, but the flood scheme has deemed permission. It is not clear which parts of the MAT will bypass planning due to being included in the flood scheme.
The proposed new Goose Green bridge does not add flood protection to the town.
The MAT proposals included in the scheme are now much grander than those originally discussed and consulted upon.
ADD ALL YOUR RELATED CONCERNS ABOUT ACTIVE TRAVEL AND ‘MULTIPLE BENEFITS’.
General amenity, health and well-being
The project will take at least 5 years to build. It will be a major cause of disruption. There will be pile-driving all along the river. (Think of the disruption caused by the Wiremill building by Tesco). There are many historic properties in the centre of the town at risk of damage from vibration.
The banks of the Esk and Fisherrow Links are Common Good land, and any interruption to their use by the community should be compensated. Hundreds of people enjoy these amenities every day, where will they go to benefit from being in nature and by water? You can find a full list of Musselburgh Common Good land here, (download the xls file) on the second sheet.
Is it clear how many properties will be included as being ‘protected’ by the scheme? The number has risen and is variable on numerous documents from around 1,200 to 3,000 to 3,400. What is the truth? Where is the robust evidence? To achieve a viable amount of ‘multiple benefits’ there has to be a high number of properties protected and this scheme seems led by that consideration rather than by the actual risk.
ADD ALL YOUR RELATED CONCERNS ABOUT GENERAL AMENITY, HEALTH AND WELLBEING.
WHAT ELSE ARE YOU DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT? ADD ALL YOUR CONCERNS, THIS IS YOUR BEST CHANCE TO BE HEARD.