Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

The Scheme’s standard of protection – what flood risk it will protect against – has yet to be chosen by the council. However, in August 2022, Full Council accepted the Project Team’s recommendation that, as a minimum, the Scheme should protect against the present-day 0.5%AEP flood event.

Musselburgh is at risk of flooding from numerous sources, including the River Esk, the Pinkie Burn, and the Forth Estuary. The extent of the area at risk depends on the magnitude of the flood event. Properties nearest the River Esk are at risk from lower magnitude, more likely events, whereas properties farther from the river are only at risk from the most extreme events. Approximately 900 properties in Musselburgh are at risk from a present-day 0.5%AEP event originating from either the Esk, the Pinkie Burn or the Forth. 

Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) refers to the likelihood of a flood of a specific magnitude occurring in any given year. The 0.5%AEP event is the magnitude of flood which has a 0.5% chance of happening in any 12 month period, based on existing historical data of river flows, rainfall and sea level. The 0.5%AEP event is also known as a 1 in 200 year because it has a 1 in 200 chance of happening in any given year.

Climate change – a rise in global atmospheric temperature – is expected to lead to higher sea levels, increased river flows and more intense rainfall. All these factors would increase flood risk to Musselburgh. This means that a flood of a given magnitude would be more likely to occur in the future than it is today.

How much climate change occurs will depend upon what action society takes to reduce the amount of carbon emitted globally each year.

The Scheme’s allowance for climate change has yet to be chosen by the Council. The allowance would mean assuming a percentage increase in the flow of the river or a specific height of sea level rise. A range of possible allowances, and the impact these would have on the Scheme’s design, will be presented to the public for discussion during the consultation.

Flood risk has always existed on flood plains, and Musselburgh has been built on the flood plain of both the River Esk and, separately and overlapping, the Firth of Forth.

Musselburgh is part of the Forth Estuary Local Plan District (LPD). The Local Flood Risk Management Plan (Forth Estuary area) for this area has been developed in partnership by SEPA, Scottish Water and the eleven local authorities that surround the estuary.

SEPA identified Musselburgh as a Potentially Vulnerable Area (PVA) which means that East Lothian Council has a legal obligation to take action to reduce the flood risk. SEPA’s report recommended, among other actions, a flood protection scheme for Musselburgh, which was ranked 11^th highest priority of 42 on cycle one of the national programme.

East Lothian Council oversee the project at a high level.  The Council are responsible for approving the Scheme and Council officers hold key roles within the team such as Project Executive and Senior Engineer.

The Scheme is being delivered under PRINCE2 (Projects IN Controlled Environments), which is a project management methodology. This methodology organises the project into logical steps, demanding a project management framework that has an organised and controlled project plan before starting, and one that maintains its organisation through the project life cycle.

In January 2024 the Project Team will present the finalised Outline Design to Council and seek permission to advance to Stage 5, where the Proposed Scheme will be published.

The finalised Outline Design drawings now collectively make up the ‘Proposed Scheme’. This is published in full alongside other statutory documents (e.g. EIA) for members of the public to review. The period for objections starts.

Following the 28 day Objection Period, the Council will then be responsible for reviewing and categorising any objections received.

If there are no objections or the objections are withdrawn, the Council votes to confirm the Proposed Scheme (with or without modifications). After a standstill period, the Scheme becomes operational and can now progress to Detailed Design.

If valid objections are received and cannot be resolved, the Council takes a preliminary decision to confirm or reject the Scheme. It is then passed to Scottish Ministers. If the Ministers intend to confirm the Scheme, then a Public Local Enquiry is held. Alternatively the Minsters can return the Scheme to the Council who would then hold a hearing. This could delay the Scheme and its progress to flood protection measures being constructed in Musselburgh.

The Scheme is a major and complex civil engineering project, and it is reasonably expected that the project will run over a ten year lifetime. 

The project commenced during the summer of 2016. The early stages involved the establishment of the project, the putting in place of its governance structures, and the setting-up of the Project Team.

By January 2020 the project had identified a ‘Preferred Scheme’ and this was approved by the Council’s Cabinet. At that point the intention was to immediately commence the Outline Design, however in March 2020 the commencement of the COVID-19 Pandemic changed everything. The Council wished to advance the development of the design through a process of consultation, and this was not possible due to the impact of COVID-19 and lockdown. The Outline Design then commenced in Spring 2023.

The Outline Design will take until January 2024 to complete. At that point the Outline Design will be presented to a meeting of full Council for review and to seek permission to advance to the Statutory Approvals Processes.

Further to the above, we currently do not know how long the Scheme will take to construct, as we do not have a design just now.

The ‘Preferred Scheme’ is a term derived from the Scottish Government’s Guidance to Local Authorities relating to their functions under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009.  This Act and its Regulations from 2010 to 2017 constitute the legislation under which flood protection schemes are delivered in Scotland.

The ‘Preferred Scheme’ is a defined step in the journey of advancing a scheme, and expresses the preferred combination of options to reduce flood risk, as understood at that point in time, that have been identified following an Option Appraisal Process. This approach ensures that the Project Team are able to focus work, and thus money and valuable resources, on the preferred options rather than advancing many options simultaneously that would undertake the same objective. 

The ‘Preferred Scheme’ is not the legally approved Scheme: it is only a concept at a point in time. It is not approved under the legislation, and it is clearly understood by the Project Team that no part of it is definitively fixed and / or cannot evolve or indeed be replaced entirely with another option during the design. This Scheme is being advanced by an iterative engineering design process and this approach to evolving, and potentially swapping, options is normal for such an approach.

The ‘Preferred Scheme’ for Musselburgh was approved by East Lothian Council’s Cabinet in January 2020.

The ‘Preferred Scheme’ is really a concept determined at the end of Project Stage 3 (the Option Appraisal Process) and which serves as a starting point for the Outline Design (Project Stage 4). During the Outline Design stage the Project Team, through consultation with the public, businesses, and statutory stakeholders, will evolve the ‘Preferred Scheme’ into an Outline Design. It is during this process of design and consultation that considerations such as location, type of defence, and heights will be discussed and decided. Further it is during the Outline Design that the options are considered against technical, hydraulic model, environmental, financial considerations etc.

For more information, visit Preferred Scheme.

Yes, an EIA will be carried out to assess the impact of the Scheme’s design on the environment. It will consider the specific location of the works, the materials used, and the likely method of construction. It will consider the possible impacts on human health, ecology, biodiversity, the water environment, soils, air quality, cultural heritage, and traffic.

To inform the EIA, extensive surveys of trees, birds, fish and mammals have been carried out to establish baseline conditions prior to the Scheme being constructed.

The EIA will commence once the Outline Design of the Scheme is substantially complete. It will then be published together with the Scheme documents during the Statutory Approvals Process in Stage 5 of the project.

The environmental impact of the Scheme is dependent upon its design, which continues to evolve in consultation with the public. The public and statutory consultees will be able to view the completed Outline Design and its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) during the statutory process in stage 5 of the project.

All infrastructure projects have an inherent carbon footprint associated with the construction materials, their transport to site, and the equipment used to assemble them. Climate change mitigation involves reducing that footprint through the use of lower-carbon materials, reduced transportation through the use of local materials, and more carbon-efficient construction equipment. In some instances, the residual carbon footprint can be offset through tree planting and other methods of carbon sequestration.

The Project Team will seek to manage the carbon footprint of the Scheme, while recognising that it performs a vital role in climate change adaptation. This means adapting Musselburgh to cope with the effects of climate change through increased flood risk.

Under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, Flood Protection Schemes, once formally confirmed, are considered to have Deemed Planning Permission and do not need to apply for planning permission from the local authority.

Nevertheless, we are working closely with East Lothian Council’s Planning Team and statutory stakeholders to ensure that the Musselburgh Flood Protection Scheme is in keeping with the aims and aspirations of national and local planning policies.

The number of trees affected by the Scheme will depend upon its design, which continues to evolve in consultation with the public. The Project Team will seek to find a balance between the number of trees affected, and other factors which may also affect the design. These include: the position, height and form of any physical defences; the presence of buried public utilities such as gas, electricity and water; and the amenity use of the land around the trees and the river.

A suite of ecological surveys were undertaken by Jacobs following the recommendations of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR) which was produced in 2018 / 2019 to inform the Options Appraisal Process. 

The study areas were chosen to cover the length of likely scheme defences as identified at the early Options Appraisal stage and focused on the following areas (with appropriate survey buffers):

• River Esk from the A1 crossing to the Firth of Forth;
• Along the promenade to Fisherrow Harbour;
• The length of Pinkie Burn;
• Upstream of the River Esk to Dalkeith Country Park;
• The estuary out to 500m from shore; and
• The Ash Lagoons.

Below is a summary of the surveys which have been undertaken to date:

• Habitat
• Woodland
• Badger
• Otter
• Great Crested Newt
• Reptiles
• Breeding Birds
• Wetland Birds (Through the Tide Counts (TTTC))
• Aquatics
• Bats
• Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS)

For more information about the results of these surveys, please see section 2.3.5.2 of the Preferred Scheme Report.  

Materials and equipment will need to be delivered to the site during the construction of the Scheme, and this may have a localised effect on traffic. The Project Team will seek to minimise the effect of this through the design of the Scheme.

Once the detailed design is complete and a contractor has been appointed, they will be required to develop a traffic management plan to mitigate any residual effects on the surrounding areas.

The permanent impact of the Scheme on parking will depend upon its design, which continues to evolve in consultation with the public. During construction there may be temporary localised disruption to parking in certain areas. The Project Team will work with the contractor to stagger the construction works and limit any disruption to a tolerable level.

The Ash Lagoons Seawall was constructed in the 1960s to contain waste material from the former Cockenzie Power Station. The ash would be easily eroded by waves, therefore the seawall prevents it being washed inland or out to sea during a storm. As sea levels rise, the seawall also increasingly protects Musselburgh from coastal flooding, although it was not designed for this purpose. The structure is now beyond its intended design life and is in need of repair.

The Flood Protection Scheme along Fisherrow, the Back Sands, and the Esk, relies on the Ash Lagoons Seawall continuing to act as a coastal flood defence. The current owner of the seawall is obliged to safely contain the ash, but not to ensure it functions as a flood defence. Including the repair of the seawall within the Scheme will therefore unlock Scottish Government funding and ensure that the structure continues to provide effective flood protection to Musselburgh for the years to come.

Dredging the river was considered among many other options in Stage 3 (Options Appraisal). Whilst dredging is considered by some to be a viable option in certain circumstances, analysis of the River Esk indicates that, for a number of reasons, this would be ineffective and unsustainable in reducing flood risk to Musselburgh.

Removal of 1m of riverbed material does not necessarily equate to 1m reduction in the height of defences required, because the width between those defences would be far greater than the width of the riverbed itself. The town’s flood risk also comes from multiple sources, not just the river. Furthermore, dredging can also have significant negative effects on a river’s habitat for fish, birds, other aquatic life and plants.

Finally, dredging is only ever a temporary solution because the sediment removed is soon replaced through natural processes. These processes cause material to be taken from the riverbed and riverbanks upstream and can have the unintended consequence of destabilising the river channel far from where the dredging is carried out.

The Outline Design of the Scheme will evolve throughout stage­ 4 of the project in response to data gathered, analysis und­ertaken, and feedback provided by stakeholders. This will culminate in the publication of the completed Outline Design in stage 5, the Statutory Approval Process.

To enable the Outline Design to develop, a series of interim decisions must be taken, like steppingstones on a journey. So far the Project’s Board has decided, through confirmation of the ‘Preferred Scheme’ concept in January 2020, that the Outline Design should contain the following components: attenuation in the catchment; debris management upstream of the town; conveyance improvements through replacement of certain bridges; physical defences to exclude floodwater from the floodplain; and surface water management to intercept ponding in protected areas.

The Project Team is now investigating what form these components might take and considering the technical feasibility of variations on each component. This work will be discussed with the public and other stakeholders during Spring 2023, before presenting a complete proposed Outline Design to the public at an exhibition in June 2023.

In January 2024 Full Council will then be asked to decide whether the complete proposed Outline Design is acceptable to them. If it is, they will instruct the project to commence the Statutory Approval process.

The Scheme’s ‘flood model’ actually comprises various different components developed by Jacobs. These include a hydrological model of the catchment, hydraulic models of the River Esk and the Pinkie Burn, and a wave overtopping model of the coastline. The outputs from these components are used to produce various flood risk maps for Musselburgh.

Each component of the flood modelling work is developed by a number of Jacobs’ hydrologists, hydraulic modellers and GIS specialists. Those who develop the model and run the analyses are known as ‘originators’. Their work is then checked by a separate team of ‘checkers’ within Jacobs to ensure that there are no errors in the originators’ work. A further team of ‘reviewers’ within Jacobs then reviews the checkers’ work to confirm that the correct quality control procedure was followed. Finally, a senior ‘approver’ confirms that the origination, check, and review has been completed, before issuing the results to East Lothian Council.

This rigorous quality control process ensures that no individual within the designer’s team is allowed to check their own work, and no results are published until all the appropriate checks have been completed.

The Preferred Scheme concept identified the need for surface water management to address ponding at low-lying points within the areas that would be protected by physical defences. The town’s existing road drainage was not designed or intended to function during an extreme flood event as the Scheme will be. During such conditions gravity discharges would cease to operate and gullies would begin to back up onto roads and footpaths.

While it would be impractical and prohibitively expensive for the Scheme to replace Musselburgh’s road drainage network, a surface water management solution is being considered, which would reduce the risk of surface water ponding at these low lying areas from spilling over into properties.

The design of the Scheme impacts the town’s bridges, but conversely, the bridges also have an impact on the design of the Scheme. This is because many of these existing structures have low soffits and intermediate piers which restrict the flow of the river during a flood event. They also risk being blocked by debris floating down the river.

To alleviate these issues, it is proposed to replace the Ivanhoe, Shorthope, Electric and Goosegreen bridges with single-span structures which are higher above the water. Bridges such as the Olive Bank, Roman, and Rennie bridges cannot easily be replaced, therefore a debris trap is proposed upstream to reduce the risk of debris blocking these remaining structures. Since the soffits and piers of these three bridges cannot be changed, the defences on each riverbank immediately upstream will have to be designed accordingly to contain any floodwater.

The exact form of the replacement bridges has yet to be decided.