POOLEWE COMMUNITY LAND ACQUISITION
A lot has happened since our last update on the Poolewe Community Land Acquisition Project in April. We had a mad rush to get our business plan and funding application completed to meet the submission deadline of 3 July and we also had to squeeze in two community consultation meetings before that date. Even after we submitted our application, there was a steady stream of questions from Scottish Land Fund, and funding issues to be resolved, so we have been totally focused on these.
We have been warned that competition for funds from SLF in this round is very intense so we must be realistic and recognize that our application may fail. If that happens, and depending on the feedback we get from SLF, we may have to do more feasibility work and, obviously, re-schedule everything, but we will regard it as a temporary setback, not the end of our plans.
We thank all of you who took the time to participate in these consultations. As before, we have arranged the information in the form of frequently-asked-questions:
1 Where are we now?
We submitted our Stage 2 funding bid to Scottish Land Fund on 3 July. We are now awaiting the SLF verdict on our application and we expect this in mid October. In the meantime we are taking this opportunity to summarise the feedback from the two consultation events on 29 and 30 June and to update you on other aspects of the project. As before, we are publishing answers to some questions received in this update so that everyone can see the information and it makes best use of our time. We welcome constructive advice and relevant questions.
The SLF bid documents we are publishing (see item 2 below) provide answers to many questions we have received; in this update we have tried to identify the issues of greatest concern to the community. There will be opportunities for further questions and suggestions once the projects start.
2 How can I see the funding application?
We issued a draft version of the funding application business plan just before the consultations on 29 and 30 June to Wester Loch Ewe Trust members. The documentation that was actually submitted to the funding committee is available to read via the Archives link on the left of this page. This submitted version includes a summary of the results from these consultation sessions. Subsequent to our submission, supplementary information was supplied by us to the committee and some of that is included. There is some financial information which we are not releasing at this time.
If you have questions about the project we strongly recommend reading the business plan which you will find in the archive.
3 The business plan you are publishing shows a gap in the funding for the project, what will happen about that?
The business plan submitted to the committee does show a shortfall in funding but we subsequently addressed that issue and supplied additional information to SLF showing a funding plan with no shortfall.
4 What was the feedback from the consultations on 29 and 30 June?
The results from the feedback form are summarised on the last page below. These are our comments:
4.1 Land purchase: We are pleased to see continuing near unanimous support for the purchase of the land from the MB estate for building affordable housing. This is in line with the feedback from the sessions held last year and reported in our December update.
4.2 Builder’s yard purchase: The figures show a similar level of opposition to the idea as we found in the earlier consultations. The objections are against the proposal to create an access route into the new housing area which would connect to Clifton, causing extra traffic from the top of Clifton down to the main street. These earlier figures included the numbers from the Clifton residents’ petition and if we assume these objections still stand, the total against the proposal is almost exactly the same as last time. We note there has been a substantial increase in the number of people in favour of the route and we surmise this may be due to the elimination of the original route off Clifton Place from our plans. We emphasise that ultimately the choice of route will be subject to Highland Council’s planning requirements and we will take steps to ensure they get a full picture of the community’s feelings before they have to make a decision on our planning application. We will press HC for an early face to face meeting with the community.
4.3 Affordable housing: As before there is almost unanimous support for the proposal to build affordable housing. We are always constrained by funding issues and the current government funding stream for affordable housing is due to end in March 2028. This is not sufficient time for us to have completed (or at least committed to) all the building work on the first phase of building so we must reluctantly wait for a replacement scheme to be announced. This is why our outline schedule in the business plan shows the housing element to be around three years away. Of course, this could change if government policy changes.
4.4 Helipad: We are pleased to see the near unanimous support for the proposed helipad. If we are able to complete the acquisition of the land by the end of this year, this project should be able to move ahead early next year. One of our first steps will be to get a draft design proposal that we can present to the community so that community feedback can be included before the planning consent process begins. The feedback from the planning pre-app indicates that the proposal will likely be supported, We don’t know at this stage whether the army will be involved in the construction but regardless of that, we anticipate that there will be opportunities for local contractors to participate, either to support the army, or to undertake the whole project.
4.5 Campervan stopover: As with the previous consultation, approximately one third of respondents expressed opposition to the plan. However, we see from the comments that there were some misconceptions about various aspects of the proposal. The planning pre-app response was favourable, with the usual warnings about flood risk assessment, and there were no concerns noted about chemical waste disposal. We would also like to re-assure those who expressed concerns about the existing campsite in Poolewe that we have discussed our proposal with senior management at the Camping and Caravanning Club and NTS Inverewe and both are completely happy with it. We are keen to find sources of income so that WLET can continue to meet its running costs and continue its community work. This facility would provide a modest income while hopefully helping to reduce inappropriate dumping of waste. While there is a clear majority in favour of the project, as with the other projects, there will be more consultation with the community before it goes ahead.
4.6 Community woodland with path/trail: As with the earlier consultation, we are pleased to see that there was a large majority in favour of the project. We note the the planning pre-app response about the stopover made specific mention of the path as having the potential to contribute to the NPF4 Policy 13 (Sustainable Transport) national policy. The response also notes that the trees in the stopover project and the community woodland would complement each other.
4.7 Grazing land: There is a large majority in support of this proposal. From the few negative comments there still appears to be some confusion about what we are planning. Specifically, we will make the land available to anyone who makes a successful bid for its lease, and we are not confining it to, or excluding it from, crofters. And of course the plan will be subject to more community discussion before it goes ahead.
4.8 Amenity land: There is near unanimous support for our proposal to reclaim some land for community use. In the few negative comments there is perhaps some confusion caused by our terminology ‘reclaimed land’ as some people have taken this as indicating it is in some way inferior or contaminated. We explained in our December 2025 update that it is just some farmland which has been neglected and can be recovered fairly easily into productive use. We received some suggestions for the possible use of this area at our consultations last year and we have made a note of these so they can be revisited when we do more consulting on this project. We will be looking for more ideas for using the land that are feasible, sustainable (ecologically and financially), of benefit to the community, and don’t adversely impact other local businesses.
5 What happens to the Community Car Scheme if you buy the builder’s yard?
We have made it clear that we will offer the CCS the use of their existing offices for a considerable time to come as we don’t anticipate doing any work on the yard for at least two years, probably more.
6 In the last update you mentioned working with the adjacent projects, what do you plan to do?
We have already held a number of meetings with the Rewilding Project and we will want to explore any impact of our proposals on the Rewilding Project and vice versa as a priority as the outcome may affect our plans. We have discussed some options for co-operation with LECE and we may get more ideas for co-operation when we hold further public consultation sessions.
Summary of Responses
