Riverside Field | Stratherrick & Foyers Community Trust
Riverside Field

Welcome to the Riverside Field Project page.  Each week we intend to give you a regular Thursday update on how projects are progressing.  Some weeks there will be lots of activity, others not so much.  If you  have any questions  - or have knowledge and skills you would like to bring to the project please do get in touch with the lead Directors via the button on the right!


Latest update 3rd July 2024

River Foyers Residents Group and Stratherrick & Foyers Community Trust meeting 26 June 2024 - BCC Hub 

Opening: Meeting called to order in the BCC Hub at 19:00 by Chairperson Catriona Fraser. 

Present:  Catriona Fraser (SFCT); Maureen McGuire (SFCT); Mark Sutherland (SFCT); Ken Sinclair (SFCT); Maire Brown (SFCT); Lindsey McNaughton (RFRG); Neil McNaughton (RFRG); Janet MacDonald (RFRG); Allan MacDonald (RFRG); Caren Birch (RFRG); Fiona MacMillan (RFRG); Lorraine Fraser (RFRG); Susan Faller (RFRG); David Smith (RFRG); Craig Lightbody (RFRG); Louise Lightbody (RFRG); Johanna Schuster (RFRG); David Skinner (RFRG); Tina Skinner (RFRG). 

Apologies:  Chris Gehrke (SFCT); Gareth Jones (SFCT); Susan Greer (SFCT); Tony Foster (SFCT); Julie Murphy (RFRG); Gordon Murphy (RFRG); Stuart Goodwin (RFRG); Sandra Allan (RFRG); Alfie Taylor (RFRG); Tom Hollingsworth (RFRG); Ala McGruar (RFRG); Paul Higham (RFRG); Debbie Hermitage (RFRG); Brian Yates (RFRG); Iain Fraser (RFRG); Gary Fentiman (RFRG). 


Catriona Fraser (CF) welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave a background to the development and the necessity to hold this meeting to discuss the carparking issue and purchase of the playpark.  This was stipulated by Cllr Chris Ballance (Chair of the Riverside Liaison Group) following the recent impasse between the SFCT and the Riverside Residents Group.  CF advised attendees that any other questions should be raised with Craig Lightbody (CL) or Brian Yates (BY), as representatives of the RFRG. 

Members of the River Foyers Residents Group (RFRG) disputed that the meeting should solely be a discussion about these issues, and agreed that the wider issues, concerns, and objections of residents should be discussed.   

During a previous Riverside Liaison Group meeting, questions had been raised about the views of residents being truly represented by CL.  Allan MacDonald (AM) assured the SFCT representatives that the views provided by CL at the Riverside Liaison Group meetings are in fact those of the Riverside residents and not CLs opinion. 

In relation to purchasing the playpark, CF stated that the view of the SFCT Board is that this is the best option. 

Questions were raised about the existing playpark and how this may be affected by the purchase to which CF responded the size would not decrease and could be expanded in the future even with the addition of the four car parking spaces.  This is something the SFCT believe could benefit the Riverside residents.  SFCT would also take on the maintenance of the playpark should they successfully purchase the land from the Highland Council.  The question of who would use the parking spaces was asked to which CF responded they would be used by 2 properties facing the playpark.  Members of the RFRG expressed their view that they do not want any additional carparking spaces. 

The question of a one-way road system was raised to which CF responded that there will be a two-way traffic system once the carparking space are developed.   

Mark Sutherland (MS) questioned CL about his involvement in the creation of the original questionnaire that was sent out to the community during his time as a member of the Stratherrick & Foyers Community Council.  CL responded that he could not recall any involvement.  CF and MS advised the group that there is an email trail evidencing all correspondence at the time.  CL stated that Tony Foster (TF), SFCT CEO had tried to start a steering group at the time.  However, nothing further was communicated to him from TF.  CF:  The formation of the Riverside Liaison Group had been a stipulation of Highland Council prior to a steering group being formed. 

The RFRG identified traffic as a primary concern.  CF:  The traffic report suggests that if the facility was to be used at full capacity, the traffic would be 125 vehicles in and out.  This results in the 250 vehicles per day which has come from the Highland Council Planning department. 

The question of child safety was also raised as a concern of the RFRG with the example of children using the adjacent road to cycle.  Maureen McGuire (MM) agreed that this is a concern and proposed the movement of a parking area to somewhere close by so that residents’ lives were not endangered or impeded by the movement of traffic. 

The question of why the land was purchased by SFCT initially was also brought up to which CF responded that the Riverside residents did not wish to see the land to be used for a housing development and therefore made the purchase to avoid this.  Lindsey McNaughton (LM) stated that at the time, the land was purchased, and plans were made prior to any consultation. 

CL questioned that the reason for the purchase came about to prevent developers for building housing on the land and he stated that the Highland Council (HC) had made it a condition of development that half the cost of a new bridge would have to be paid for by the developer which would equate to around £4.5 million. 

Johanna Schuster (JS) agreed that this made it unattractive to developers.  She also stated that the purchase seemed like a great opportunity to acquire land as a community asset.  However, at the time of purchase, there was no specific community need for a building, such as a nursery for example.  Directors from the SFCT were appointed as Project Leaders and suddenly there was pressure to produce something for the field.  Aspects of the 2019 Masterplan had disappeared, and this was a key turning point in the views of residents, who felt they were not being listened to by the SFCT. 

There was widespread agreement within the RFRG that they did not feel like they had been listened to by SFCT.  Lighting and the necessity of a cover for the MUGA were discussed.  Ken Sinclair (KS) reiterated the point that there is no commitment to build a MUGA and the plans are aspirational.   

MS asked the group what level of community support would be required for the RFRG to agree to the project going forward.  The consensus of the RFRG was that if the items they did not wish to see on the Masterplan remained, they would never agree.  They did state however, that they are not disagreeing with everything, and they do wish to see a mutually agreeable project go ahead.  This includes developing the area that will be beneficial to the wellbeing of the community, including polycrubs, table tennis, landscaped seating, a trim trail and dog agility parks. 

The total cost of the project, estimated to be around £3 million, and a concern about the ongoing maintenance costs were also raised by the RFRG.  CF stated that the £3 million is an estimate and SFCT will not be spending this amount, it will be match funded.  KS:  Money is there to help maintain projects and the new Board of Directors have spent a lot of time creating budgets to ensure maintenance is covered.  

Members from the RFRG also questioned the need for a further hall in Lower Foyers, suggesting that community spaces in other villages within the area are currently underused.  LM asked why other areas choose their own projects, but the Riverside Field development is decided community wide.  MS highlighted the fact that the funding SFCT received is provided to benefit the whole community. 

The group also discussed the issues of childcare and lack of affordable housing within the area, and the need for a sports facility in the area.  It was suggested that Foyers Primary school be used as a means to provide an alternative site for a village hall and gym and more could be added using the land behind, which was occupied by the school caretaker 

The group discussed the issue of communication.  Susan Faller (SF) would like to see paper copies of relevant documentation delivered as well as electronically for those who don’t use the internet.  CF responded by confirming literature has been personally delivered previously and assured her that this will continue. 

MM suggested the SFCT bring to the RFRG a pact to ensure issues can be agreed on and solved as the phases of the Masterplan progress.  CL did not agree and stated that RFRG had lost trust in the SCFT and believed that once work had begun there would be no stopping the progress and control in the decision-making process would be lost.  SF also commented on the fact that the RFRG had lost trust in the SFCT and the need for evidence to rebuild this. 

AM mentioned that representatives of the SFCT had previously been invited to attend RFRG meetings and had failed to appear.  KS responded by stating he had attended such a meeting previously. 

CF commented on how valuable it is to listen to individuals and for the SFCT to provide a ‘human face’ within whom trust can be established.  She went on to say that this evening has provided an opportunity to hear everyone’s voice and will now go away and look at how to improve communication.  This will include the Riverside Liaison Group and Steering Group. 

CF talked about the need for a Community Action Plan (CAP) review, including proof of concept and the evidence that people are going to use something.  MM stated that the last CAP occurred during Covid and that the SFCT Board are aware of the current main themes affecting the community.   

KS asked if planning permission would allow the SFCT to begin work to which CL responded not until the four parking spaces are in place – This is a condition where nothing can progress until construction of these is complete.  CF stated that planning permission has been granted, however, the development will be done in stages.  Each of which will include specific factors that will go back to the community for consultation.  CL stated that he did not believe the community would want the project to progress at all if all the information, including a traffic report, costs etc were circulated.  MM and MS both identified the need to mitigate the negative impacts including restricting vehicle access, lighting, and the MUGA cover. 

CL stated that the plan on the website is not the same as what was submitted to the HC planning department.  CF will look into this and have the website updated.   

MS:  there is lots to take away and more discussions necessary to find a solution.  MS also raised the issue of the effectiveness of the Riverside Liaison Group and MM suggested that Surgeries could be offered for residents to attend. 

Adjournment: Meeting adjourned by Catriona Fraser 20.40   

Minutes submitted by: Kirsteen Campbell (SFCT) 


Latest update 30th May 2024

Last night's Liaison Group meeting was postponed. A new date will be circulated in due course.


Latest update 9th May 2024

The first Riverside Steering group meeting was held on Monday - thank you to everyone who came along.  Notes from this meeting will be shared here shortly.


Latest update 2nd May 2024

The first Riverside Steering group meeting will be held at 7pm on Monday 6th May at the Wildside Centre, with an option to join online.  Please email tony-ceo@sfctrust.org.uk if you would like to be involved.


Riverside Field Liaison Group Meeting – 7pm, 17th April 2024 – BCC HUB.

Welcome and apologies:

Meeting called to order in The Hub at 19:10 by Chairman Cllr Chris Ballance.

Present: Cllr Chris Ballance (HC), Peter Faye (Whitebridge), Catriona Fraser (SFCT), Zoe Iliffe (Whitebridge), Christopher Joyce (CC), Brian Yates (RFRG), Mark Sutherland (SFCT), Mike Lawson.

Apologies: Craig Lightbody (RFRG)

Minutes of last meeting:

Minutes were distributed and accepted as accurate by the group.

Matters Arising from last meeting:


SFCT to decide whether to purchase land offered by HC:

CB stated that he believed the SFCT were trying to purchase the land.

CF: The SFCT had made the decision to purchase the land. However, since then, an issue has arisen which has prevented the purchase from going forward.

CB stated he had been copied into an email from the Council’s Estates Management department in response to an email sent from Craig Lightbody, on behalf of RFRG, on April 9th 2024 advising that the Riverside residents were in a dispute with the SFCT regarding parking spaces. Estates Management advised the SFCT to meet with Riverside Residents Group before further discussions can proceed.

CF expressed disappointment that Craig Lightbody, on behalf of RFRG, had gone out with the Riverside Liaison Group, set-up to conduct all business, and contacted local councillors instead of using the CLG as an avenue to go through.

The group discussed this further with PF asking for clarity about the purchase offer from HC.

CF: It was agreed that the SFCT would purchase the land for £1.00. The email from Craig Lightbody stating that the Riverside residents are in a dispute with SFCT regarding parking spaces means the purchase is now on hold until there is a resolution.

CB: HC have said the land is housing land rather than council land, (the housing revenue account, and not part of the general revenue account of the HC), and housing revenue account disposals are required to go through the Scottish Government. The email from Craig Lightbody, on behalf of RFRG, on 9th April has created an issue within the Housing Department’s consideration.

The email was shared with the group and CF claimed there were inaccuracies within it.

ML: The consultation is part of a planning application which has been processed by the local authority, and the planning department sends out the appropriate notifications to the appropriate neighbours as part of this process.

MS: The letter from Craig Lightbody, on behalf of the RFRG, highlights that the residents are raising the issue of carparking space as a blocking tactic to delay the whole development.

PF: This is an attempt to stop the development, and given the RFRG have been meeting since June 2023, it is now time to move forward with the project and for individuals to stop hindering the process with misleading statements.

ZI and PF: The lack of detail provided on RFRG meetings casts doubt as to whether the views of residents are being accurately represented.

CF shared the SFCT response to Ricky Cheng from their solicitor.

BY: Did not agree consultations had taken place and were instead presentations.

ZI: While she was Chair of the SFCT, documents had been produced outlining the responses from the consultations. Community consultation has taken place at every stage with multiple choices provided which resulted in the final planning application.

BY: The Riverside residents have not been listened to and aspects they agreed with have been shrunk and those they were against grew.

ML: The master plan is designed by the community via consultation.

The group also identified the high level of confusion in relation to the Community Council and the Funders who both were misled about the SFCTs intentions for the playpark.

The group discussed the issues surrounding rural communities and the need for better facilities, such as those being offered at the Riverside Field.  MS highlighted the fact that local children are required to travel to Farr to access sporting amenities and CF mentioned the shinty pitch in Foyers is unfit for purpose which forced the local club to relocate. MS argued that the lack of facilities is contributing to the decline of a once thriving community that included a village hall, shinty pitch, and school.

MS questioned BY as to where the apprehension around the project arose from.

BY: The destruction of the field is a major factor, as it the use of invasive lighting, and the rising noise levels which may result from the development.

MS shared sympathies with this view and appreciated the effects on residents by the neighbouring campsite. However, he went on to question if it is fair to the wider community to allow these apprehensions to stand in the way of a positive development.

ML: Condition 14 to the planning consent states that no development should commence until full details of any external lighting to be used within the site, its boundaries etc, have been submitted and approved in writing by the planning authority. Use of external lights will be positioned to avoid illumination glare and will cease to operate after 9pm. Concerns raised by residents have already been considered through the planning application and consultation processes and any outstanding concerns are applied to the consent within these conditions for further information to be submitted and discharged.

CF and CB agreed the group is at an impasse and therefore representatives of the SFCT should meet with members of the RFRG directly to discuss this.

CB also suggested that in order to make some progress to move the project forward, a Section 42 application could be submitted requesting the car parking be put in after phase 1 or 2 which would allow for the development to begin if the application was successful.  ML agreed to report back to the SFCT Board on his recommendations on this.

RFRG to notify current ground maintenance and decide what they want going forward:

CB: If the Trust take over that land and were to take over maintenance what would be the requirements? Nothing has come forward from the residents and is still ongoing.

Draft Events Management and Operational Plans – for discussion:

CF stated there is no intention to have any major events in the field unless the community request this. CB offered any questions on the draft and the group agreed they are fairly generic at this time, and they set a principal of how things will be laid out.

SFCT to create Steering Group:

CF: Emails have gone out to groups and individuals who have expressed interest, as well as Highlife Highland, the shinty club, and relevant services.

CF to check with Tony Foster regarding the formation of group. This will be the group that makes decisions on priorities.

MS will be the Trust representatives along with Caroline Tucker (SFCT Project Co-ordinator).

The CLG will continue to meet as and when required.

CF to circulate new meeting dates to group members asap to confirm:

CF confirmed the next meeting will take place on Wednesday 29th May.

The date for the following meeting will be decided then.

Next steps:

The group acknowledged the phasing of the development document and planning drawings submitted by ML for consideration. ML went through these as per the document. The group discussed fencing, wildlife control and the use of an area for sledging. Access to the field was also discussed which will be at the discretion of the group.




CF: Trust to meet with the Riverside Residents Group. ML to investigate the section 42 and report back to the SFCT Board.


In light of no AOCB, meeting adjourned by Cllr Ballance 20.38.

Minutes submitted by: Kirsteen Campbell (SFCT).


Latest update 25th April 2024

A Riverside Liaison Group meeting was held last week - thank you to everyone who attended.

We are looking to hold our first steering group meeting on 6th May.  We would be keen to hear from you if you are interested in developing sports and recreation facilities in the community.  If you would like to be involved in the steering group, and help drive project this project forward, please get in touch with tony by emailing tony-ceo@sfctrust.org.uk.


Latest update 21st March 2024

Transport, event management and operational plans have now been completed and once agreed and submitted to Highland Council this will fulfil our Planning Conditions. Following the Landscape Design Consultation in February, designs have now gone back to Horner MacLennan for final adjustments to be made. Once these have been finalised, the proposed newly formed Steering Group will approve and the first “spade in the ground” shouldn’t be too far away. It’s been a long time coming for many but as you know these things take time.

The Steering Group will be taking the project forward with further consultation to follow with the community at large as well as continuing to liaise with the River Foyers Residents Group.


Latest update 13th February 2024

Minutes - Riverside Field Liaison Group Meeting 24 Jan 2024 - BCC Hub

Opening: Meeting called to order in The Hub at 19:08 by Chairman Cllr Chris Balance.

Present: Cllr Chris Ballance (HC), Peter Faye (Whitebridge), Catriona Fraser (SFCT), Zoe Iliffe (Whitebridge), Craig Lightbody (RFRG), Brian Yates (RFRG), Christopher Joyce (CC), Mike Lawson (architect)

Apologies: Mark Sutherland (SFCT)

Minutes from last meeting:

There were no comments on the minutes of the previous meeting

Matters arising from last meeting:

CB – update on finding an Arborist.

ML stated that an Arborist has been appointed, work completed, and report submitted.

ML – Still awaiting a response from the HC regarding questions on parking requirements.

CL – there has been no RFRG meeting since the last Riverside Liaison meeting, but it is likely that all residents will agree the proposed plans.

CB – has SFCT repaired the gate lock as requested.

CF – this has been done by Matt (SFCT).

CL – will HC consider less parking on site than is currently planned, stating that 38 parking spaces is undesirable for RFRG members. PF - perhaps counting cars attending events in the community would indicate the numbers that can be expected. CL – this is impractical, as HC transport team estimate 250 cars per day, which RFRG find undesirable.

CF – the plans will be available for review at the Wildside Centre Thursday 25 January 2024 09.30 to 12.30 and 17.00 to 19.00, and at the BCC Hub between 11am and 1pm, Monday-Friday from Thursday 25th January until Friday 2nd February.  CF explained that this is because of SFCT staff and directors’ availability, but that access at other times can be arranged by contacting Caroline at pc@sfctrust.org.uk with the subject heading 'Riverside Landscaping plans'. Invites for the working group will begin after the review period ends 2nd February.

Residents parking spaces:

ML – HC road safety team have insisted that 4 parking spaces be created for residents, to improve roadside parking and allow two-way flow of traffic, and that this was ratified by the planning team. HC have proposed that SFCT buy the land where the parking spaces need to go, along with the adjacent playpark. This could be for the sum of £1, on the condition that SFCT undertake ground maintenance responsibility for the area around riverside housing for 5 years.

CB – This will mean SFCT become responsible for health and safety of the playpark. CF – Tony Foster is looking into the details of levels of responsibility, but that HC officers would support SFCT in this.

ML – there has been no information about what the ground maintenance entails. ML advised that the specifications of the maintenance agreement be included in any sale agreement. CF – could CL ask RFRG members what they get now and what they would want. CL – All riverside residents 100% do not want these parking spaces. PF – that is understood, but it is a condition of planning permission and changing that is beyond this group.

CB – The choice is between including the residents parking or not developing, which is untenable. It is clear that neither residents nor SFCT want this, but HC are adamant, could some funds be focused to some improvements in the playpark, as a quid-pro-quo for residents?

Discharge of planning conditions (24):

ML – most conditions have been discharged but there remain some outstanding:

1. Finalise landscaping

2. Provide event management plan

3. Provide operational management plan

4. Demonstrate constitution of Liaison group. CB – that has been sent.

ML – will collate evidence of all conditions discharge and chase HC for confirmation.


CL – RFRG want to talk directly with SFCT, as they feel they are not being listened to, like the possibility of Section 42 only being discussed and not taken on. ML – the only objection to the residents parking spaces is that they are not wanted, advised that ‘we don’t want them’ will not influence HC planning. ML – Section 42 applies if the landowner had opposed the building of the parking spaces, but this is not the case and the proposed sale to SFCT is HC’s suggested solution.

CL – The proposed number of 38 parking spaces is an increase from the original, because the transport plan insisted on overflow parking. PF – alternative access point was considered but HC turned it down saying it was not an appropriate vehicle route. CF – Overflow parking could be included in a later phase of the development, perhaps giving time to evidence a lack of need. ML – this could be included in a phase for constructing the pavilion.

Next steps:

CB – RFRG and wider community to comment on displayed plans. CF – plans on display until 02 February, with a deadline for comments to be set. CL – RFRG pretty much made the landscape plan.

CB – what is the difference between the liaison group and a steering group? CF – the steering group will be more about taking plans forward and will report to the liaison group about on what decisions are being made. The liaison group becomes more of an informative group. PF – Liaison group can guide on local concerns such as construction traffic, whilst the Steering Group is more about progressing the development.

CF – Because of the two postponements of this meeting, should we rearrange meetings from this one, starting with 21st February and rearranging for 6th March?


• SFCT to decide whether to purchase land offered by HC

• RFRG to state what grounds maintenance they currently get, and what they would like to have

• SFCT to provide Event Management Plan etc to Mike Lawson.

• SFCT to create Steering Group

• CF to circulate new meeting dates to group members asap to confirm.

Date of next meetings:





Meeting adjourned by Cllr Ballance 20.27

Minutes submitted by: Robbie Burn (SFCT)


Latest update 1st February 2024

Thank you to everyone who has commented on the landscaping plans.  Your feedback will be passed on to the landscapers for consideration.

Thanks also to those who attended last week's Liaison Group meeting, the minutes will be shared here shortly.


Latest update 23rd January 2024

Revised landscape consultation dates and times are as follows:

The Wildside Centre - Thursday 25th January, 9.30am -12.30pm and 5-7pm

The Hub, Lower Foyers - Drop in between 11am and 1pm, Monday-Friday from Thursday 25th January until Friday 2nd February.

If you have any comments or feedback, please email them to Caroline at pc@sfctrust.org.uk with the subject heading 'Riverside Landscaping plans'.


Latest update 17th January 2024

We have taken the decision to cancel tomorrow's consultation at The Wildside centre due to poor weather conditions.  It has been rescheduled for next Thursday 25th January, 9.30am - 12.30pm and 5-7pm.

We will also have the plans on display at The Hub, the rescheduled dates will be shared once they are confirmed.


Latest update 16th January 2024

Due to the current and forecast weather conditions, tomorrow's Riverside meeting has been postponed until Wednesday 24th January.

We do still hope to go ahead with the landscaping consultation at The Wildside Centre on Thursday 18th, and plans will still be available to view at The Hub between 18th and 26th January.  You can find more information on this here.


Latest update 11th January 2024

Thank you to everyone who has already provided feedback on the landscaping plans.  We will have hard copies available to view in the Hub and the Wildside Centre very soon - further details will be circulated shortly.  In the meantime, you can view the plans online clicking on the links below.  Please send any feedback to Caroline by emailing pc@sfctrust.org.uk.

The next Riverside Liaison Group meeting will be held at The Hub on Wednesday 17th January at 7pm.


Latest update 14th December 2023

The next Liaison Group meeting is to be held on Wednesday 17th January at The Hub.  Please note, this a change from the date originally agreed.

The Landscape plans are now available to view - please click on the links below.  If you have any comments, please send them to tony-ceo@sfctrust.org.uk by Monday 8th January.

Landscape Proposals

Landscape proposals mood board


Latest update 24th November 2023

Minutes - Riverside Field Liaison Group Meeting 14th November 2023 - BCC Hub

Opening: Meeting called to order in The Hub at 19:06 by Chairman Cllr Chris Balance. He welcomed Christopher Joyce as representative of the Community Council.

Present: Cllr Chris Ballance (HC), Peter Faye (Whitebridge), Catriona Fraser (SFCT), Zoe Iliffe (Whitebridge), Craig Lightbody (RFRG), Christopher Joyce (CC).

Apologies: Brian Yates (RFRG), Johanna Schuster (RFRG), Mark Sutherland (SFCT)

Minutes from last meeting:

Minutes were distributed and accepted as accurate by the group.

Matters arising from last meeting:

CB asked for an update on finding an Arborist. CF – Mike Lawson in contact with a couple of people and is still awaiting response. CB – Still awaiting a response from the HC regarding the playpark parking area. CF – Anna Wasko, Senior Housing Officer with HC, has taken over from Keith Gibson as the person acting on behalf of the council as landowner. There have been several emails exchanged between CF, Keith Gibson, Tony Foster and Anna Wasko but no response as yet regarding the requirement for a Section 42. CL satisfied that the Trust has this in hand and is seeking a response.

Feedback from RFRG on group’s response to Landscaping plans/mood boards: 

CL noted that unfortunately no RFRG meeting could be arranged since the last Riverside Liaison meeting. Some households in the immediate locale have been shown the landscaping plans/mood boards face-to-face. CF suggested showing these at the BCC Hub using a laptop which is not an option due to CLs IT problems at the moment.

CF – Caroline Tucker (SFCT) will be the new project officer post-AGM. She plans to mail all Foyers residents in the first instance re the planning and mood boards. She would also like to include the Biodiversity Group and Pathways group, and then, the wider community. Further to this CF has planned with Caroline Tucker to host drop-in sessions with the plans and mood boards on display initially in Foyers, and then in Wildside Centre and Gorthleck Hall for the wider community to view. CF also suggested holding a session on the same evening as a Community Council meeting which the group agreed would be a good idea. This provides an opportunity for the whole community to see phase 1.

Reports from pre planning work:  

The group noted receiving the Archaeologists report. The group agreed there was nothing notable within this. CF – Carparking spaces are the only ongoing planning issue.

Next steps: 

CF – Post-AGM letters will go out in the New Year as per above. CB asked if there had been any discussions at SFCT Board meetings regarding when works may begin. CF responded not as yet and expects that there will be no timetable set-out until summer 2024. PF asked when the Steering Group would be formed to which CF responded post-AGM.


PF asked if the gate lock had been fixed. CF apologised and will ask Matt (SFCT) to fix it asap.

CL – As per the actions of the previous Minutes, CF was to email Consultation Progress toward Discharge of Planning Conditions document. CF confirmed that she emailed this following the previous meeting.

CL asked if the meetings could be changed back to a Wednesday which the group agreed to going forward unless it coincided with a SFCT Board meeting. CF will check the diary and confirm with the group. CB suggested that future meetings only go ahead if there are matters to discuss to which the group agreed.

In relation to the carpark, CB asked about different contractors to which CF responded tenders will be put out.

In relation to the playpark, CL was pleased that removing the requirement for the car parking spaces was looking more optimistic. The group discussed the issue and PF suggested that if the requirement remains, could the playpark be moved to the field? CF suggested the possibility of it moving as a community asset transfer which would mean the land would then be owned by SFCT. CL stated that the RFRG would not like to see the playpark moved at all.

CL asked if the SFCT Board of Directors had approached HC to find out what they would not allow on the land if the requirement to have 38 carparking spaces was reduced to, for example, 10 spaces? CF responded that she has already brought this question to the Board of Directors and the reason for not approaching HC is because if there is no carpark, visitors will park in Riverside. CL responded that larger numbers should not be encouraged to attend the sports facility meaning there is no necessity for 38 parking spaces. The group discussed possible large events that would require parking spaces, such as a local shinty match, to which CL responded the main opposing point of the RFRG is to minimise traffic and therefore events like this should not be encouraged.

The group raised the question of how 38 parking spaces originated to which CL commented it was the HC who stipulated this number, not the community. PF stated that this figure likely came through the planning process by HCs own calculations of need. He also stated that the carpark wouldn’t be tarmac but grasscrete. In relation to this, ZI mentioned that in the Consultation, grasscrete was to be used instead of a large carpark to avoid attracting unwanted visitors.

CL commented again that the main objection of the RFRG was not to encourage large volumes of traffic to Lower Foyers and perhaps the SFCT had not taken this on board. CB mentioned that in relation to the conditions to be met, an event management plan should be submitted to the local authority which will form the basis of preparing for any events or new developments, in the future. This has not come forward as yet. CF stated that as this is still the pre-planning stage, a more appropriate time to address this would possibly be at the next stage of planning. CF also stated that the plans given to HC are what was requested by the community, as per the consultation, to which CL stated that some items had not been requested by the community. CF and PF both pointed out there has been large number of consultations undertaken and the issues that arise from this include, for example, people requesting facilities without considering the implications it will have on the volume of visitors who would be using the carpark. The likelihood of all 38 spaces being used at one t ime was noted as being unlikely, although not impossible, which CL commented was a big issue for the residents. CF agreed to bring this to the attention of the SFTC Board of Directors again.

CL mentioned that prior to the consultee reports, people did not know what to expect, therefore objections came afterwards. The group commented that following consultee reports, this was the time for people to object although agreed the window to do so was small at two weeks.

CL asked why funds are being raised for the project when the agreement hasn’t been established to which CF responded that the need for forward planning is essential for the budget. This is in relation to the project as a whole and to each stage.

Date of next meeting:

09/01/2024 or 10/01/2024.


CF to address the SFCT Board of Directors re the parking spaces.

CF to confirm Wednesday as meeting day going forward.

CL to arrange a meeting with residents re planning and mood boards.


In light of no further AOCB, meeting adjourned by Cllr Ballance 19.48.

Minutes submitted by: Kirsteen Campbell (SFCT)


Latest update 13th October 2023

Minutes - Riverside Field Liaison Group Meeting 3rd October 2023 - BCC Hub

Opening:  Meeting called to order in The Hub at 19:14 by Chairman Cllr Chris Balance.

Present:  Cllr Chris Ballance (HC), Peter Faye (Whitebridge), Catriona Fraser (SFCT), Zoe Iliffe (Whitebridge), Craig Lightbody (RFRG).

Apologies:  Mark Sutherland (SFCT), Brian Yates (RFRG), Johanna Schuster (RFRG), Simon Hargreaves (SFCC), Gill Gray (SFCC).


Minutes from last meeting:

Minutes were distributed and accepted as accurate by the group.


Matters arising from last meeting:

CB – No reply from John Orr in relation to nesting birds.

CB – Purpose of the arborist and are we still seeking one.  CF responded by stating she had previously agreed to provide updates of what’s been done and distributed ‘Consultation Progress toward Discharge of Planning Condition’ document to the group.  An update on arboriculture is included in this document.


CF - Archaeological dig ongoing this week.  Nothing significant found (medieval or prehistoric) and mainly relating to British Aluminium.  Report in draft form to be completed.  Acoustician visited but found nothing out with Sport Scotland guidelines in relation to noise.  Civil Engineer doing outstanding model of the site to discharge the planning conditions.  Scottish Water approval for connection only outstanding item.  Architect to submit design information and specific design elements to the Authority once consultant designs and reports are completed.


PF complaint regarding lack of co-ordination surrounding access to the field to which CF responded that it had been co-ordinated, however there was a delay in this being passed.  CF confirmed there is a key and a code for access to the field. CF apologised for the lack of communication and will take to Board meeting 04/10/2023.


CL stated the residents had not received notification of consultants visiting the field.  CF confirmed no further consultants should visit the site with the exception of Scottish Water, however, no machinery will be involved. CF also said any further on-site visits with machinery will be confirmed to local residents.

CF – Re playpark parking area, Tony Foster (SFTC) contacted HC via the architects to ascertain if this is a full requirement of planning or an advisory.  He is awaiting a response.


Feedback from landscaping meeting:

CF – Updated plans received from Tony Foster 03/10/2023.  Presentation of plans and Mood Board shown to the group.  Ideas came from meeting of the Foyers Residents Group and included a seating area, community gardening space, fruit and nut trees, native trees, hedgerow.  Mood Board displayed showing ideas.  This highlighted the importance of keeping everything looking natural rather than industrial.  CL mentioned a late suggestion of creating a visual and aromatic sensory garden.  IL and PF commented that wooden tree guards were preferable to plastic.


CL – In relation to the plans, it was felt by the residents that their feelings regarding the hedgerow were misunderstood.  They agreed that it is nice to look onto greenery, however, they did not want a ‘green wall’.  CF took this onboard and suggested it could be graduated.  CL mentioned that the residents were happy to be involved and felt listened to at the presentation.  CL mentioned the possibility of a polycrub used in place of the overflow carpark to which CF responded that there is a third polycrub held in reserve.


CL – Notes from Brian re the Landscape Architect meeting 1) that there are no objections yet, although this was due to there being a lot of absentees at the meeting 2) Those in attendance were asked to ratify everything, however, they declined due to a lack of numbers and will take it to their next meeting.  4) Overall, the report was well received, with the only objection being the parking area on the field. 5) CL went on to say that the architect is under the impression that everything is built on the field and planning consent has been given for the whole project, however, it is planning in principle that is the accepted planning.  CF responded by stating that each phase of the project is gone through at the liaison group.


CL – Only other main point from the meeting was that some residents wanted a water feature.


PF and CF commented on the Mood Board and how visualising the end results helps to show how things might look.


CB asked about next steps to which CF responded once the landscape architects hear back from RFRG and then the design will go to SFTC then biodiversity group and then out to community consultation.  PF suggested showing the mood board etc.  CB suggested a drop-in session for the community.



Report already given by CF.



CL queried whether planning for the carpark in the playpark area had been taken to HC from SFCT as they had not received a response.  CB responded that the Transport Strategy person has objected to this in the plans and requested it is a planning condition.  CL queried whether a Section 42 could be used to remove it as a condition of planning and stated that traffic is the biggest objection and therefore parking, including the overflow.  CF stated the architect was tasked to take this to HC and will bring it up at the Board Meeting on 04/10/2023.


CL queried the lack of a Steering Group and whether residents would be welcome to join this to which CF responded they would be.  CL also questioned the wording used to advertise the Steering Group and PF commented that the wording should reflect the objectives, incorporating the views and wishes of the locals.  CF referred to a previous email advertising the Steering Group and advised that concerns re the development are being handled by the Liaison Group and if any residents felt their responses weren’t being listened to, they could join this as it is open to all.  PF and CF stated that everything has to come back to the Liaison Group as it’s the only way to get an overall consensus from local residents and the community.


CB confirmed date of next meeting:  14/11/2023

Future meetings:  09/01/2024



CF to email Consultation Progress toward Discharge of Planning Conditions document to CL.

CF to forward all consultant reports when they are received.

CF – Liaison group to be informed of any pre-planning work that is going to take place and also residents should be informed.

CF to email plans and mood board to the group.

CL to follow up with landscape architect following residents meeting.

CF to check with architect to ask if planning to convert parking to a playpark has gone to HC and bring up at Board Meeting 04/10/23.

CF to start a Steering Group following the SFTC AGM on 29/11/23



In light of no further AOCB, meeting adjourned by Cllr Ballance 20:00


Minutes submitted by:

Kirsteen Campbell (SFCT)


Latest update 28th September 2023

The Archaeology team will be onsite next week, so please be aware of increased activity in the area.


Latest update 14th September 2023

An Acoustician was on site this week to carry out tests as part of the planning requirements.  We also received notification that an Archaeologist will be onsite the week commencing 2nd October.

As mentioned below, the residents will be meeting with the landscapers again next week, on Wednesday 20th September at the Hub.


Latest update 7th September 2023

The second meeting between Foyers residents and the landscape architects has been scheduled for the 20th September.  The outcomes from this meeting will be shared at the liaison group meeting, which will take place in early October.


Latest update 31st August 2023

Thank you to everyone who attended last week's Liaison Group meeting.  Notes from this meeting will be shared in due course.

The date for the second meeting between local residents and the landscape architects has been sent to those involved.  Other works, as outlined in the planning conditions, are due to take place in September and early October, prior to the next Liaison Group meeting.


Latest update 17th August 2023

The initial designs from the Landscape Architects have now come back, and we are now waiting to confirm a date with the local residents for a second meeting to view and discuss these.

There is another Riverside Liaison Group meeting arranged for 7pm on 22nd August at The Hub, Lower Foyers.


Latest update 22nd June 2023

This week's meeting was postponed due to lack of availability.  A new date will be agreed and circulated in due course.


Latest update 15th June 2023

The landscapers met with residents last night at the Hub.  There will be a meeting of the Liaison Group next Tuesday (20th June) at 7pm, also at the Hub.


Latest update 8th June 2023

Local residents will have the opportunity to meet with the Landscapers on the 14th June at the Hub in Lower Foyers.  Discussions from this meeting will be taken to the Liaison Group meeting the following week.


Last update 30th May 2023



Chris Ballance(HC), Brian Yates (RFRG), Johanna Schuster (RFRG), Simon Hargreaves (SFCC), Mark Sutherland(SFCT), Catriona Fraser(SFCT), Peter Faye(Whitebridge), Zoe Iliffe(Whitebridge), Alexander Sutherland (Errogie)

APOLOGIES – Gill Gray (SFCC), Craig Lightbody (RFRG), Sue Fisher (Gorthleck), Elspeth Hall (Foyers), Ewelina Gehrke (Inverfarigaig)


AGENDA  19th Apr 2023, 7.30pm

(Notes from the pre-meeting in January have been previously circulated and agreed by attendees.)

  1. Composition of the Consultative Liaison Group – two people asked to join
  2. Appointment of minute-taker for this meeting
  3. Landscaping and other items

Quotes by 23rd May

  1. Date of Next Meeting
    1. 6th June to meet with landscaper
    2. 20th June for meeting.
  1. Land maintenance
  2. Date of Next Meeting
  3. AOCB



Two additional people have responded to the advert but were unable to attend.  No objections were noted to their inclusion - Andrea Vieth and Alex Janaway. All previous attendees agreed by Chair as members of group.  The group is made up of a maximum of 12 with 2 SFCT, 2 SFCC, 2 RFRG and the remainder from residents in the other hamlets.

Alex Sutherland attended in response to the advertisement as a representative of Errogie residents and to give a brief opinion on use of the field for sporting purposes. 


At the last meeting it was decided it would be good to have an independent minute so all members could take part fully in discussions, taker however none was available.  Mark Sutherland agreed to take the minutes meantime and it was not an impediment to contributing.


The invitation to tender has gone out for a company to carry out the landscaping.    The next meeting of RFRG is 10th May in perparation for the first meeting with the Landscape Architect scheduled for 6th June.  The intention is for the landscapers first action to be to attend, if possible, or otherwise at a time of the residents choosing, meet the RFRG and explore requirements.  Key issues to be touched on such as screening, and other opportunities that may exist such as orchard or sensory garden.  The contractor to go away and come up with a design to present a draft plan to the Steering Group for discussion on 20th June.  It was acknowledged this is an optimistic and aspirational timescale.  The architect is driving tender process for all contractors not just landscaping.

There was a discussion about whether the agenda had gone out to all participants and whether in sufficient time.   There was an agreement from the trust to firm up on email addresses / contact list and to try to get the agenda out at least a week in advance.  JS advised she was present in CL stead and should also receive all communications and this was agreed.

RFRG to start thinking about ideas for landscaping in anticipation of their meeting with the landscaping contractor.

RFRG to meet as a group to discuss landscaping, then meet landscaper, then report back to Liaison Group.  CB highlighted that the findings of the acoustician and archaeologist would also form part of discussion on landscaping.  CF agreed and suggested all the contractors should feed into the landscaping plan.


RFRG scheduled to meet with Landscape Architect on 6th June

Liaison Group to meet 20th June



MS Suggested as per last meeting that a football pitch type area be mowed in the field so in the meantime people can have a game.  JS expressed concern about possible impact on ground nesting birds.  CF stated SFCT would consult Countryside Ranger re. timing and ensure Higher Ground who have cut and maintained the field previously on behalf the SFCT were not planning any cutting during the nesting season.

MS suggested getting some inexpensive non permanent/portable goal posts such as you might have for schools or homes, to facilitate games for the community.

MS also suggested putting a couple of the SFCT picnic benches in the field for use of residents.  JS expressed concern this might attract people from the campsite but accepted they are temporary and moveable and it would not be possible to know whether this would happen until it had been tried.  JS also thought it would also be good for young people in Foyers to have somewhere to go.  However she would like to discuss with the other members of RFRG first on 10 May.

There was general discussion about provision of bins and notices about dog fouling.  Bins were felt to be a bad idea as they would attract rubbish and seagulls.  AS suggested looking at similar sites such as the recreational ground at Torvean, Inverness, where the Park Run is held.  They have benches, recreational facilities, a nice perimeter path and “frisbee golf” which is popular.  SH suggested these are all good topics for consideration during the consultation with the landscaper. 

It was agreed that subject to suitable timing re ground nesting birds, in addition to a usable football pitch area, a path mowed around the perimeter would be nice.  John Orr was again mentioned as a good source of info this time about recreation sympathetic to nature.  MS suggested it would be good to involve him in the discussion with the landscaper as there would be an opportunity to make the landscaping favourable to the local wildlife by basing it on sound ecological principles eg hedgerows.

JS suggested that in time, conversation should be entered into with the campsite owners as their screening obligations as per planning may not be compliant and it would be desirable to work collaboratively on this so both parties solutions are harmonious.  CF will email John Orr and Tony Foster of SFCT re. the nesting birds.  An approach will be made to the campsite owners once the Landscapers have been met with.


Already covered in other sections of meeting.




JS raised a concern on behalf of RFRG regarding the latest SFCT advert for Steering Group members.  RFRG would like the wording to be changed as they felt the language used was not neutral enough and would encourage predominately people who were fully committed to all phases of the development.  The wording was also perceived to be biased in that it implied if you were opposed to the development you were not concerned about health.

CF suggested it was not true that the wording was slanted towards people committed to the whole masterplan as it explicitly stated as per Cl request “in whole or in part”. 

There was continued discussion between JS and CF.  JS believes wording implies if you are not in favour of the development you are not welcome as part of the steering group.

AS said he came in response to the advert and was happy to advise on sporting matters and did not take any negative inference from the advert.

CF stated she will deal with the lack of notices – they were tasked out but there was an issue with staff Annual Leave which caused a delay.  CF also agreed the advert should be re-run and acknowledged it should have been ratified before publication.  SH agreed the advert should run again.

PF pointed out the role of the Liaison Group is to facilitate and inform and queried what RFRG saw as the purpose of the group.

JS stated that the development might not all go ahead and that was what has been said.

There was then a discussion about precisely what planning in principle meant, that the whole master plan was approved in principle and COULD go ahead as proposed.  The intention of the Trust is to move to completion.  The effective management of the project means this necessarily will be phased. Each phase will be discussed with the Liason Group.  The purpose of the Liason Group is not a consultation on whether each phase of the development should go ahead and therefore a way to continue objecting to it, but to manage how it goes ahead sympathetically and for the benefit of the whole community.  It might be the case that the Trust under it’s own direction and/or as a result of consultation with the community and Liaison Group, add, amend or delete aspects of the master plan as the various stages of the project unfold.  The purpose of the Liason Group is about mitigating disruption during the development process, and fostering community participation, involvement and ownership. 


MS complained that a member of the group had criticised the advert on facebook, contrary to the Terms of Reference of the group, and without first engaging with the Riverside Liaison Group to give them a chance to correct the situation

CF requested that in future if someone is unhappy, they should go through the chair.


ZI raised an issue in terms of the presentation of the views of RFRG as uniformly anti the development, when in her experience there are residents who are in favour but don’t feel able to speak up because of the negative feedback.  It is not fair to say everyone is opposed.

JS replied that it was correct that in the beginning there were people who were positive about the development however it became contentious with the MUGA which is thought to represent an overdevelopment.  Support among residents is crumbling. Though not all residents have been spoken to out of 16 households spoken to informally this view is consistent and any suggestion people are being bullied is inaccurate.  The MUGA is the main bone of contention along with concerns about flood lighting, noise and car doors banging.

CF said these concerns were recognised at the very first meeting of the Liaison Group.

JS said she could see the merit of a 20 mins society which is a concept the Trust is working with, particularly given travel costs, rural location etc and it would be good for the community to become more self-sufficient.  She felt the sports centre would be better placed in Gorthleck for this purpose.

CB shared that his experience of speaking to residents was there was no support in Riverside for the development.  However he hoped that over the next year the group would formulate something the Riverside Residents would be happy with. 

SH said he felt positive about the phasing and that the community were taking things forward.

CF said it was important to engage the community at each phase but the whole point of the Liaison Group was to move the project on.


CF confirmed she would make sure relevant people were included in emails.

It was agreed that observers could come and listen.

CB wants to avoid different people coming to participate every week. 

There was general agreement it was a meeting in public as opposed to a public meeting.

The meeting closed at 21:00 hours.


Latest update 25th May 2023

In order to meet the conditions outlined in the planning consent, we are looking for a number of contractors to tender their services.  Further details can be found here.


Latest update 20th April 2023

There was a meeting of the Riverside community liaison group last night.  Minutes will be shared here shortly.


Latest Update 9th March 2023




Chris Ballance(HC), Mike Lawson(Architect), Janet MacDonald(Foyers), Brian Yates,(RFRG) Craig Lightbody(RFRG), Elspeth Hall(RFRG), Simon Hargreaves (SFCC), Sue Fisher (Gorthleck), Mark Sutherland(SFCT), Catriona Fraser(SFCT), Peter Faye(Whitebridge), Zoe Iliffe(Whitebridge), Elspeth Hall (Foyers), Ewelina Gehrke (Inverfarigaig)





Chair Chris Ballance reiterated the formation of the group.

2 x SFCC - Simon Hargreaves and Gill Gray        2 x SFCT (the Developer) -  Mark Sutherland & Catriona Fraser

2 x River Foyers Residents Group (RFRG ) includes Riverside, Gray’s Park, Elmbank & Foyers Mains -Craig Lightbody & Brian Yates.

4 x wider community  (present but not yet adopted as members) Inverfarigaig -Ewelina Gehrke    Gorthleck - Sue Fisher   Whitebridge – Peter Faye, Zoe Iliffe

Discussion took place over the wording of the recent advert to attract members to the group. Foyers had not been included in the areas targeted in the advert. It was agreed that a further invite would be sent out before the next meeting. Wording would be changed to “anyone interested in the development whether in part or its entirety”


ACTION – Communications would be through Facebook, Trust website, Noticeboards and local outlets (SFCT)

ACTION – New invitation for the next meeting to include the wording above (SFCT) – to be circulated to group members before going live.


The Chair has agreed with the planning department that the group should be no larger than 11(which includes the Chair) and it is also section 3 of our agreed Terms of Reference. As a result of this, the Chair was happy for the permanent members of the group to be larger if agreed. The Chair would like the permanent group members to attend every meeting if possible.

Happy for observers to attend.



C Fraser agreed to take the minutes. The group agreed that a minute taker should be independent to allow all members to fully take part in the discussions. SFCT will investigate this before the next meeting.



Mike Lawson went through the outline of the phases and the possible timelines.


PHASE ONE The carpark and access to the field.


HC Planning have made a pre-planning condition of 4 parking bays at Riverside for the safety of the residents and provide extra parking spaces for them.


RFRG do not want any extra parking spaces and have concerns over safety of children with extra traffic coming to the area. Access to the field was also discussed. RFRG were asked to propose an alternative to the residents parking issue. The RFRG stated that their questionnaire showed that there was 0% of the locality in favour of this plan. RFRG asked the SFCT to consult with planning dept and ask them what would not be allowed to go ahead within the masterplan if they withdrew the application or simply didn't install the residents parking. 


The developer (SFCT) has queried the need for 4 parking spaces out with the field which will have parking spaces in it.


Mike Lawson explained that Highland Council Roads dept had made this a planning condition and when it was queried by both the Developer and Chris Ballance, the response was that it was statutory and must go ahead as Planning has been consented for the Master Plan. Signage will indicate Residents Parking only. The access to the field will be via locked gates.


General discussion around the parking and access took place with RFRG re-iterating that if the parking bays are not developed, then the Master Plan cannot go ahead.


Mike Lawson explained that the Master Plan would go ahead as there had been wide consultation with the whole of the Stratherrick & Foyers community over several years. The Master Plan had come from the desires and requests of the community.


The Chair brought this discussion to a close and the consensus of the group is that it doesn’t like the car parking but we need to move on.


PHASE TWO – Car Parking in the field and Landscaping


Mike Lawson explained that enabling works need to be done first, then parking spaces.

RFRG asked if it would be able to help design the landscaping.

 A Landscape architect would meet with the RFRG to discuss the landscaping and what they would like there.

Masterplan locations could be shifted for the walking path.


ACTION – SFCT will appoint the appropriate specialists for all planning conditions to be discharged (such as a Landscape Architect)  The Landscape Architect will meet with the RFRG and discuss their proposals in particular screening from housing.


The Chair summed up the Developer’s (SFCT) position on the phasing – the Liaison Group will choose how the Phases go ahead.


C Fraser explained that the point of the Liaison Group is to assess the Phasing structure and decide how the development progresses. The phases could change order at any time.


M Lawson explained the process of how local residents could input at every development phase as to whether the landscaping was adequate/sufficient/overdone.


General discussion then took place around phasing order. One person wanted the community building first because if the BCC Hub closes it could become the new Community Hub. A few in the group wanted something for sport in the general landscaping phase – just mowing a section where football etc could be played. A few also recognised the need for somewhere for children and others to go for recreation – not just paths for walking when we have plenty of those in the area already.    


Mark Sutherland is working with others to try and get the old Wade Bridge fixed so there is pedestrian access to and from Lower Foyers. The group agreed that this was a good idea and would be welcome.


RFRG want anything that attracts large numbers of people to be left to later phases.


Pre- development planning conditions need to be discharged before any Master Plan Phasing work can begin.


Plans for a variety of items in the Planning Conditions need to be drawn up – drainage, waste etc.


ACTION – Mark Sutherland will pass Bob Main’s details on to the architect to discuss drainage issues.


The Liaison Group will be informed of all stages of the pre-development planning conditions.




EVENTS MANAGEMENT PLAN - SFCT must write a draft flowchart to show procedures for large events.


ACTION - Mike Lawson will consult with Tony Foster to draw up a list of the specialists required for the planning conditions.


4. NEXT MEETING- 19th April at 7:30pm at the HUB.


AGENDA – LANDSCAPING discussions with proposals and preferences from RFRG.

Meeting closed at 9:30pm




Latest update 23rd February 2023

Thank you to everyone who came along to the Consultative Steering Group meeting last night.  Minutes and actions will be circulated over the coming weeks.


Latest update 16th February 2023

The first full meeting of the Riverside development Consultative Steering Group will take place at Boleskine Community Care on Wednesday 22nd February at 7.30pm

At a pre-meeting in January it was agreed that the group would comprise two members to be nominated from the Trust, 2 representatives to be nominated by the Riverside Residents’ Group, 2 representatives of the Community Council and up to 4 people from the wider Stratherrick Community. If more than 4 people from the wider community ask to join the group it was agreed that we would make a random selection between them.

Minutes from all meetings will be circulated to anyone interested and will be uploaded to the Trust website within a fortnight of each meeting. 


AGENDA  22nd Feb. 2023

(Notes from the pre-meeting in January have been previously circulated and agreed by attendees, and are attached.)

  1. Composition of the Consultative Liaison Group
  2. Appointment of minute-taker for this meeting
  3. Developer’s proposed Phasing and Timing for the project: Phasing proposal; carpark planning condition tracker; master plan planning conditions tracker  (docs attached)
  4. Date of Next Meeting
  5. AOCB

Supporting documentation can be found by clicking on the links below:

Foyers Community Masterplan - phasing proposal

Formation of carpark planning condition tracker

Masterplan planning condition tracker


Latest update 9th February 2023

The next Riverside meeting is to be held at 7.30pm on the 22nd February at the Hub, Lower Foyers.


Latest update 18th January 2023


Here are the notes from the recent meeting on 10th January



Tuesday 10th January 2023

The Wildside Centre

Cllr Chris Ballance chaired the meeting.  In his absence Cllr David Fraser will chair.

  1. Introductions and in attendance

Cllr Chris Ballance

Mark Sutherland – SFCT

Craig Lightbody – River Foyers Residents Group

Simon Hargreaves – Community Council

Zoe Iliffe – Resident Whitebridge

Peter Faye – Resident Whitebridge

Mike Lawson – Architect

Catriona Fraser – SFCT

Tony Foster – Trust Manager

  1. Terms of Reference  - Planning requirements to note

The Liaison Group would be set up six months before work starts.

It would include a Local Councillor on the group.

Terms of reference would be shared with planning.

Minutes would be kept and can be shared with planning on request.

It was acknowledged there are passionate views on this project and Cllr Ballance suggested some ground rules.

To respect difference of opinion.

To listen and to explain points of view in a calm way.

Look for solutions to disagreements.

We are each here for the benefit and good of the community.

The Chair would be impartial and neutral as they can.

The project has planning in principle and infrastructure planning has been given full planning permission, including residents parking on the playpark. SFCT wants to maintain a good relationship with all communities involved.  There were things the Trust and the group had to deal with including;

  • Phasing
  • Landscaping
  • Lighting
  • Active travel
  • Events & Operations
  • Noise impact


  1. Groups Membership

People who had expressed an interest in the project had all been invited to this meeting.  CL knew of 5 residents who had expressed an interest who did not receive any communication from the Trust regarding this meeting.

The make up of the group was suggested as being

2 from SFCT

2 from Community Council

2 from the nearby residents in Foyers

4 members from the community (representing, if possible, each area)

It was also suggested members from the school, BCC, Doctors (Health and Well Being), Fire Service, SOSA.  It was decided to inform these groups, share notes of the meeting and invite to future meetings if they had something to share or if we needed any clarification in person from them.

Cllr Ballance suggested everyone present should be on the group.  CL objected to those present being accepted into this group simply because they were invited and not chosen by the group. CL also reiterated the point that not all those who had expressed an interest in joining a steering group had been invited at all.

CL questioned some members as previous Directors who were actively interested in the project.  They indicated they were here as residents.  A call would be made to the wider population and the four residents would be chosen once that had been done again. 

  1. Communication

TF would take notes for this meeting but members would take turn to do minutes for future meetings.

As this was not a formal meeting  (where minutes had to be ratified at the following meeting) it was agreed to share them to the group first and once agreed that they are an accurate representation of the meeting to share to the community via the Trust website (Project Pages).  It was hoped that minutes could be turned around and agreed within 5-7 days.

Group members would be expected to respect confidentiality. 

Meetings would take place every six weeks.

  1. Other Terms of Reference

Cllr Ballance suggested the other terms of Reference – Purpose and Method.  These were agreed by the group.  All terms of reference are noted below

  1. Trust Plans

Cllr Ballance noted that the Masterplan in Principle had been passed and planning had been given for the infrastructure.  As this meeting was about moving forward with the requirements of the Masterplan he opened the meeting to the architect to explain next steps.

Architect Mike Lawson explained the process.  We would be expected to do works prior to being on site as referenced in the conditions to both planning consents..  On site we would phase the work, meeting any conditions required for each phase.

CL asked why the community had not been consulted re extra parking required outside the field etc.  It was explained this was a suggested requirement from planning done at the time of discussing the masterplan.  This dealt with any concerns raised by local residents regarding safety during the masterplan planning process, particularly at the entrance to the field, and meeting requirements of parking the local residents may have.  These had been Planning’s requirements to alleviate these concerns. The Trust had suggested other alternatives (and also questioned how it went from two to four parking spaces) but Planning had been adamant this would be the only suggestion they would accept. Any future plans for the rest of the site would still need to be submitted by the Trust, and Planning will ask the local community for their opinion on these.  The Trust had also suggested the access to the park from the field to alleviate any concerns about access to the park from the main road.  PF reported the playpark and land were owned by Highland Council.

TF also reported he had reported at each meeting of the Community Council the new planning application, which is the community’s statutory body, and no questions had been raised there.

CL felt it was another example of the Trust not communicating the project to the local residents and that the car parking issue was a way to make sure the masterplan is forced through.  CF questioned this assumption as being unfair, considering the number of consultations over several years regarding this project and that the planning process itself is a consultation process.  It may seem that way to local residents but the current Trust Board also had to take on board wider views, meet the requirements suggested by planning and communicated actions on our website.

Cllr Ballance suggested we are where we are, this aspect was a requirement as conditioned in the Masterplan application, and moving forward this group would communicate each stage of the plan.  He would accept, on face value from the Trust, that moving forward stages would be explained to this group.

Cllr Ballance recommended for the next meeting that the architect provide a timetable of recommended phasing and bring to the group, and that Riverside Residents considered their priorities too.   ML agreed to do this, taking on board the practical requirements of the development and conditions of planning that could be done prior to each piece of work being undertaken.  The group agreed to this.                                                            ACTION ML

  1. Next Meeting

It was agreed to have the next meeting at BCC Hub on Wed 22nd Feb at 7.30pm. CL agreed to book and open up.

Meeting closed 9pm

DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE (Constitution and Remit) - Agreed:


  1. Purpose – To ensure that as far as possible any development meets both the wishes and needs of the wider community, whilst incorporating the views and wishes of the local community; to consider any issues arising from the development; discuss ongoing and planned activities; address any anticipated problems; minimise any negative impacts; share knowledge and understanding between the developer and community.
  2. Method - SFCT will inform the group of any proposed activities and planning proposals, to allow all sections of the community to have a say in the proposals going forward, and to promote effective communications between the developer and members of the community, and to receive feedback on future plans and the progress of the development
  3. Membership – To consist of 2 members of each of Stratherrick and Foyers Community Trust; Stratherrick and Foyers Community Council; Riverside Residents; and 4 members of the wider Stratherrick Community, and a Ward 12 Councillor.
  4. Operation – Meetings will be chaired by the Ward 12 Councillor (Chris Ballance in the first instance, when not available, David Fraser), and will take place approximately every 6 weeks. Minutes will be kept, and made available to the Planning Department on request.
  5. Communications – The Group will normally communicate internally by email.

Reports of meetings will be circulated to the Liaison Group for comment and agreement within 5 days, in advance of being circulated to the wider community or press. Group members should respect any request for confidentiality over any particular issue.



Latest update 12th January 2023

Our first liaison group meeting for Riverside took place on Tuesday 10th January at 7.30pm and was chaired by Councillor Chris Ballance.  Notes from that meeting will be circulated next week, and the actions agreed wil lbe within the notes.


Latest Update 20th December 2022

Please find details of granted planning permission for the next stage of the Riverside Field Development.  We have our architect reviewing this notice and the initial masterplan conditions. We intend to bring what this all means to our first meeting in the new year.  A summary of the conditions of the planning are below.

A new meeting date has been suggested from the 10th January at 7pm in the Wildside Centre which will be confirmed via an email from the Trust and on the Trust website.             


This permission is granted subject to the following conditions and reasons: 1. The development to which this planning permission relates must commence within THREE YEARS of the date of this decision notice.

2. No development shall commence until a scheme for the storage of refuse and recycling within the application site has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority.  Reason: To ensure that suitable provision is made for the storage of communal waste and recycling bins

 3. All surface water drainage provision within the application site shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development. Reason: To ensure that surface water drainage is provided timeously and complies with the principles of SUDS; in order to protect the water environment.

4. No development shall commence on site until full details of all temporary surface water drainage measures designed to prevent flooding and contamination of existing watercourses during construction have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter so implemented. Reason: In order to ensure the proper provision of SUDS facilities

5. No development or work (including site clearance) shall commence until a programme of work for the survey, evaluation, preservation and recording of any archaeological and historic features affected by the proposed development/work, including a timetable for investigation, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect the archaeological and historic interest of the site.

6. No work shall start on site until 4 parking spaces, with associated pavement and relocation of lighting and other services with suitable signage provided to designate it for use by local residents, are formed as shown on Drawing 90.100 REV D, all to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. Reason: In the interest of road traffic safety.

7. No development shall commence on site until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (including a routing plan for construction vehicles) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority in consultation with Roads Authority. The approved traffic management plan shall be implemented prior to development commencing and remain in place until the development is complete. This shall include specific requirements for managing safe construction access over the River Foyers, along with other controls to manage impacts on the existing local community and facilities in the area. Reason: In the interests of road traffic safety and amenity.

8. No development shall commence on site in relation to the provision of 2 disabled parking spaces (at the main entry point into the proposed Community Hall and Gym) until a revised drawing shall have been submitted for the approval in writing of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the details shall be in accordance with the Roads & Transport Guidelines for New Developments. Reason: In the interests of road traffic safety and amenity.

9. No development shall commence until full details of a covered and secure communal bicycle storage/racking system for 10 bicycles (with reference to the latest national guidance "Cycling by Design") have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the storage/racking system shall be installed in accordance with these approved details prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved. Reason: In order to facilitate the use of a variety of modes of transport.

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Class 14 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended, revoked or reenacted; with or without modification), no development shall commence until full details of any temporary site compounds and storage areas (including their location, scale and means of enclosure) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring properties and occupants.

11. A lockable gate or barrier shall be erected at the entrance to the site the details of which shall be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To restrict the use of the car park for the recreational uses granted approval by this permission.

12. All external lighting provision within the application site shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development. Reason: In order to ensure that any lighting installed within the application site shall not spill beyond the intended target area, does not impact adversely upon the amenity of adjacent properties and does not result in 'sky glow'.



Latest update 15th December 2022

Last week we received the news that planning had been determined for Riverside Field.  A letter has gone out to all residents in Foyers with further information on the project and there will be a steering group meeting on the 10th January at the Wildside Centre to determine the next steps.


Latest update 1st December 2022

Tony reported that there has been no change in the current planning status at this week's Community Council meeting.


Latest update 17th November 2022

We have not yet heard from planning, but we have been in touch with the residents group and those of you who have expressed an interest in being on the steering group to provide some further information alongside the provisional meeting dates for 2023.  If you have an interest in sport, health and wellbeing in  the community and would like to join the steering group, please contact Tony by emailing tony-ceo@sfctrust.org.uk


Latest update 10th November 2022

We have been made aware that a decision on planning for the Riverside Field project is imminent, which is a major step forward.  To date, we have spent £40k on consultation and planning costs for this project, and the purchase of the land was supported with funding from the Scottish Land Fund.

We have asked Mike Lawson, SFCT’s Architect, to look out for the planning application and review the conditions before feeding back the relevant and statutory information to the Trust and the project Steering group.

Mark Sutherland is lead Director for Riverside Field and he has been in touch with members of the residents group, and has also written to all residents of the wider Foyers area.  A copy of this letter can be seen below.


My name is Mark Sutherland and I’m one of the directors of Stratherrick & Foyers Community Trust.  I grew up here and after uni, studying town planning, moved to Edinburgh with a couple of periods back in the Highlands.  I got a move back home with my work during Covid and got involved in the Trust to try and do something useful for the area.  I work for the police now and prior to that mostly in IT support with a stint being self-employed.   Most of my work in the police has been about community, partnerships, and education.

I’ve taken over responsibility for the Riverside Field project recently and been getting up to speed with it all.  A lot has been said about this project, some positive and supportive, some negative.  Having surveyed the area, in addition to a whole spectrum of views ranging from those in favour to those opposed, some valid concerns have been raised. Perhaps there are things that may have happened in the past for good reasons, but which with the benefit of hindsight could have been done better or differently.   The directors and staff are keen to address these issues and bring about improvements. But that’s not the whole story.  There are a lot of positives. Whatever the level of interest in what is being planned, there is uniformly a genuine appetite to do something positive for the community here. However, as individuals we have different views on how it should end up looking. People ARE talking about the future!

I’d like to stress that the Trust is not some monolithic remote unaccountable body of faceless bureaucrats imposing top-down solutions to poorly understood bottom-up issues.  The Trust is an umbrella for an ever-changing group of Stratherrick and Foyers locals pitching in a bit of their time to try and make life in our rural community happier and healthier for all.  The current directors and staff are doing everything they can to bring some stability, vision, and accountability to that, while ironing out strategic and procedural issues about what the trust does and how.

It’s not easy being a director on the trust.  There is a lot to do, and we all have busy lives.  I understand the frustration and it’s difficult sometimes to listen to the way criticism of the Trust is often approached, as though it’s something to throw rocks at.  We are all in the Facebook group!  I’d like to get to a place where the Trust and the community are seen as people, all attempting to do their best.  And the best way of dealing with people is to talk to them.  To that end I’ve started going out and knocking on folks’ doors.  I’m going to try and improve communication about this project but also want everyone to recognise this is a two-way street.  So, if there is anything you want to know or put forward, please email me.  If I don’t have the answer, I’ll try to find it.

One of Robert Peel's quotes that I’m particularly fond of is that:

 “The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. “

The attitude I have to the Trust is the same.  The Trust is the Community and the Community is the Trust.  

Everyone has a part to play and something valid to contribute no matter if it’s being part of a steering group, volunteering, having time to chat and give your views or just a smile and a wave in passing.

In addition to introducing myself I wanted to update everyone with the latest progress.  I understand a decision is imminent on our planning application which will mean we can get into meaningful conversations within the community, with the Trust and the architect on the Planning In Principle decision.  This will give clarity on some of the conditions of the Planning In Principle and what next steps we should take from there.  You have been sent this email as you requested to be on the Steering Group / Residents Liaison Group for the project and we hope to meet soon for next steps.

There are regular updates on the trust website which can be accessed on the link below:

Riverside Field | Stratherrick & Foyers Community Trust (stratherrickcommunity.org.uk)

I look forward to meeting and working with everyone interested in the project and meantime, if you need anything please drop me a line.



Mark Sutherland'


Latest update 27th October 2022

On 31st March this year we reported that SFCT had submitted a further planning application for work to be carried out in the area surrounding Riverside field.  This week we received confirmation that a report on this application has been put forward for sign-off.  We hope to find out the results of this very shortly.


Latest update 13th October 2022

We received confirmation that our outstanding planning application will be considered this week.


Latest update 8th September 2022

This week Tony met with a representative from the Highland Council planning department to discuss ongoing community projects.  We hope to get an update on Riverside Field shortly.


Latest update 18th August 2022

Our architect continues to work with Highland Council planning department to ensure all required information is provided for the planning process.

Earlier this month, members of the board met with a group of Riverside residents to discuss the project.  Minutes of this meeting can be found here.  Copy of DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING BETWEEN STRATHERRICK AND FOYERS COMMUNITY TRUST AND RIVER FOYERS RESIDENTS GROUP HELD AT BCC HUB AT 7PM ON WEDNESDAY 13TH JULY 2022 - Google Drive


Latest update - 30th June 2022

Riverside Field came up in our latest Community Life action group meeting.  To find out what was discussed please visit - Action Group: Community Life | 27 June 2022 | Stratherrick & Foyers Community Trust (stratherrickcommunity.org.uk)


Latest update - 9th June 2022

Some further consultation has to be carried out on the current planning in terms of roads and infrastructure; Fairhurst are currently planning a response to this on our behalf.  Once this has been agreed, that will inform some aspects of the conditions of planning in principle and we can begin meaningful discussions with the local residents and wider community on pathways, gardens and landscaping.


Latest update - 12th May 2022

Thank you to everyone who has expressed an interest in joining the Riverside steering group; we have opened this up to include members of the community who would make use of the facilities at the field.  We have requested the next steps from the Architect to aid meaningful conversation with the steering group.


Latest update - 21st April 2022

Highland Council are in the process of finalising planning in principle, which we should receive very soon.


Latest update - 7th April 2022

We are beginning to approach stakeholders to encourage participation in the steering group for this project.  If you would like to become a member, please contact Tony - tony-ceo@sfctrust.org.uk.


Latest update - 31st March 2022

Additional works to areas surrounding Riverside field is under consideration by planning.  Further info can be found here.


Latest update - 24th March 2022

Following Highland Council's planning meeting on Tuesday, we can announce that planning in principle has been granted at Riverside Field.  More information on the application will be in the upcoming newsletter, which will hopefully be published next week, with a paper copy being sent to all Foyers residents.


Latest update - 17th March 2022

Riverside will go to planning next week.  Further details can be found here - South Planning Applications Committee | The Highland Council


Latest update - 3rd March 2022

We have received notification that our application will be discussed by the planning committee on the 22nd March.


Latest update - 24th February 2022

Letters were sent to Riverside residents and the Community Council advising of a recommendation from planning affecting the area outside of the field.


Latest Update - 17th February 2022

The Trust has now received notification that the formation of access, parking and drainage on the masterplan at the land at Riverside Field was registered on the 2nd of February.  This should mean Riverside Field should go to planning in March.


Latest Update - 3rd February 2022

The Highland Council have now asked the Trust to make a planning in principle application.  This will be re-advertised and will hopefully go to the March planning committee meeting.


Latest Update - 27th January 2022

We are now able to confirm that our planning application will now be considered in February.


Latest Update - 20th January 2022

A further update will be provided in the February newsletter, which will be available to read online over the next couple of weeks.


Latest Update - 13th January 2022

Following notification before Christmas that planning has been delayed further, we are now aiming for our application to be reviewed in February or March 2022.


Latest Update - 16th December

It is now our understanding that planning has been moved to February 2022.  We hope to have more information on this in the New Year.


Latest Update - 2nd December

Following an update from the Highland Council, we expect our application to go to planning on the 14th December.  We hope to update you further on this next week.


Latest Update - 25th November

The Council requested that a new landowner notice be prepared and submitted as having extended the redline boundary for the additional parking spaces on Riverside, the application now extended onto land out with community ownership. The notice was completed and submitted.

The council also issued to us a processing agreement for signature which set out the steps we all needed to take to get to the December committee planning meetings. This document was signed and returned.


Latest Update - 28th October

The updated Masterplan, as mentioned below, has now been submitted to planning.


Latest Update - 21st October

After some considerable delay there has been some movement following a short meeting with Planning and Roads.  We understand the Riverside Field application will go to full planning, but we cannot yet confirm if this will be at the December meeting.

There is now an updated masterplan for the Field based on those discussions that is in documents.  Part of these changes will be advertised by Highland Council for further community consultation.  

We have amended the following:

  • Added 2 off-site parking spaces.

  • Amended the footpaths.

  • Updated the “redline” application boundary.

  • Added the overspill parking area.

  • Defined the footway from building to sports field.

  • Increased the bike stores from 5 to 10.

  • Confirmed level access at bin store.


Latest update - 12th October

Tony and Mike had an initial meeting with the planning department last week to begin to review the points under consideration, and it is our understanding that our application will go to full planning committee.  As this initial meeting was much later than expected we are aiming to hold a Steering group meeting towards the end of October or early November - keep an eye out for the date.


Latest update - 30th September

Tony and Mike have made some headway in their communications with the planning department, and we are hoping to hear about the Riverside Planning Application very soon. 


Latest update - 23rd September

We have been in touch with our Architect and he has confirmed that there is still no response from planning.  This is unusual, but not unexpected - the likely cause being a backlog of applications on the back of Covid.  We will update you once we hear anything! 


Latest update - 16th September 2021

We have now been informed that there are currently delays within the Highland Council Planning department, and this is having a direct impact on the Riverside Field application.  As things currently stand, we do not know when this application will be determined, but we will keep you informed when anything changes.


Latest update - 9th September 2021

As reported to the Community Council last week, we are still waiting to hear back from the Planning department on our planning application, so there is very progress to report just now.


Latest update 12th August 2021

All consultees have responded to the planning application which is due to be determined in September.  You may have noticed that we have had some media coverage on this, with interviews with Kirsty in the Inverness Courier, and Tony on BBC Alba.  We are following up with planning and then will meet with the local steering groups around the end of August.

Higher Ground, our Ground Maintenance Contractors, have also been busy creating and maintaining a pathway around the field for general use.


Latest Update 22nd June 2021

Thank you to everyone who participated in the recent Riverside Field Survey. 73 people expressed their views, which is a healthy sample to accurately reflect the current community view on the Riverside Field Development.


There was 82.19% support for Sports and Recreational facilities across the area.

There was 58.90% support for the location at Riverside Field.

SCFT said in this report we would pull out the thoughts of nearby residents to Riverside Field.

Of those closest to Riverside Field:


13 people are against the proposal

9 people are for the proposal


There is a break down of comments for their reasoning for or against in the attached report. 15 people expressed an interest in being part of the Riverside Field Community Steering Group. Thanks for volunteering your time.


This report will be presented to the SCFT Board, Community Council, Planning, those expressing an interest on the steering group and the community as a whole via this website and a future newsletter The project is currently at planning.





Following a number of community consultations on the Riverside Field the ‘masterplan’ has been submitted to Highland Council for planning. 

This will allow the community to get a sense from planning and nearby consultees/residents about the proposed development and issues that have to be addressed if the development is to go ahead.  Please note just because the planning application is in does not mean it is fixed and the Trust, as the applicant on behalf of the community, welcome comments (positive and negative) from local residents through the planning process. 

The planning application can be read here.

At present there is only an intention to maintain the field for use.   The proposed project will be developed in stages, if funding allows and there is a continued evidence of need.  This will be developed in consultation via a local steering group.  They will be made aware, through the formal planning process, of what the Council planning team and local people are supportive of or issues that are of concern and seek positive solutions.  If you’d like to be on the group please join here Riverside Field - Stratherrick & Foyers Community Trust (stratherrickcommunity.org.uk)

We expect the first meetings to happen in July.

The Trust has also instructed architects to proceed with the planning application for the slipway at Foyers Bay.  More details when we have it.



Latest Update- 1ST MARCH, 2021



The purpose of this paper is to summarise the high-level plan for the development of the site into a  community sports facility. The current position is that the architect, Mike Lawson is steering the project through the planning permission process.


High level plan

The table below summarises the project’s key activities over the next three months.


Decisions Required:

This document is intended for briefing purposes only. No decisions are required at this point.



Latest update – 5th March 2020

The Trust invited the community to attend an open Consultation Day at Stratherrick Public Hall on Saturday 22nd February 2020 in order to present the revised Masterplan proposal for the Riverside Field Project. 

Despite the bad weather a great number of residents turned out to view the plans, speak to Directors and other members of our community and gave feedback on the proposals to the Trust.

Zoe gave a short recap on how the Trust had reached the history of the project, what consultation had been undertaken over the last few years, both with the community as a whole and representatives of active groups within our community. She explained how those consultations had influenced the design and evolution of the presented Masterplan.  She further advised those present that, subject to the community confirming general support to the proposals, this Masterplan will represent the basis for the development of the field. The Trust will then be able to move into the next phase of the project – organising planning applications, building warrant approvals and putting in place funding.

Zoe introduced Mike Lawson, Architect, of Colin Armstrong Associates, Inverness who had worked with the Trust to produce the Masterplan.  Mike ran through the process of how a masterplan for a project of this nature is created and what elements and influences are considered.  He followed with an explanation of  what had changed about the plan – what elements had been removed and what was new, following previous community consultations.  An interesting and encouraging Question & Answer Session then followed.

Community members were also invited to take away copies of the Masterplan and to complete a short questionnaire, so that the Trust could measure community opinion on the revised Masterplan.


The final Masterplan proposals are available to view to the right of this page.


The Riverside Master plan has been updated and this will go back out for community consultation in early 2020.   The Trust is considering the acquisition of the play park which is not currently included in the project and will submit a formal request through Highland Council’s Community Asset Transfer Scheme.  This request places no obligation on the Trust to purchase.  A further update on this project will be provided after the community consultation process is concluded.


The responses from residents to the consultation are currently being considered and compiled (July 2019)

The Public Consultation is now closed.

The closing date for any comments to be included in the Public Consultation was 22 May 2019.


Report following the Consultation Day 23 March 2019

A steady stream of residents made their way to the Stratherrick Public Hall on Saturday 23 March to see the draft plans which had been prepared for the Riverside Field at Foyers by Stratherrick and Foyers Community Trust’s architects.

The Trust’s lead director for the Riverside Field project is Zoe Iliffe.  Zoe said ‘It was a successful day with lots of people coming to view the plans and give us their opinions, particularly around the time of the architect’s presentation.’ 

‘Comments ranged from loving the draft plans and hoping to see it all developed to wanting the field to be left as it was with no development whatsoever.’ 

Several feedback forms were handed-in on the day and everybody’s comments will be collated.  Others took forms away with them to consider in comfort and the Trust looks forward to receiving those responses – please return any feedback to SFCT, Stratherrick Public Hall, Gorthleck, IV2 6YP.

Zoe added ‘Don’t worry if you weren’t able to come along to the Hall to give your opinions.  There is still time to comment on the draft plans.  The Trust will be arranging future viewing and consultation opportunities in a few weeks when we open the Wildside Centre but in the meantime links to the draft plans and feedback forms are available.' 

These documents are available on the project documents panel.


Following the recent work to improve the fencing and access to the field, the Trust is now seeking the community’s views on the next steps to improve the recreational use of the area for local people.

Residents now have a very important part to play in deciding what community facilities are provided there.  The Trust is holding a Plans and Options Consultation event at the Stratherrick Public Hall on Saturday 23 March 2019.  The event runs from 10 am. to 5pm.  Draft plans will be on show and the directors of the Trust and our architect will be attending.  There will be a presentation by the architect at 2pm followed by questions.  Comment sheets and printed copies of the plans will be available.

The plans will be posted on line at the Trust website the week following the consultation event.

You may also be aware that the Trust has recently purchased the former Wildside Classrooms at Whitebridge which adds to the facilities our community will have in the future.  There are no draft plans for the Whitebridge site yet.  

The Directors of the Trust hope you will be able to attend at Stratherrick Public Hall on 23 March and participate in the event.


The field above Riverside, Foyers was purchased by the Trust for community use in 2017. A new access was planned and built in 2018. The Trust would like to ask all local residents to look round the field on foot during Spring 2019, using the small gate at the top of the new access road.

After a change of architect in 2018, the Trust’s new architect – Colin Armstrong Associates of Inverness – is producing a number of ideas and plans. These plans will form the basis of a Community Consultation during Spring 2019.

Please take the opportunity now to walk in the field or to exercise dogs. Think how you would like to see the field improved to provide a recreational asset for local people – so you are ready for the impending consultation.




Project Team
Mark Sutherland
Catriona Fraser
Caroline Tucker
Get Involved!Email: mark-dir@sfctrust.org.uk
When will Riverside planning be determined?

Planning has been submitted to Highland Council. We have, however, been made aware of delays in decision-making.  We will let you know as soon as we have any news.

Project Documents
Landscape Proposals
Landscape proposals mood board
Riverside Field Survey Results
Riverside Draft Master Plan March 2019
Trim Trail Examples
Riverside Single Sheet Response March 2019
Revised draft floor plan V3
Revised draft master plan 3D V3
Revised draft master plan V3
Masterplan October 2021
Site Map ©2015-2024 Stratherrick & Foyers Community Trust Site by Plexus