Campaigners in Linwood have hit out after news that Lottery funding for a £3 million community village in the town has been rejected.

The Big Lottery Fund told the community activists on Thursday it would not be providing money for the Mossedge Village project, which includes a community centre, as well as a 3G football pitch with changing rooms.

The rejection was doubly disappointing for the organisers, Linwood Community Development Trust (LCDT), because it came on the same day that the Scottish Government announced £800,000 for the development.

But this hinged on match funding from the Big Lottery going ahead.

Renfrewshire Council had also backed the project with £300,000, full asset transfer of land and full planning permission.

Kirsty Flannigan, the trust project manager for the Linwood Community Development Trust (LCDT), told the Gazette: “This is a bad decision by the Big Lottery Fund. It’s not just a blow to the Linwood Community Development Trust – it’s a blow to everybody in the town.”

Kirsty said Thursday had been an “emotional roller coaster of a day” which started on a high with news of the government funding. But realising that lottery match funding was also required, they were very keen to speak to the Lottery.

“We hadn’t heard anything about our application so decided to phone them and that’s when they told us we were unsuccessful. You can imagine how we felt. This is a big setback.”

Linwood CDT immediately set about launching a petition demanding the Big Lottery change their mind. They also sent emails to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and other party leaders expressing disappointment over the decision.

As the news got out on on social media, messages of support for the trust came flooding in from as far away as Canada.

In appealing for people to support the petition, the Trust said; “Following seven years of hard work, commitment, dedication and tenacity, LCDT received the good news today on behalf of our community that we were awarded £800,000 from the government to build much needed facilities. Renfrewshire Council has also backed the the project with £300k of funding, full asset transfer of land and full planning permission.

“Bad news is that Big Lottery Fund Scotland rejected our application for match funding this afternoon - which we needed to enable this project to go ahead.

“If, like us, you don’t understand why the Big Lottery wouldn’t back this project, please sign this petition for the Big Lottery to reconsider their decision.”

On the first night, the petition had 13,875 views and 500 signatures.

On Facebook, Jacqueline Anderson Thompson commented: “Good news on the £800,000. Wow. Such a travesty that the Big Lottery didn’t back a project that is being backed by the Scottish Government.” It makes no sense whatsoever. Hopefully, the Lottery will outline their reasons in full. Extremely disappointing, Big Lottery.

Sharon-Anne Ross commented: “Can’t understand why the lottery deems a project not worthy of funding that is clearly being backed by Scottish and local government. Disappointed doesn’t come close.

And Linda Elder said: “Well done guys on your amazing hard work. A pity about the poor decision made by the lottery. Upwards and onwards Linwood.

Members of LCDT are still hopeful Mossedge Village will become a reality. Funding for a 3G all-weather pitch has already been secured, but a proposed new community centre can’t go ahead without the additional money.

The pressure is on now to find a different strand of funding because the government money has to be spent by March 2018 and they can’t reapply to the Big Lottery.

However, in a more optimistic message on Facebook, the trust said: “On the plus side we have full funding in place to build the 3G pitch and this will go ahead in the near future. The community centre will take a bit longer but we will not let the Lottery grind us down. Mossedge will go ahead.”

A Big Lottery Fund spokesperson said: “We fully understand how disappointing this news will be for the Trust and will be contacting them to fully explain the reasons for our decision. Their project proposal was considered against a backdrop of applications to a value that was twice as high as our available budget. This exceptional demand meant it was not possible to fund every application we received.”