Communities should decide

At the moment, windfarm and BESS developers appear to control what communities can spend money on. In the early stages communities are likely to have new projects to to work on and large amounts of money should be available for them to spend without the developers decdiding whether or not it is within their preferred activities.

As time goes by, there will not be the same number of new projects, but sustainability of the community projects can be a problem if funding suddenly stops. Not all communities are able to put together enthusiatic teams of volunteers who can effectively become business owners to sustain their badly needed facilities.

Ongoing running costs and maintenance of local faciliites, whether or not they are originally funded by community benefit funds, should be valid reasons for using the funds.

There is a strong case for communities to be given funds annually, even if there are not projects waiting to be done, getting through from year to year is just as important as creating new facilities. The danger is that projects are initiated for thesake of spending money, rather than funds being built up by communities who can then decide how best use their money.

Why the contribution is important

Smaller communities don't have the same resources as larger ones, a limited number of volunteers can only go so far.

Projects have to be sustainable in the long term and small communities don't have enough "consumers" to support community facilities, and badly needed projects won't be started if they cannot be sustainable.

Facilities that are badly needed can't be provided if developers don't think that they will be viable in the long term, but small communities need those facilites locally as much as anyone. This is how things are at the moment, and anyone without their own transport is denied the ability to paticipate in activities that are considered to be essential in the 21st Century.

We need access to the outdoors for all, we need networks of active travel routes to connect communities, we need to be connected to the outside world to revitalise small communities, to encourage visitors, and to encourage people to want to live and create businesses in historical industrial communities that have been left to decay by local and central government. All of these thngs need to be funded but they are not what developers want to provide discretionary fundiing for.

by ml119 on February 23, 2026 at 05:22PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 5.0
Based on: 12 votes

Comments

  • Posted by smithm31 February 24, 2026 at 11:34

    I strongly agree that communities should have full autonomy over how community benefit funds are used. These funds are intended to support the people and places directly affected by renewable developments, and decision-making should rest with independent community bodies, not developers.

    In smaller and rural communities, sustainability is just as important as new projects. Funding must be flexible enough to cover ongoing running costs, maintenance, and the long-term viability of essential local facilities. Without this flexibility, communities risk initiating projects that cannot be sustained, or losing vital services altogether.

    Smaller communities do not have the same volunteer capacity or commercial base as larger towns. Funding models must recognise this reality and allow communities to build reserves, plan strategically, and prioritise what matters most locally — whether that is transport, connectivity, active travel, community spaces, or basic service provision.

    Community benefit must be genuinely community-led, transparent, and designed to strengthen long-term resilience rather than short-term activity.

  • Posted by hnoj5591 March 09, 2026 at 08:04

    Agree that sustainability is important. Money is needed for maintenance and running costs, as well as for capital projects.

    Finding volunteers to run things becomes more difficult with time as people become exhausted. The way forward is paid staff, which is better for the wider economy too. Our village could do with a public toilet, but we certainly won't build one unless we can guarantee the funding for cleaning and maintenance.

  • Posted by Raven1 March 13, 2026 at 13:35

    Agree, and communities should receive funding for eg Development Officers to help them make best use of the money available to them.

  • Posted by TopherDawson March 14, 2026 at 08:27

    Our Community Council was approached by a hydro scheme developer who explained that they had borrowed money from the CARES scheme, which is Community Acccess to Renewable Energy Scotland. The scheme was designed for communities to run renewable schemes, but in this case the developer was a private company.

    CARES lent £100 000 to the developer in return for the developer signing a contract agreeing to give 20% of the profits to the community. The contract stipulated that if the developer sold the project on, this contract would bind the buyer.

    The developer sold the project on to his uncle who owned the estate which hosted the scheme. The uncle gave written and verbal assurances that 20% of the profits would be given to the community. After a long delay it emerged that the owner had set up a charity called the R**** Trust, through which to distribute the 20% of the profits. A rough estimate of the scheme's profits would be £200 000 per year during the period when capital was being paid back, and £1 million afterwards. This was before the Ukraine war which dramatically increased energy prices.

    The R**** Trust is registered with the Charity Commissioners of England and Wales, and the area of operation is England and Wales. Its trustees are the owner and two of his pals. It has supported one or two projects in our CC area but nothing like the 20% or £5000 per MW per year. The owner micro manages each project and turns up for photo calls.

    Then the owner sold the estate but retained the hydro scheme, so he is now seldom seen. This CC area has lost out on a large and regular sum of money. In effect it is a classic asset theft, with almost all the benefit removed from the area.

    We strongly feel that the benefit per MW should be compulsory, and handed over to local properly constituted Community Development Companies for local use. The current system is an open invitation to developers to make promises and break them with no consequences. I am willing to provide details to other Community Councils if they make contact.

  • Posted by Bonanza March 16, 2026 at 11:11

    Completely agree that communities should have complete control over the Community Benefit, as long as the community establishes a legal entity that is controlled by the community that has defined rules for the allocation of funds. This entity should not be allowed to own any liability outside of funds and allocation thereof, in order to eliminate the risk of funds being exposed to said liability

  • Posted by Bonanza March 16, 2026 at 11:11

    This comment has been removed by a moderator.

  • Posted by shonarosehall March 16, 2026 at 12:52

    Completely agree that communities should have complete control. The renewable energy companies should also pay for training and funding for community elected development officers.

  • Posted by CMikeD March 16, 2026 at 13:18

    Agreed - as a rural community council, it is hard to generate enough footfall to self-finance art and theatre projects once fixed costs are paid.

  • Posted by Clephan March 17, 2026 at 09:34

    Agree that Communities should have control (preferably by elected Community Councils) but do not create a huge reporting bureaucracy in the name of governance and transparency.

  • Posted by LanarkCharity March 20, 2026 at 11:14

    Existing models allow for ongoing maintenance, running costs and repairs to be covered, this doesn't needed to be guided in the good practice guide.

    The scale of funding coming in some areas will be 10 times the running costs of local community facilities, many communities already have access to over £2m a year which will double inside 5 years there's limited strategic thinking about what the next 10 years will be looking like and how to make lasting regional change for the benefit of communities.

    I have fears that community councils are not established to administer or be responsible whatever the legal structure formed for funds of the scale the next 10 years will bring. Its very different from manging administering a few £100k to being responsible for £1ms annually and tens of £1ms over decades.

    The proposals also miss that there are multiple existing structures and funds and new developments should look to the existing local structures first before imposing or developing new adminsitrationstructures and costs.

  • Posted by strategicrenewablegroup March 27, 2026 at 16:21

    The Strategic Renewables Group is a group of, currently, 9 communities formed to optimise community benefit from renewable energy developments within the group’s catchment area and to ensure that it is subsequently used for long term sustainable benefit of the group’s catchment area.
    The group represents the combined catchment area of the following community councils: Cleish & Carnbo, Dunning, Earn, Fossoway & District, Glenfarg, Kinross, Milnathort & Orwell, Muckhart, and Portmoak. The catchment area is largely a rural community sitting within the shadows of the Ochils where there is a plethora of net zero energy developments.

    We consider that it is important that community benefit is clearly defined and is seen as a form of payment for the use of our community’s environment and that it is separate from compensation for the community for losses incurred during construction, operation and dismantling of the development.

    The Group is of a clear view that it is for the affected communities to determine the nature of the benefits to be realised. The Group continues to develop it’s purpose, but it is currently based on delivering benefits that are:
    • Tactical in nature and focused on each of the individual catchment areas; and
    • Sustainable and long term for the wider catchment area.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas