Further comments following the Highland Session
- Would the uplift per MW be applied retrospectively – i.e. the existing arrangements where £5k or less has already been given. Or just to new developments from a certain time point?
- We note that there was no discussion on CB for transmission lines and sub stations that are integral infrastructure and that probably affect more people as they tend to be sited at lower levels?
- As you know landowners already get wayleave payments for transmission lines crossing their land and those leasing land for turbines and BESS apparently get 4 x in income pa from that site compared to that going to the community - of which they are part. This is also not then accounting for a large uplift in land value because of options or agreements. Ironically, as it stands, their properties may also be eligible for payments like LED schemes derived from CB payments. Can this issue be investigated and considered please
In the guidance there seems to be little or no requirement to be transparent on how or if any landowner rental income value from wind farm development is spent close to where it is generated. Despite possible disbenefit ( negative externalities like loss of views etc ) to the wider community. This being a CB requirement – ours is IV13.
We belive that consideration should be given in planning terms granting developer consent also delivers a huge capital and revenue uplift to the landowner – often from the landowner’s wet windy remote hillside which had previously little value and to which the landowner has done little or nothing. The government could impose S75 agreements – We appreciate that these are likely to be challenged
We would propose that the Planning systems should therefore try to correct this imbalance through mechanisms that capture some of the uplift in land value and redirect it to the community. This value capture doesn’t seem to be happening, and land values remain high – impacting on housing etc.
This might be termed as “The beneficiary pays” principle or “Capturing development value for the community good.”
Overall , the current approach might be described as moderate, fragmented and highly negotiated. Other countries offer examples that are much stronger and better integrated with community policy.
I also think it is worth noting that, like it or not, some CB is already channelled by the community into services that probably should be provided through the public coffers - for example:
- Services to the Primary School
- Health and Well-being – from care to subsidised HH gym membership
- Snow clearing
- Social housing
From an information point of view given the services we need in Strathdearn, some CB is already being directed into the wider economy – The build of the Community Hub Shop and Cafe which was built by local Inverness Contractors And the affordable Housing also being built by a local contractor.
CB has also enabled us to unlock matching public funding ( £850k from the Scottish housing fund for example)
Why the contribution is important
This is general overview of the result of the meeting
by Neacreath on March 26, 2026 at 07:01PM
Posted by Neacreath March 26, 2026 at 19:01
We note that there was no discussion on CB for transmission lines and sub stations that are integral infrastructure and that probably affect more people as they tend to be sited at lower levels?
As you know landowners already get wayleave payments for transmission lines crossing their land and those leasing land for turbines and BESS apparently get 4 x in income pa from that site compared to that going to the community - of which they are part. This is also not then accounting for a large uplift in land value because of options or agreements. Ironically, as it stands, their properties may also be eligible for payments like LED schemes derived from CB payments. Can this issue be investigated and considered please
In the guidance there seems to be little or no requirement to be transparent on how or if any landowner rental income value from wind farm development is spent close to where it is generated. Despite possible disbenefit ( negative externalities like loss of views etc ) to the wider community. This being a CB requirement – ours is IV13.
We belive that consideration should be given in planning terms granting developer consent also delivers a huge capital and revenue uplift to the landowner – often from the landowner’s wet windy remote hillside which had previously little value and to which the landowner has done little or nothing. The government could impose S75 agreements – We appreciate that these are likely to be challenged
We would propose that the Planning systems should therefore try to correct this imbalance through mechanisms that capture some of the uplift in land value and redirect it to the community. This value capture doesn’t seem to be happening, and land values remain high – impacting on housing etc.
This might be termed as “The beneficiary pays” principle or “Capturing development value for the community good.”
Overall , the current approach might be described as moderate, fragmented and highly negotiated. Other countries offer examples that are much stronger and better integrated with community policy.
I also think it is worth noting that, like it or not, some CB is already channelled by the community into services that probably should be provided through the public coffers - for example:
Services to the Primary School
Health and Well-being – from care to subsidised HH gym membership
Snow clearing
Social housing
From an information point of view given the services we need in Strathdearn, some CB is already being directed into the wider economy – The build of the Community Hub Shop and Cafe which was built by local Inverness Contractors And the affordable Housing also being built by a local contractor.
CB has also enabled us to unlock matching public funding ( £850k from the Scottish housing fund for example)
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)