Giving communities leverage

The Principles have hitherto been undermined by the provision of community benefit being voluntary by the developer. Of course they need to protect viability and profitability of their projects but (taking pumped storage hydro as a case in point) the complete absence of guidance as to a 'tariff' for community benefit is highly disadvantageous to a community struggling to secure a reasonable agreement (especially against the backdrop of expectaion of 'megabucks' from the people they represent).  Menu pricing should be considered for all technologies as a base for the inevitable negotiation.

That community benefit is voluntary is perhaps a necessary evil, as to mandate for it will simply shuffle through to bottom line costs for consumers.  Taking that further, should there be a cap on community benefit (or sharing provisions) to guard against a situation where communities accumulated far more money then they could ever use alone? Contoversial, no doubt...

Why the contribution is important

Communities need help by setting a baseline level of benefit for whichever technology applies in each case, acknowledging that the final level of contribution will inevitably be negotiated.

by DECC on March 11, 2026 at 08:30PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 3.8
Based on: 5 votes

Comments

  • Posted by GMH March 13, 2026 at 10:54

    Communities will never have leverage so long as the developer can choose the level of community benefit and the way in which it must be administered or applied. It should be the impacted communities themselves that determine what their needs are and how best those needs are addressed through use of any community benefit - and it should also be recognised that community benefit can never compensate for badly planned or inappropriate schemes.

  • Posted by Sarahm1 March 13, 2026 at 12:07

    Give the leverage to the community so recognising the sacrifice windfarms cause to communities

  • Posted by Raven1 March 13, 2026 at 13:29

    Make the 'benefits' compulsory and make how the money is spent a democratic process working in partnership with impacted communities.

    Agree also that community benefits can never compensate for badly planned or inappropriate schemes (and I would include in that schemes which are foisted on local communities against their will and/or for which there is no demonstrable need).

  • Posted by shonarosehall March 13, 2026 at 17:22

    Fully agree with all comments by GMH, Sarahm1 and Raven1

  • Posted by Alexander53 March 13, 2026 at 20:26

    Fully agree with all comments by GMH, Sarahm1 and especially Raven1.

    It appears that community benefits are to be overseen/decided by "new" additional groups, surely the local community council should be the "foundation stone" with additional personnel/input if/where needed. Local knowledge of the relevant community's needs appears to be of reduced importance.

  • Posted by zephr March 15, 2026 at 11:26

    I agree with a comment made by DECC about limiting the amount of money an area can receive. Some areas are geographically ideal for wind turbines and have them on every skyline leading to millions of pounds of benefit flooding into a small community . A bureaucracy of highly paid individuals evolves to deal with this which then has first claim to the benefit . Local councils should have some of the benefit to use for the wider area(for example to fill pot holes) or, what has been suggested , to create a Norway like National fund.

  • Posted by Flecala March 16, 2026 at 16:50

    Reference Alexander53's comment: presently the community benefits from TRANSMISSION lines and infrastructure are subject to guidelines recommended by the Westminster government - transmission is a reserved area. This guidance from Westminster explicitly EXCLUDES community councils from having input to where community benfits are allocated. They can be consulted but they will not be allowed to direct where funds are spent. This strikes me as a bizarre state of affairs. It is extremely anti-democratic. The Scorttish government need to do all they can to resist/counter this nonsense.

  • Posted by Flecala March 22, 2026 at 12:04

    The Scottish Government should do much more to publicise the outstanding progress that has been made by the 9CC group in Ayrshire, Glenkens Trust in Dumfries and by the Shetland Community Benefit Fund. Each of these in their own way are trendsetters who should be emulated as far as possible.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas