Highland – views from the feedback session

We held our final regional engagement event with community representatives in the Highlands. These are some of the key points raised by attendees. Do you have any views on the points shared?

Technologies in Scope, Fund Levels

  • There was strong support for community benefits being legally required, with a mechanism for communities to appeal or that stipulates fairness.
  • Attendees felt that all fund levels should be higher, and should be linked to a % of revenue of developments instead. The benchmark fund levels should also be index linked rather than each individual fund.
  • Pumped Hydro Storage developments should have a specific fund level set, or much clearer guidance on determining fund levels. The proposed BESS level is also too low. Attendees suggested that analysis could look at BESS and PHS in concert to determine a storage fund level.
  • The guidance must cover transfer of ownership and repowering of developments.
  • Options for shared ownership or alternative funding arrangements like local bill discounts must be supported in the guidance.

Running community benefit funds

  • There should be no restrictions from developers on the types of project that community benefit funds can be spent on – the guidance needs to have examples of what ‘good’ fund arrangements by developers looks like.
  • Some communities have good experiences with developers adjusting plans following engagement with their community.
  • There was strong support for strategic regional or combined funds, and the guidance should cover setting up, running and resolving disputes in shared fund. Wider coverage areas of community benefits arrangements are important to reduce inequalities – but must be led by communities.
  • The guidance should include tools to determine areas such as matrix or data sources. However there is a real lack of data for many rural communities so local knowledge is important and should be recognised in the guidance.
  • Communities need to be supported to think of their strategic priorities ahead of construction so that they are ready to engage.
  • Many priorities lie between communities, which is why wider fund areas are important, and the guidance needs to show how to approach these sort of projects. Combined funds need the support of the Local Authority to develop inter community projects such as bike paths.

Support for communities

  • The legislative situation that means community councils are the statutory body in local areas is creating a huge burden for areas with multiple developments.
  • A central fund is needed for pre-application support for communities to do that preparatory development work on community benefit priorities. This would reduce inequalities as often the ability of a community to respond or engage sufficiently with large energy developers is dependent on the professions of people in that community.
  • The community support that is currently available from third sector organisations or local government is getting really squeezed in a way that isn’t sustainable, due to the volume of developments. Without more funding supporting functions are approaching a crisis point.
  • Trusted people are essential for communities navigating the community benefits process. A central fund that communities could big into to support local development/legal/financial/governance expertise would be preferred t a central bank of development advisers. Peer support should be paid. Funding for this should come from developers.
  • Climate hubs, third sector, local partners, community councils are all good routes for spreading information about support available – but the best route will be community specific. Guidance should include a list of resources and trusted partners.

Why the contribution is important

Views from the Highlands are an important part of feedback, and we want other people in the region to be able to see and feed back on issues raised at the session. 

by Sophie2_ScotGov on March 25, 2026 at 09:38PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 0.0
Based on: 0 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Neacreath March 26, 2026 at 13:25

    I think it should be added the comment i made about the stated £5,000 in 2014 when in fact it was £5000 in 2006 so taking inflation into account the views was it should be starting at £85,00 per MW to be accurate as current statement is misleading

  • Posted by Neacreath March 26, 2026 at 13:27

    Also for clarity the regional fund discussion was over and above the agreed rate per MW and not deducted from it. A central fund held by Govt that Community Councils can draw on and paid by Developers at application stage

  • Posted by Neacreath March 26, 2026 at 19:02

    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)  
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas