The developer does not control the fund

The developer should have no input as to how the fund is spent. The money is supposed to be for the community, its members should be completely free to decide how that money is spent. There should not be prescribed fund objectives set by the developer. The costs of administering the fund should be published.

Why the contribution is important

Developers should not be permitted to promote their own agendas using the fund (for example, support climate mitigation projects over other more locally important projects).

by Herdwick45 on February 24, 2026 at 12:30AM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.5
Based on: 12 votes

Comments

  • Posted by smithm31 February 24, 2026 at 11:32

    This protects community autonomy
    If funds are genuinely “community benefit”, then decision-making should sit with the community. Otherwise, it risks becoming corporate social responsibility rather than community-led development.
    Reduces perceived conflicts of interest
    If developers influence spending themes (e.g., only climate projects), it can create distrust — especially if communities feel more urgent needs exist (housing, transport, childcare, local services).
    Improves trust and legitimacy
    Transparent administration costs and public reporting are essential. In rural areas especially, perceived lack of transparency can quickly lead to conflict.
    Aligns with democratic principles
    Communities hosting infrastructure should not feel that benefits are conditional or shaped by external agendas.

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

    Agree

  • Posted by Raven1 March 13, 2026 at 13:33

    Agree.

  • Posted by Bonanza March 16, 2026 at 11:48

    Although the principle of Community Benefit being under the sole control of the Community is sound, there is a risk that with no controls applied to the fund, it could result in undue pressure being brought to bear on the community by 3rd parties. In particular local Councils, government bodies, The Church, etc. to use the funds for activity that would otherwise have been their responsibility (e.g. Church roof repairs, road repairs, etc).

  • Posted by Flecala March 16, 2026 at 16:31

    Agree there needs to be complete (and verifiable) separation between funds allocated for Community benefits and services that local councils are obliged to provide as part of their statuatory responsibilities. Decision makng should be in the hands of local communities and the communtiy councils that represent them.

  • Posted by LoreineatBingera March 17, 2026 at 19:32

    I agree with the statement. Communities must retain full control either through their Community Trust or improvement Enterprise Company.

    Where the local Development Trust is the governing body who undertook the Local Place Plan, the Development Trust should be given the community benefit funding in order to deliver the priorities/needs set out in the community-led LPP.

    The Development Trust will have the responsibility for a bi-annual or annual report which sets out how the funding was used on which projects and progress and outcomes achieved to date.

  • Posted by BrunoSantos March 25, 2026 at 09:35

    Fully agree with this. Local communities should retain full control of the fund. Development Trusts are likely the best candidates in this case, but whether that is the case or some other local group should be already defined through a consultation in the planning phase.

  • Posted by strategicrenewablegroup March 27, 2026 at 16:28

    Agree
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas