Community benefits from net zero energy developments consultation: engagement findings report

3. Findings

Findings from community conversations are provided below.

The conversations were a series of small group discussions and should be considered a snapshot of targeted communities’ thoughts and opinions within the wider consultative process. As stated above, given the number of participants involved, the conversations cannot be considered indicative of general feelings or wider consensus across Scottish communities, but they added an element of deliberative discussion that explored some of the conversation themes within place-based settings. These findings will be used by the Scottish Government to feed into the wider consultation process.

3.1 Learning from Communities

Key issues and challenges:

• Volunteer fatigue and the commitment required to manage funds.
• Administrative burden and complexity of application processes.
• Lack of direct individual benefits in some schemes.
• Risk of community division and conflict over fund management.
• Over-reliance on community benefit funds by local groups.
• Lack of consistency around negotiations with developers.

Ideas for improvements that emerged:

• Simplify application and reporting processes.
• Provide support for volunteer recruitment and training.
• Promote transparent, community-led decision-making.
• Encourage peer learning and sharing of best practices.
• Diversify benefit models to include both group and individual support.
• Clear and consistent mandatory criteria for community benefits.
• Early and regular communication between developers and communities.

Community benefits were seen to be a positive development in most of the conversations and participants shared their experiences of how they had been able to use them. All local conversations had participants with experience of community benefits from onshore developments. There were participants in many of the conversations with knowledge of potential community benefits from offshore developments, but no one involved in managing a fund.

Examples included:

• In East Lothian, the majority of the county’s community councils are members of the East Lothian Community Benefits SCIO (Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation). The SCIO has an aspiration to be a potential mechanism for managing
  some community benefit funds collectively across the county. However, at present, communities directly impacted by renewable or grid infrastructure construction benefit first and make decisions about the use of funds. In some cases, communities have chosen to allocate part of this funding for wider county level benefit. This approach is working well in the area. However, it relies on strong and capable community councils for its success. (East Lothian and Berwickshire
  Conversation).
• The Royal Burgh of Sanquhar and District Community Council accessed windfarm money to provide a local energy discount scheme. All properties were eligible, but householders or tenants had to apply, and the money was paid direct to the energy supply company, who then passed on the discount to the local eligible customers, rather than individuals. Work was carried out to raise awareness and support was provided for anyone who needed help to apply. (Nithsdale conversation).
• The Shetland Community Benefit Fund provides local funding pots for all the community councils on the islands, but in a tiered format – community councils deemed to be directly impacted by developments receive more than the others, however all communities benefit. There are also three islands wide funds – an apprenticeship, bursary and training fund and two strategic funds which aim to address the six key issues the community identified through a community action plan process: attracting or retaining young people; transport; broadband and phone connectivity; cost of living; housing and the environment. (Scottish Islands conversation).

Participants in more than one conversation also highlighted that small amounts of funding can make a big difference locally, and community-controlled funds and local decision-making are widely seen as empowering and a “good thing.” A representative from a local group in Nithsdale demonstrated such empowerment stating “we have had small amounts of money to disperse to community groups and activities. We’re looking forward to getting bigger pots.”

Whilst all conversations were able to highlight impacts that participants perceived as being positive for their communities, they also identified challenges relating to volunteer capacity and the time and energy commitment required to manage community benefits. This was highlighted in some conversations relating to being involved in community benefits processes generally, but in others, it was also specifically mentioned in relation to securing community benefits in the first place, for example in the Barrhill and Scottish Islands conversations.

In Wick, volunteers involved in managing funds supported by Foundation Scotland felt that assessing applications was “a lot of work for volunteers.” In the East Lothian and Berwickshire conversation it was noted that there were “not enough willing and able volunteers” and in Barrhill it was noted that “the time required from volunteers to manage community benefit schemes isn’t healthy.”

The Stornoway conversation noted that the age profile of volunteers was a concern because most volunteers are older, and they would be keen to attract a wider age range to create a better balance. In Clydesdale however, participants commented on the benefits that having an older demographic of volunteers brings in terms of more availability of time and skills, “where communities have increased capacity (retired professionals etc..) it is common for them to benefit more from Community Benefits.”

There were suggestions in many conversations that concerns were not only confined to volunteer time and commitment but also the capacity and pressure on local groups and organisations that managing community benefits can present. In Barrhill, they pointed out that it is possible to employ someone but that “they will still need community volunteers to manage [staff]”, while in Peterhead they identified a threat that “communities give up because things are too hard.”

However, it should be noted that while communities identified the challenges and pressures that managing community benefit schemes placed on volunteers, it was not proposed in any conversation that funds should not be community managed.

In Clydesdale, where funds are managed by the local authority, community representatives were willing to take on this burden, suggesting that the Scottish Government should “recognise the work volunteers put in by requiring CB [community benefits] funds to be transferred to the communities.” They suggested there should be more focus on surveying the local community to determine what the priorities should be for spending any funding locally. They also suggested this should be community-led, proposing that “local volunteers can do that.”

Straightforward and easy to manage community benefits processes were deemed important in most conversations, both for communities managing the fund and those seeking to apply. This included clear guidance on the fund, short and simple application forms, help to complete and submit applications, and a quick turnaround of decisions. It was seen as important in all conversations that decisions should be made by local communities.

A variety of systems for managing community benefits existed according to the conversations. There were examples of community benefit schemes managed wholly by communities in areas, including Shetland and Barrhill who employ administrators. Other schemes in areas like Wick and Nithsdale were managed by Foundation Scotland and involved local decision-making panels. The East Lothian Community Benefits SCIO represents the majority of the county’s community councils, although it does not currently manage funds for them collectively.

In conversations held in Nithsdale and the Scottish Islands, some considered there was no need for formal criteria, and that a panel of local members knows what local needs are and can be trusted to take decisions in the best interest of the community, whereas others felt that priorities should be set by the wider community.

Suggestions around good practice put forward during the conversations included:

• Application process
  • The application and reporting process should be simple and straightforward (Nithsdale, Peterhead, Clydesdale, and national conversations).
  • A capability assessment should be included in applications submitted (as part of the fund decision making process) as a way of assessing applicants to community benefit schemes on stability and sustainability. (Stornoway conversation).
  • Support for local groups to apply for community benefit scheme grants (Nithsdale, Peterhead, and national conversations).
• Good governance
  • Audited accounts, transparency, accountability, Charity compliance, rotation of panel members (Nithsdale, East Lothian and Berwickshire, Easter Ross and Cromarty, Wick and Stornoway conversations).
• Community engagement
  • Funding priorities set via community surveys or action plans (East Lothian and Berwickshire, Barrhill, Clydesdale, Easter Ross and Cromarty, Wick, Peterhead, and national conversations).
  • Clear communication on how to apply for funding as well as how funds have been dispersed e.g. information on websites, local paper etc. (Nithsdale, Barrhill, Stornoway, Peterhead, and national conversations).
• Peer support from other people involved in community benefits (Nithsdale and Peterhead conversations).

There was discussion in several conversations around “openness of the decision-making process” in relation to existing schemes including Wick, Barrhill and Nithsdale.

Views ranged from those who felt closed meetings demonstrated a lack of transparency, to those who felt they offered a measure of protection for the volunteers, with one giving the example of a community benefits scheme panel member being challenged about a decision whilst in the supermarket.

Discussions also highlighted some challenges that communities had experienced around managing community benefit funds which included:

• Community conflict and division. Both discussion groups in the Barrhill conversation reflected that “having access to community benefits funds can be quite divisive.” This was attributed to:
  • Poor management of funds.
  • Management of schemes by a small number of people who are not necessarily engaging with the wider community.
  • Benefit not being felt by the community as a whole.
  • Competition between multiple organisations.
  • Disagreements on where funding should be spent.

As a result, there had been “fall outs” between community members. It was noted in Peterhead that community benefits have the potential to place community groups in competition with each other for funding, and in Nithsdale it was said that “local competition/collaborations can cause inequality and create a divide within communities – especially where there are reduced capacity levels.”

• Lack of direct benefit for many in the community. Many community benefit schemes distribute funding to community groups and organisations rather than provide individual benefit. In Nithsdale, a participant who registered as “new to community benefits” shared their experience that beyond the individual payments made through the fuel assistance scheme in winter, the wider community is often not aware of the benefits that are being achieved from community benefit funding if there is no individual or household benefit from that wider funding. In both Stornoway and the wider Scottish Islands conversations, examples were shared of schemes that provide benefit to both local organisations and individuals, ensuring everyone in the community receives some direct benefit.
• Dependency on community benefit funding. The Scottish Islands conversation noted it was important not to create a dependency on grants from community schemes. For groups in Nithsdale, it was suggested that “there can be a dependency on community benefit funds (that) reduce the amount that groups independently fundraise” and that “organisations shouldn’t always be reliant on community benefit funds but should also apply to other funds.” Conversation participants felt that these groups did not often think about what would happen when the fund finishes, putting them at risk in terms of sustainability.

Community benefit schemes bring wider benefits to some communities. Well managed funds were seen to have supported community-led projects and could potentially attract additional funding to the area. Suggestions included:

• Starting projects off with full funding and then reducing it in later years to encourage them to secure match funding.
• Providing 100% funding for small projects and 75% for larger projects, with an expectation that the remaining funds should be secured elsewhere and by other routes.

In Shetland, the community benefit fund has a strand that supports feasibility studies and the Barrhill conversation noted that community benefits funding had helped lever in other funds.

Other areas felt that funds helped them address depopulation and demographic issues. One development trust in Nithsdale felt that the community facilities and activities they were able to put in place have helped reduce the drift of young people and families to bigger towns, and both Shetland and Nithsdale use community benefit schemes to support apprenticeships to help support young people who want to stay in the area.

Experiences with developers were mixed across conversations and were raised frequently in relation to participants’ experience of community benefits.

Overall, a lack of consistency was mentioned across conversations, with communities dealing with multiple developers, noting that some were “easier” to deal with than others and that “some developers will listen to the community, others will not.” Some communities felt that developers controlled the funds strictly and set tight criteria, or that negotiations were difficult, whereas others reflected their experience where developers had provided community benefits funding and trusted the community to manage it independently.

In Easter Ross, it was questioned why developers are not proactively coming to communities who feel that they “consistently need to go to them [developers] and then they make decisions – a more representative structure is needed which includes those that are seen as easy to ignore.”

There were limitations as to how well the conversations could explore developer relationships in detail, however some suggested improvements identified were:

• A “super fund” for the island rather than different community benefit schemes with different developers. (Stornoway conversation).
• Scrutiny to ensure arrangements are put in place (East Lothian and Berwickshire, Stornoway, and Clydesdale conversations).
• Developers could contribute to, or pay fees associated with, buying in external support for local organisations (Nithsdale and Scottish Islands conversation).
• Developers ensuring that they are effectively engaging with relevant and representative local organisations including community councils, development trusts and other appropriate anchor organisations (Nithsdale, East Lothian, and Berwickshire conversations).
• The need for clear and constructive on-going communication between communities and developers as well as regular contact and updates. For example, when communities have been involved in initial negotiations with developers and then the development moves into planning processes and project development stages. There is no set timescale within which things will happen, and communities may not know if things are still moving forward and they can feel frustrated if they are not given updates. (East Lothian and Berwickshire, Clydesdale, Peterhead, Scottish Islands, and national conversations). This also includes the need for clarity on ‘technical’ elements so that communities understand what is being proposed, "we need to understand what developers mean by terms like 20MW storage”. (Barrhill conversation).

3.2 Defining Communities

Key issues and challenges:

• Development creates environmental, traffic, noise, sight, and economic impacts on surrounding communities.
• Rigid geographic boundaries exclude some impacted communities.
• Offshore developments can span significantly wider areas than onshore.
• Island and coastal communities can experience greater impacts from offshore developments than other communities.
• Transmission infrastructure is not covered by the Good Practice Principles.

Ideas for improvements that emerged:

• Boundaries for community benefit areas could be broadened to distribute benefit more widely.
• Communities immediately impacted by developments and transmission should share in the benefits.
• Consideration of how communities impacted by construction can share in benefits.

Conversations explored participants’ opinions on who should benefit from both offshore and onshore renewable energy projects. Conversations focussed primarily on communities of geography, although communities of interest were considered in some conversations. Many issues discussed in relation to both onshore and offshore developments were similar; however, where clear differences existed, they are reflected below.

The conversations in Nithsdale and Barrhill involved communities who are not currently in receipt of community benefits from offshore developments, nor are there any developments planned within their areas. In Easter Ross and Cromarty, there were communities who anticipate impact around the Cromarty Firth and the Inverness and Cromarty Firth Green Freeport, and there was some confusion between community benefits from renewable energy developments and the voluntary community benefit scheme that the Port of Cromarty Firth has in place.

In the North East, participants in Wick and Peterhead sit within areas where there are existing offshore developments. The community of Peterhead is set to benefit from new community benefit schemes derived from offshore developments, although they had not seen these come in to play at the time of the conversation. People in the Wick conversation, where the previous offshore fund that was in place has come to an end, felt that their community should be benefitting from offshore developments.

Scottish Government consultation materials clearly stated that community benefits are not compensation for communities and communities were reminded of this by facilitators. However, some participants said they did not agree with this and there was consensus in all conversations that, regardless of whether it was an onshore or offshore development, communities directly impacted by the development should be considered as a priority for community benefits.

For onshore developments, the communities suggested as those who will experience the most direct impacts, and who should therefore receive the most benefits were:

• those in sight line of developments;
• communities experiencing environmental impacts from the development including loss of greenbelt land; and
• infrastructure disruption at both construction and operational phases, including road restrictions and poor road conditions caused by an increase in traffic and closures.

There was also discussion in the Wick, Barrhill and Nithsdale conversations about those in close proximity to certain developments who are impacted by the noise and vibration of onshore wind turbines. This was reflected by insights including “we can hear the turbines – people can hear the woosh of blades when they get near them, but in our house, we hear a constant hum of vibration” (Nithsdale conversation) and “it’s not a natural noise – it’s a pulsating low frequency noise”. (Barrhill conversation).

In Barrhill, community members also noted concerns about impacts on physical health, with participants giving personal testimony about their own health as well as talking about the experiences of friends and neighbours, and people who have had to “move out of their houses because of illness or noise.” There was a suggestion that there should be compensation for people having to move out of their houses, or whose properties are devalued by their proximity to developments.

For offshore developments it was recognised that developments span a far wider area, but it was still felt that those closest to developments should be prioritised for community benefits, particularly where cables come ashore and along services routes. Again, sightline and proximity were referenced as being important in conversations.

Both in relation to onshore and offshore, it was also acknowledged in most conversations, that as well as those closest to the onshore developments, communities in a wider proximity also experience disruption, especially in terms of traffic and road infrastructure impacts and such communities should also be able to access community benefits.

In the Scottish Islands conversation, it was suggested that relevant development proximity should be a factor in identifying communities of place who should benefit, but that it should also include those affected by transmission. Communities impacted by transmission also came up in Nithsdale, Easter Ross and Cromarty, the Scottish Islands, and national conversations. In Stornoway it was suggested that “ transmission infrastructure should be covered by the Principles or subject to some form of cross over.”

Stornoway, Peterhead, Nithsdale, Wick and Barrhill conversations highlighted other sectors and groups that could potentially be impacted by developments as being farmers, tourism businesses and fishers. However, it should be noted that the Scottish Government’s guidance is clear that any compensation arrangements for any sectors or groups sit outwith the scope of community benefits.

Island communities felt that they, and coastal communities, could be particularly impacted by offshore developments, due to their heightened exposure to disruption and environmental impact.

However, it was not just island communities themselves who raised these issues. In both Nithsdale and Barrhill, where developments are all onshore, it was suggested that island and coastal communities should benefit from offshore developments.

Communities were concerned about the “fairness” of distribution of community benefit funds. Although there was a strong feeling in all conversations that those in the immediate vicinity of developments should benefit first, conversations in Peterhead, Wick and Stornoway recognised that not all communities benefit, and in some cases, it was felt that communities who could benefit from such investment miss out. It was identified that these communities are those that are impacted:

• At the construction phase before community benefit funds are put in place.
• By infrastructure traffic, but who sit out with the benefit zone.
• By transmission infrastructure.

Additionally, distribution of funds solely via community groups and organisations can mean benefits do not necessarily reach the wider population.

Discussions of “fairness” led to geographical boundaries and eligibility being explored, with a strong feeling emerging from most conversations that there would be benefit in widening these in the future. This is explored further in section 3.3.

It was suggested that the timing of community benefits schemes beginning once the development is operational, excludes communities affected during construction and development. Several participants advocated for early-stage funding, particularly for those dealing with short-term disruption. This links to some participants seeing community benefits as compensation and prioritising communities they identify as most negatively impacted by developments.

3.3 Fund Distribution and Management

Key issues and challenges:

• Mixed views on regional/national funds versus local control.
• Inconsistent benefit levels and terms across developments.
• Developer-led criteria can be too restrictive or inflexible.
• Concerns about fairness and transparency in fund governance.

Ideas for improvements that emerged:

• Support tiered models (local, regional, national) based on scale of development.
• Prioritise community-led or independent fund management structures.
• Standardise benefit levels where appropriate for relevant technologies, such as onshore wind (e.g. index-link the recommended £5k/MW community benefits figure for onshore technologies).
• Allow flexible, multi-year funding aligned with community action plans.
• Ensure early and meaningful community involvement in fund design and decisions.
• Ensure long-term impact and legacy of community benefit funds.

Conversations attracted a range of participants, from people who are currently involved in managing community benefits funds to individual community members who were new to community benefits. There are a wide range of schemes and structures already in place and conversations were a mix of sharing local experience and considering the issues, and best practice, in a wider context.

There was support for multi-level benefits models in relation to both offshore and onshore developments, although the appetite for these varied between conversations. This often related to the potential size of the funding with one conversation highlighting “smaller developments, community council areas or similar would be appropriate. The larger the funding, the larger the geographical spread.”

Suggestions for tiered or hybrid models, where they were proposed, can be summarised as:

• Primary benefits for those most affected.
• Secondary or regional funds for broader community and regional development.
• Scotland-wide benefits (including national energy bill reduction) in instances where there are large amounts of benefits generated, received mixed support and this is explored in more detail below.

There were concerns raised in the Wick conversation that in a recent regional fund run by a developer, they did not feel that Caithness had done well, and this reinforced the opinion that local schemes were needed.

In Clydesdale, where funds are managed as a regional fund by the Local Authority, participants made the point that some rural communities feel that they are living in an industrial area without sharing in the community benefits. Conversation participants agreed with a regional fund but suggested there should also be local funds for the communities sitting beside and within development areas.

Most conversation participants strongly stated that regional or national funds should not be governed or managed by local authorities or national government. Participants indicated that they would prefer community-led or independent structures, ensuring community control over funds. This was often related to shrinking public sector resources and budgets and a concern that community benefits could be used to offset these challenges in some way, instead of adding additional benefit.

When asked what kind of things they thought community benefits funding should be used for, communities suggested a broad range of projects including:

• Education, training and skills for work and leisure
  • community-based learning opportunities.
  • support for school trips and experiences.
  • driving licenses or lessons for young people to improve their employability.
  • support for apprenticeships – helping young people to buy tools to support them into employment routes and reduce rural depopulation.
• Arts and culture/heritage projects
  • outreach programmes going into communities that might not otherwise benefit as well as supporting community run heritage projects.
• Health and wellbeing
  • healthy living activities.
  • sports activities.
  • local health projects.
• Activities for young people
  • sports activities.
  • out of school activities.
  • summer holiday provision.
• Improvements to community buildings and spaces
  • modernisation.
  • solar panels and battery storage to reduce running costs.
  • increasing the use of buildings and outdoor spaces.
  • running costs for community buildings.
• Equalities work – activities aimed at specific groups such as young people, older people, people with additional support needs and communities experiencing deprivation or poverty.
• Support for local community groups to improve their resilience. It was also noted that while community buildings can be supported directly, supporting a wide range of community groups and activities who use the halls, creates additional benefits for local facilities.
• Tackling fuel poverty – through direct payments, heating upgrades, insulation, and window replacement schemes.

The idea of ensuring community benefit funding strengthens communities and make them more sustainable was something that emerged from several discussions. Suggestions for this included:

• Attributing a percentage of community benefit funding (modelled on similar schemes in the US) to support local businesses to create sustainable skilled jobs and train local people to fill them (Easter Ross conversation).
• The importance of creating long-term job opportunities, especially for young people. (Stornoway conversation).
• Instead of using CB funding for bill reductions, it may be a better to look at funding more sustainable solutions such as “solar panels or insulation” in properties to reduce day to day costs and overall energy consumption. (East Lothian and Berwickshire conversation).
• The importance of “legacy projects” e.g. supporting a local community to buy the local shop and running it themselves (example from Caithness). In the Clydesdale conversation, it was noted that “longevity funding for groups is key - one or two years isn't enough for groups to get stuff off the ground.” Legacy funding is explored further in section 3.4.

There was clear opposition to using funds for statutory functions, religious activities, or private businesses. There was a strong feeling across all conversations that community benefits should not be used to replace statutory funding and a fear that local authorities may rely on community benefit funding to fund their activities instead of using public funds.

Whilst there was opposition to funds being used to pay for statutory activities or services and improvements that a public body is responsible for, a few conversations raised the possibility of funding being used to work in partnership with statutory services to add additional value in some instances. Conversations in Stornoway and in East Lothian and Berwickshire mentioned the possibility of working in partnership with local authorities around housing improvements. For example, where the council is upgrading housing and carrying out necessary improvements, the community benefit funds could help with “extra” improvements e.g. around insulation. In Wick there was discussion around the pros and cons of community benefits potentially supporting additional staffing in rural schools.

While there was agreement that funds should not be used for religious purposes, there were mixed feelings about whether community activities run by religious organisations should be eligible for funding. Some areas agreed that if it was a community-wide activity such as a foodbank or elderly lunch club it should be eligible for support, with others saying that community wide activities should be set up as a group separate to the religious organisation to be eligible for funding support.

It was suggested that a portion of funds could be used to support marine environment research and mitigation of emerging offshore impacts, although notably, these suggestions were made by onshore communities in the South West, rather than coastal or island communities.

There was support for the standardisation of community benefits. Across the board, community conversations saw the recommended £5,000 per megawatt (MW) figure for onshore technologies as being helpful but also out of date and not always realised. Examples included developers paying £2,500 per MW, of benefits being in place for a fixed term rather than the life of the development, and of uncertainty around whether new benefits would be put in place when developments were extended or replaced. Most conversations suggested community benefits should be index-linked and all conversations felt strongly that community benefits should be mandatory rather than voluntary.

Across the conversations, it was deemed important for communities to be involved in discussions around community benefits from the earliest stage, working in partnership with local authorities and developers. However, it was also noted that communities should be able to feel confident that objecting to developments will not impact the community benefits subsequently offered to them (which also relates to the voluntary nature of the arrangement). Concerns were raised in the Clydesdale conversation around the potential for pre-planning negotiations with communities around community benefits having the potential to influence how communities approach proposed developments.

Funding flexibility and structure was discussed in several conversations. Concerns were raised in some areas that fund criteria set by developers was overly prescriptive and needed to be more flexible and adaptable to local community needs. Suggestions included:

• Thematic funds with the flexibility to review and adjust the amounts available each year.
• Long-term projects and multi-year funding where both revenue funding and capital funding will be necessary for sustainability. For example, the Peterhead conversation noted that it is not just about building and furnishing a new community building, but about being able to support it once it has opened.
• Investment and development e.g. “installing solar panels on council houses where there is desire, but if the council can’t facilitate/afford – community benefits could stump up some capital around this and negotiate that revenue returned is invested back into the community benefit fund.” (East Lothian and Berwickshire). This suggests some participants are willing to consider partnerships with statutory bodies to make capital investments from community benefit funds in return for future revenue to be paid back into the funds.
• Investment in place - “physical build (play parks), housing (insulating), climate and social projects (tidy up villages, local events budgets)” at a range of scales considering “strategic and operational as well as regular funding to ensure the ability to plan forward.” (Easter Ross and Cromarty). These examples demonstrate how community benefits could be used to create additional value to statutory provision, where communities think it is appropriate. Communities were clear that any spend on public areas should be community-led and should be in addition to statutory funding, not replacing it.
• Funding for ongoing work - “lots of project work is year on year, and most of the work required is ongoing” (National conversation).

Almost all conversations identified a strong belief that community-led strategic planning to direct funds was important. A common theme was that community benefit should be linked to community-led action plans and local place plans where these exist. Examples of existing community led plans in action were discussed in Wick, Nithsdale, Stornoway, Clydesdale, East Lothian, and Berwickshire, Barrhill, the Scottish Islands and national conversations.

Conversations in Easter Ross, Stornoway and the wider Scottish Islands said it was important that young people should be involved in decisions about community benefit arrangements.

There were mixed feelings about a national organisation being used to manage local funds. Participants noted that this works well in some areas, with communities feeling it removes the administrative burden while still retaining community decision making. However, participants said that other areas feel that this is not appropriate and that funds managed wholly by the community work better.

However community benefit schemes are managed, there was agreement across conversations that decisions about disseminating funds need to be made with a steer from the community. There was also support for processes and structures that are representative of the area and include local people and community council representatives. Overall, it was felt that any regional and national funds should be managed via public involvement e.g. a panel of members of the public selected from across the area (depending on whether it is a regional or national fund) and supported by a regional or national organisation. This could be an existing body like a regional Third Sector Interface or national organisation such as Foundation Scotland or Development Trusts Association Scotland; or a new one set up for this purpose.

In most conversations, it was agreed that trust in local organisations and community anchor bodies is essential for administering funds. Most discussions around trust centred on communities being able to trust the people who manage and make decisions about how funds are dispersed, noting that community involvement from the outset is critical to ensure legitimacy. However, in Easter Ross it was also noted that developers “need to trust that community organisations can make sensible decisions.”

3.4 Supporting Communities to Maximise Community Benefits

Key issues and challenges:

• Community capacity building support is key to community-led processes.
• Need for long-term planning and investment to extend the lifespan of funding.
• Some communities can accumulate significant funds.

Ideas for improvements that emerged:

• Capacity building support should be independent from developers.
• Flexibility to expand benefit areas in instances where surplus funds accumulate.
• Community benefits could be used as a catalyst to develop larger projects and attract additional funding.
• Community networks, learning exchanges and events to encourage peer support and sharing of good practice.

Community conversations explored participants’ opinions on how community benefits could be maximised and any support they felt would be needed.

Community capacity building and skills development was the most frequently mentioned “need” identified in all but one community conversation, including volunteer training, upskilling, and confidence-building.

Communities also identified specialist support needs including:

• Legal advice (Nithsdale, Peterhead, Stornoway, and National conversations).
• Financial advice (Peterhead and East Lothian and Berwickshire).
• Governance support (Stornoway and Nithsdale).
• Legacy planning and strategic development (Nithsdale and National conversations).

Conversation participants identified the need for support throughout the entire community benefit process, including negotiations with developers, fund management (including setting up independent external organisations and forming independent local organisations or umbrella groups) and creating long-term sustainability.

They highlighted the importance of independent, expert support to empower and enable communities, described in the Scottish Island conversation as “experts on tap, not on top.”

Foundation Scotland, local community development support services, Development Trusts Association Scotland and Highland and Islands Enterprise were all mentioned across different conversations as existing and potential sources of capacity building support.

Several conversations referenced the need for long term planning around funds and the importance of considering how to ensure access to funding for future generations. These discussions included reference to the following areas:

• Setting aside a portion of funding for investment or Endowment Funds was mentioned in several conversations including Nithsdale, Stornoway, Clydesdale, Easter Ross, Barrhill and Wick. “We need to think about legacy and sustainability. Is there anything other than community benefits being set aside for after the 25-year life span? Some community benefit money could be invested, with the interest paying for the running costs. We need to look to the future, so the money lasts beyond 25 years” (Stornoway).
• Nithsdale, Stornoway, Scottish Islands, and the national conversation participants discussed investing in shared ownership, where communities can become partners in developments, but they also recognised the responsibility and work that it brings, the level of capacity it requires, and that it may not be right for all communities. “Community buy-in can be a selling point for planning but there is a lot for communities to do. It’s a lot of money to raise and a lot of responsibility to take on. However, all of the profit from community owned schemes should go to the community” (Nithsdale).
• Discussions around legacy and investment also related to observations about communities who accumulate significant funds without a clear plan or purpose. Participants in Nithsdale, Barrhill, Stornoway and Wick felt that this should not be allowed and that where this was the situation, reallocation or wider dispersals should be considered. “There should be an “overflow tap” e.g. if [a community is] sitting with surplus, it should get spread wider” (Wick).

As well as ways to invest for the future and long-term planning, themes related to “making the funds go further” also emerged within the conversations. Some areas saw the value in using funds as catalysts for feasibility work or collaborative pilot projects with public services (as referenced previously in section 3.1) as well as an opportunity to secure match funding from other sources. Examples of where this was discussed were:

• Wick participants indicated that CB funds could be quite restrictive and had been mainly aimed at projects that have “charitable processes” and cannot be used to fund businesses. This led to participants questioning “could there be a separate pot for economic development – even if it had to be taxed?” On exploring this topic further, a solution presented was “having a charitable pot plus a second pot e.g. managed by a chamber of commerce.” The intent here is to establish a separate, dedicated fund to support businesses comprising monies generated from funds dedicated to community or charitable purposes e.g. from investment or endowments. Participants felt that, in general, “support for business start-ups helps with depopulation” which was a significant concern for their area.
• Some of the East Lothian and Berwickshire participants conveyed that they felt one of the right things to do with CB funds was to try and be innovative with projects to enable activities that could act as catalysts. Such as a feasibility study on a district heating system and another on a fitness referral project. The purpose of this was to highlight potential benefits and impacts of such projects to encourage other external partners to invest in them. There were strong feelings in this conversation that these types of projects should continue specifically to “encourage better funded bodies to replicate or continue such activities once they see them working” and “help attract public or private funding.”
• Wick also supported using CB funding to leverage future match funding, specifically they highlighted that “there are big projects that need funded as legacy projects. To ensure sustainability in the future, such projects could start with local CB funds then seek additional match funding.”

There was concern that different arrangements being negotiated with different communities is dependent on the community’s skills, capacity and ability to negotiate, and this can lead to inequity between communities. It was suggested that it would be helpful if information on existing community benefit arrangements (including levels per MW) were publicly available. These participants were unaware of the Local Energy Scotland register of community benefits, demonstrating the importance of communities being aware of the resources and information available to them.

It was also suggested that support materials or good practice examples which could help communities prepare for negotiations would be useful. In particular, the Shetland Islands community benefit arrangement was recognised in these conversations as one that could be used for this purpose. It was also proposed within the Peterhead conversation that if there was “one standard mechanism for allocating funding, then they wouldn’t rely on communities having to negotiate for community benefits.”

There was an overall appetite for increased networking and peer support to share learning among conversation participants. Suggestions included:

• Local and regional/national networking (Barrhill Scottish Islands, Clydesdale, Nithsdale, and national conversations).
• Learning exchanges and visits (Nithsdale, Clydesdale, national and Scottish Island conversations).
• Information and resources (Peterhead and national conversations).
• National events (Clydesdale conversation).

Communication and collaboration were identified as being important in maximising community benefits from statements made across multiple conversations. Participants in Barrhill felt strongly that “local relationships are key to the success of community benefits schemes,” and that collaborative partnerships between community councils and other local organisations are important.

• “Local organisations and structures need to work closer together at times to maximise community benefits and gain wider community reach – this should include more open and honest dialogue, partnerships and representation.” (Nithsdale Conversation).

Finally, in terms of maximising community benefits and supporting communities, reference was made on several occasions to the diversity of communities as well as their differing needs and challenges being recognised within both the Good Practice Principles and associated community benefits processes.

• Conversation participants in Wick spoke to challenges they had encountered when dealing with community members from different backgrounds. Specifically, individuals “steeped in local traditions” and “new people moving to the area and bringing different ideas.” This division needs to be recognised where it exists in some communities when discussing community benefits and how processes are shaped, especially to ensure that they are acceptable and beneficial to all members of the community.
• Participants in Stornoway highlighted that there should ideally be recognition that they face a range of impacts as islands which will differ from other areas. This should be related to how island communities are supported which may be different from other areas of Scotland. They went on to articulate “community needs differ from each other, and good practice principles need to flex to all communities – a basic document may help which has enhancements/references to recognise specific local needs.” (Stornoway).
• National conversations echoed Stornoway’s sentiment (above) when they discussed how all communities are different which makes it hard for general principles, frameworks and potentially templates to be put in place that will have significant impact and benefits.

Opinions about standardisation mechanisms whilst also recognising the need to be flexible to the different needs of communities varied across participants. Calls for greater consistency and a mechanism to ensure that all communities received the same benefits, came up in conversations where participants felt communities weren’t able to negotiate the strongest deals or who weren’t receiving the recommended levels of benefits. Whereas Island community participants were concerned that a rigid standard process could leave communities trying to fit into a system that didn’t meet their needs.

3.5 Good Practice Principles Impact

Links to the consultation support materials, which set out the context for the review of the Good Practice Principles were sent to participants in advance of the conversations.

Potential impact. There was some optimism that if done well, refreshed principles could positively impact vulnerable communities. However, others were unsure or sceptical, stating that effectiveness depends on how well communities are heard and the final content of the revised guidance.

Enforcement and legal status. Several participants expressed concerns that the Principles lack enforceability and that without this, they will not make a difference. Some participants called for statutory requirements or linking the Principles to planning permission or sanctions to give them weight. This was in relation to private developments. It was noted that community owned schemes are already community controlled and any guidance relating to them should not be over-prescriptive.

They could bring equity, clarity, and consistency. Participants expressed a need for clarity around expected community benefit levels and consistency across operators and developments to achieve fairness and long-term community benefits.

3.6 Additional Issues

Through the course of conversations, a variety of issues were raised that sit outwith the scope of the conversation questions but were identified as important for consideration:

Accessibility and awareness of the Good Practice Principles. There were calls for better communication and awareness of the principles. The updated Principles should be readable and accessible to all, including vulnerable community members. They should be in Plain English and there should be an Easy Read version. They should also be pro-actively circulated to communities and should be easy to find.

Community-owned turbines were raised in some conversations, particularly in the Scottish Islands and Stornoway conversations. These wind energy projects are wholly owned by local communities and generate income that is reinvested into local projects, similar to how community benefit schemes provide funding for community initiatives. These were viewed very positively since they allow all profits from the community turbines to remain local. However, it was also recognised that they require a significant amount of work from communities, that they come with significant responsibility and that support and advice for communities needs to be available.

There were participants in the East Lothian and Berwickshire, Wick and Scottish Islands conversations who live off-grid. It was suggested, in the Scottish Islands conversation, that there may be other communities who might want to generate their own power in the future and that “if that possibility isn’t considered now, it could be a disincentive for local energy generation in the future.”

Employment and the economic impact of developments was something that communities felt was not a benefit they saw much impact of in their communities. While developments do create employment, many conversations commented on the lack of local job creation, especially in construction and manufacturing and a desire to see training, apprenticeships, and pathways to ongoing maintenance jobs for their communities, particularly for local young people. It was noted in one conversation that even a small number of jobs had value in rural areas.

Frustration over inability to object effectively to windfarm developments was voiced with some communities feeling that developments are progressed despite objections from the local community and sometimes the local authority.

Economic opportunities and national benefit. Some participants suggested public ownership of offshore developments, with proceeds kept in Scotland through entities like the Scottish National Investment Bank. This was viewed differently to a national community benefits fund, since it was felt that public ownership would generate significantly more income and would be a national scheme requiring national investment. Public ownership of offshore developments was seen as a chance to boost domestic manufacturing, retain wealth, and support economic resilience.