The Queensland Government released a new Energy Roadmap in October 2025, pledging $400 million to drive investment in renewables, batteries and gas, and establishment of Regional Energy Hubs to efficiently connect projects to the grid in key areas. The Planning (Social Impact and Community Benefit) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 commenced in July 2025, introducing a new community benefit system in Qld that applies to wind farms and large-scale solar farms (over 1MW).
Community Benefit Agreements
Proponents are now required to undertake a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and enter into a Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) with the local council, prior to applying for development approval. These regulatory changes prioritise community voices in decision making.
Local councils may establish community reference groups to assist the development of CBAs with proponents. Benefits may be shared throughout the host community as well as across the larger region, with a focus on both mitigation of project impacts and strategic, long-term legacy benefits that support communities well beyond construction. In Toowoomba region, proponents will contribute $1,050/MW for wind and $850/MW for solar, per year, meaning local currently proposed wind farms will each contribute between $250k – $950k PER YEAR (depending on their size) over the life of the project.
Renewable energy proponents must now undertake a Social Impact Assessment and use this information to guide development of a Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) with local government. All individuals should feel comfortable to reach out to a proponent and have a say in what matters locally, to shape CBAs.
Community support initiatives by proponents often also include grants or sponsorships that local community members or clubs can individually apply for. Proponents’ websites contain information on local grants, if available, see the list of locally available sponsorships.
Social Impact Assessments
The guidelines for undertaking a SIA (see Further Resources #37) outline areas of potential social impact for a proponent to critically analyse, such as housing and workforce participation. However, this is just a minimum guide and the SIA is the place for community members to raise any issues of local concern, including matters of local environmental importance. A report by RE-Alliance details how renewable energy can deliver beneficial outcomes for regional housing .
Reach out to a proponent – do not wait to be asked.
Ensure locally significant matters and opportunities for local environmental restoration, that are sometimes missed by federal and state laws, are captured by participating in community consultation.
Health & Wellbeing
Some community members have expressed concern regarding anecdotal health impacts of living with wind turbines. A systematic review by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, concluded there is no published evidence to link wind turbines with adverse health effects . Potential for ‘annoyance’ was reported and found to be linked to whether a person found wind farms ‘beautiful or ugly’. Links to the Nocebo Effect have also been drawn, where believing there are health effects, produces physical symptoms. However, a wind farm in Vic was found to be exceeding noise standards at night. Under State Code 23, wind farms must undertake noise modelling and meet noise criteria for hosts and neighbours .
Stress may occur for people sensitive to a physical change in their environment, including increased road noise during construction, or with unanswered questions and unknowns. The plethora of information on the internet is often not helpful and misinformation can also contribute to stress.
Host Landholders and Neighbours
A landholder can choose whether or not to host a renewable energy project (unlike coal and gas) and lease land to a proponent. Host landholders have significant power to influence social and environmental outcomes of a project through negotiating agreements with proponents. For example, landholders can negotiate location of infrastructure, benefits for local communities, environmental bonds within contracts (for example, putting money aside for unexpected environmental impacts) and access to transparent monitoring data.
Host landholders can also negotiate benefits for their neighbours. While near-neighbour agreements in most cases are not mandated, proponents will look to offer voluntary arrangements which may include financial contributions or non-financial measures such as vegetation screening or access improvements.
Individual host landholders have the right to say no. As such, landholders have significant power to negotiate and influence the social and environmental outcomes of a renewable energy project.
The Queensland Renewable Energy Landholder Toolkit, produced by the Queensland Farmers Federation, contains resources and checklists to help guide discussions for landholders approached by a proponent and for each stage of project development. Click the link to read the toolkit, or see Further Resources.
It is common practice for proponents to cover the costs of independent legal advice for developing landholder agreements. Independent organisations also exist specifically to help landholders navigate the agreement and project design process. Landholders are not alone in the process.
Understanding lease agreements
What Landholders Should Know Before Signing Renewable Energy Agreements
Download a PDF copy of this section
Australia’s transition toward renewable energy will require significant new infrastructure across regional areas, including solar, wind, and transmission projects (Australian Renewable Energy Agency [ARENA], 2023). Across regional Australia, renewable energy developers are increasingly approaching landholders with offers to host wind turbines, solar farms, transmission infrastructure, or battery storage systems. For many landholders, these projects present an attractive opportunity to generate additional income from a small portion of their property.
Renewable energy hosting agreements are long-term legal contracts, often spanning 25–40 years or more. While the financial benefits can be attractive, it is important that landholders fully understand the terms of these agreements and the potential long-term implications before signing (Johnston Withers Lawyers, 2022).
This article outlines key considerations for landholders who are approached by renewable energy companies.
Understanding Lease Agreements and Payment Structures
Most renewable projects operate through long-term lease agreements between the developer and the landholder. Developers typically lease only a small portion of the property where infrastructure such as turbines, solar panels, or access roads will be located. In return, landholders usually receive annual lease payments, sometimes referred to as hosting payments.
However, payment structures can vary widely and may include:
● Fixed annual payments
● Payments based on installed capacity (megawatts)
● Payments per turbine
● Indexation linked to inflation
● Additional compensation during construction
Understanding how payments are calculated and whether they may change over time is an important part of negotiating these agreements.
For example, some early wind farm agreements paid landholders based on the number of turbines installed. As turbine technology improved and individual turbines became more powerful, developers sometimes installed fewer turbines while still producing the same electricity output. In such situations, some landholders received lower payments than originally expected (Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, 2023).
Potential Changes to Land Zoning and Rates
Another factor for landholders to consider is whether hosting renewable infrastructure could affect the zoning classification or the rates applied to the land. When land is used partly for commercial energy generation, some councils may treat that portion of land differently for rating or taxation purposes.
Potential impacts may include:
● Changes to council rates
● Changes to land tax obligations
● Altered property valuation
● Loss of certain agricultural exemptions
Landholders should clarify who will be responsible for any additional rates or taxes associated with renewable infrastructure on their property (SWS Lawyers, 2022).
Long-Term Land Use Implications
Renewable energy projects are designed to operate for several decades. During that time, certain parts of the property may be subject to restrictions. Depending on the contract, these may include limits on:
● Planting tall vegetation
● Constructing buildings or other infrastructure
● Subdividing the land
● Hosting competing energy projects
Some renewable leases may also remain attached to the property if ownership changes. This means future buyers of the land must accept the existing agreement. As a result, landholders should carefully consider how renewable infrastructure may affect future land use plans (Johnston Withers Lawyers, 2022).
Construction and Operational Impacts
Renewable energy projects typically involve a construction phase that may last 12–24 months, depending on the scale of the development. During this period, landholders may experience increased vehicle traffic, heavy machinery movement, road construction, and temporary disruptions to farming activities.
Although renewable infrastructure generally occupies a relatively small portion of land, construction and maintenance access requirements can affect farm operations, livestock movement, and biosecurity management. Planning for these impacts and ensuring that contracts clearly address access routes, rehabilitation obligations, and compensation arrangements is important (Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, 2023).
Research also shows that renewable infrastructure can coexist with agricultural activities when projects are properly designed and managed, allowing many farms to continue operating while hosting energy infrastructure (CSIRO, 2022).
Decommissioning and End-of-Life Responsibilities
All renewable projects eventually reach the end of their operating life. Agreements should clearly outline how the infrastructure will be removed and how the land will be restored.
Industry discussions have highlighted concerns that removing large energy infrastructure can involve high costs (AUD 400,000–600,000 per turbine). For this reason, many experts recommend that agreements include decommissioning guarantees or financial bonds to ensure that funds are available for site restoration. (Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, 2023).
Expert Advice and Resources
Before signing any agreement, landholders should seek independent legal advice to understand the contractual terms and long-term implications of hosting renewable infrastructure. Many renewable developers offer to cover reasonable legal costs for landholders during the contract review process, making it easier to obtain professional advice early in negotiations (Thyme Consultancy, 2023).
Several resources are also available to help landholders navigate renewable energy agreements. For example, the Queensland Farmers’ Federation Renewable Energy Toolkit provides practical guidance on negotiating agreements, understanding contract clauses, and evaluating project proposals.
In addition, independent valuation advice can help ensure that rental payments reflect fair market value rather than baseline rates set primarily by developers (K2 Renew, 2023).
Landholder Checklist Before Signing a Renewable Energy Agreement
Before signing any agreement, landholders should consider the following checklist:
✔ Seek independent legal advice on all contract terms
✔ Obtain tax and financial advice regarding potential implications
✔ Understand the duration of the agreement and termination conditions
✔ Review payment structures and escalation clauses
✔ Clarify access arrangements during construction and operations
✔ Ensure there are clear obligations for land restoration and infrastructure removal
✔ Consider how the project may affect property value and future land use
✔ Review dispute resolution mechanisms in the agreement
✔ Assess potential impacts on farming operations and biosecurity
Taking time to carefully review these factors can help protect landholders’ long-term interests.
Conclusion
Renewable energy projects can provide valuable income streams for rural landholders and play an important role in Australia’s transition to cleaner energy. Many Australian farmers are increasingly participating in renewable projects as part of the broader energy transition (The Guardian, 2024).
However, hosting renewable infrastructure is a long-term commitment. Understanding the financial, legal, and operational implications of agreements is essential to ensure that these projects deliver lasting benefits for both landholders and local communities.
Seeking independent advice and asking the right questions can help landholders enter renewable energy partnerships with greater confidence.
References
- Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner. (2023). Observations and recommendations: Host landowner negotiations. Australian Government.
https://www.aeic.gov.au/observations-and-recommendations/chapter-1-host-landowner-negotiations - Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). (2023). Australia’s renewable energy transition and regional development.
https://arena.gov.au - CSIRO. (2022). Renewable energy and agriculture: Coexistence opportunities in regional Australia.
https://www.csiro.au - Johnston Withers Lawyers. (2022). What farmers should know about solar and wind farm lease agreements.
https://johnstonwithers.com.au/news/farmers-should-know-solar-wind-farm-lease-agreements - K2 Renew. (2023). Considerations for landowners entering renewable energy agreements.
https://k2renew.com/post/new-blog-post-7593 - SWS Lawyers. (2022). Renewable energy projects and solar farm leases.
https://swslawyers.com.au/renewable-energy-solar-farms - The Guardian. (2024). Australian farmers support renewable energy transition despite challenges.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/26/australian-farmers-support-renewable-energy-transition - Thyme Consultancy. (2023, November 29). Five questions landowners should ask renewable energy developers. https://www.thymac.com.au/articles/landowners-renewable-energy/
Fair Community Benefit Payments
Summary
Large renewable energy projects bring valuable investment to regional Queensland, but they can also place operational pressure on local roads, housing, services, landscapes, and host communities.
Queensland requires certain renewable energy developers to assess social impacts and negotiate a Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) with the relevant local council before lodging a development application. However, state policy currently lacks a standardized statewide benchmark figure, leaving payment values subject to ad-hoc negotiation (Queensland Department of Housing, Local Government, Planning and Public Works [DHLGPPW], Community Benefit Agreements Guidance, 2024).
This report recommends that Queensland formally adopt a policy default guideline—a clear, non-mandatory recommended baseline for negotiations—for rural and regional renewable projects:
- Solar: $850 per MW per year
- Wind: $1,050 per MW per year
- Stand-alone battery storage: $150 per MWh per year
Establishing these figures as a statewide policy default provides host communities, councils, and developers with a predictable starting point while preserving the flexibility to adjust payments based on local context. Crucially, community benefit payments must remain distinct from direct impact management: developer obligations for road repair, housing pressure, and service impacts must be secured separately through development approval conditions.
What this report is about
This report outlines a fair, predictable framework for contributions from large-scale solar, wind, and battery storage projects in host communities.
The focus is on Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs)—legally binding agreements between a developer and a local council detailing the contributions a project will deliver to the host area. State guidance notes that CBAs may include local infrastructure funding, community grants, workforce training, business support, environmental projects, First Nations partnerships, and other place-based benefits—initiatives specifically tailored to the unique geographic, economic, and social priorities of the local area (DHLGPPW, Community Benefit Agreements Guidance, 2024).
Because renewable energy projects are primarily located in regional communities while the generated electricity serves broader state grids, host communities require a clear, consistent mechanism to secure long-term local value.
What Queensland currently requires
Queensland’s Community Benefit System for renewable energy rests on two core pillars:
- Social Impact Assessment (SIA): Evaluates potential community effects across housing, local procurement, health, and social wellbeing (DHLGPPW, 2024).
- Community Benefit Agreement (CBA): Formally details agreed local benefits negotiated between the developer and council.
To gain development approval under this system, a developer must present either an executed CBA accompanied by an SIA report, or an official exemption notice from the Chief Executive (DHLGPPW, 2024).
While the state mandates the process of negotiating a CBA, it leaves financial contribution amounts entirely open-ended. This creates significant policy uncertainty and leads to inconsistent financial outcomes for similar host communities across the state.
Benchmark models elsewhere
Establishing standardized benefit-sharing frameworks is an increasingly common policy tool across domestic and international jurisdictions.
New South Wales
NSW provides the most direct comparison for Queensland. Its guideline sets explicit baseline figures for developments in rural zones:
- Solar: $850/MW/year
- Wind: $1,050/MW/year
- Battery storage: $150/MWh/year
These contributions are indexed to CPI and paid over the operational life of the asset (NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure [DPHI], Benefit-Sharing Guideline for Renewable Energy Developments, 2024).
Ireland
Under its Renewable Electricity Support Scheme, Ireland mandates contributions based on actual energy production (€2 per MWh produced) into local community funds (Government of Ireland, Renewable Electricity Support Scheme Guidance, 2023).
Note on structure: While production-based models (€/MWh) tie payments to actual generation, a capacity-based model ($/MW installed) is preferable for Queensland. Capacity-based rates give local councils stable, predictable annual revenue for long-term budget planning, insulating host communities from fluctuations caused by weather variations, grid curtailment, or market dispatch constraints.
Scotland
Scotland employs benchmark guidance recommending baseline contribution targets of £6,000/MW/year for onshore wind, £700–£1,000/MW/year for solar, and at least £150/MW/year for energy storage (Scottish Government, Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments, 2026).
These precedents demonstrate that clear benchmark guidance is standard practice for establishing market certainty and public trust.
Proposed Queensland default benchmark
Queensland should formally adopt the following default rates within state guidance:
| Project Type | Default Benchmark | Example Applied |
|---|---|---|
| Solar | $850 / MW / year | 100 MW solar farm = $85,000 / year |
| Wind | $1,050 / MW / year | 100 MW wind farm = $105,000 / year |
| Stand-Alone Battery Storage | $150 / MWh / year | 1,000 MWh battery = $150,000 / year |
Note: Megawatts (MW) measure peak generating capacity (project size), while Megawatt-hours (MWh) measure energy storage capacity over time.
Rationale for this benchmark:
New South Wales serves as a strong comparator for Queensland due to similar project scale profiles, shared operating environments within the National Electricity Market (NEM), and matching regional development dynamics. Furthermore, major regional councils in Queensland—including Western Downs, Isaac, Gladstone, and Southern Downs—are already using these figures as standard negotiation targets, demonstrating existing market acceptance across the state.
Why a benchmark is needed
A clear policy default baseline improves the planning system by:
- Giving host communities transparency around baseline expectations.
- Equipping regional councils with a consistent baseline for negotiations.
- Providing developers with predictable cost modeling during early feasibility phases.
- Mitigating equity gaps between neighboring councils with varying negotiation resources.
Adopting a default benchmark does not replace local negotiation; rather, it anchors discussions in a recognized baseline while allowing room for tailored arrangements.
Varying the benchmark to reflect local circumstances
Because local conditions vary, the default benchmark should act as a standard baseline that can be adjusted upward or downward based on specific project characteristics.
Triggers for higher contributions:
- Exceptional project scale or footprint.
- High cumulative impacts from multiple energy or infrastructure projects in the same locality.
- Significant workforce pressures on local housing, healthcare, or municipal services.
- SIA findings highlighting elevated community disruption or risk.
Conditions for lower contributions:
Lower contributions should be exceptional and subject to strict verification. They should only be agreed upon where:
- Project impacts are demonstrably minor or isolated.
- The developer provides alternative, direct community benefits of equivalent value (e.g., major legacy infrastructure built directly by the developer).
- The council and community publicly document the explicit justification for accepting a reduced rate.
Community benefit is distinct from managing direct impacts
A core policy principle is that community benefit contributions must be separate from direct impact mitigation.
If a project generates localized impacts—such as road degradation, heavy traffic disruption, construction noise, dust, or acute housing shortages—those risks must be directly mitigated through standard development approval conditions, infrastructure agreements, or targeted management plans.
As noted in state planning guidance, community benefits are intended to provide broader lasting value “in addition to” or “over and above” developer compliance obligations (DHLGPPW, 2024). Community benefit funding must never be used as a discounted substitute for addressing tangible development harms.
Recommended policy safeguards
To ensure integrity, efficiency, and accountability, the statewide benchmark framework should incorporate six fundamental safeguards:
- Public Transparency: Mandatory public reporting of all executed CBAs and annual publication of community fund expenditure.
- Explicit Administration Rules: Clear caps on administrative cost recovery (e.g., standardizing whether management fees are capped within or added to the baseline).
- Impact Separation Guarantee: Formal policy prohibition against using CBA baseline funds to settle statutory development condition requirements or road repair obligations.
- Contextual Upward Flexibility: Clear pathways for councils to negotiate higher rates for complex, high-impact, or co-located developments.
- Evidenced Downward Exceptions: Strict requirements for public justification whenever a negotiated outcome falls below the policy default.
- Indexation and Periodic Review: Annual CPI adjustment of dollar figures, alongside a mandatory triennial state policy review to maintain alignment with economic conditions.
Adopting a statewide default benchmark—$850/MW for solar, $1,050/MW for wind, and $150/MWh for battery storage—fills a critical gap in Queensland’s renewable energy planning framework. By establishing a clear baseline backed by international precedent and local trial practice, Queensland can provide market certainty for developers while ensuring regional host communities receive fair, transparent, and lasting value.