The planning systems of most States will provide some form of community benefit mechanism whereby promoters can suggest (or be required to provide) social benefits to the communities that will be affected by the siting of the nuclear installation. The Finnish experience is instructive and their system of community benefits played a key role in helping to over­come public opposition to the Onkala geological disposal waste repository. Like other jurisdictions, UK planning law allows applicants to enter into binding agreements with local communities to provide benefits in recogni­tion of the burden that they shoulder on behalf of wider regional and national interests. Community benefits are increasingly viewed as an inte­gral part of the public engagement process. Applicants will need to consider their provision at an early stage. These funding commitments also existed under the old consenting regime as well. Whilst the discretion to offer such benefits is wide, the ability of local authorities to demand such arrange­ments is narrower. Government guidance (paragraph B5 of Circular 05/2005) sets out a number of tests which must be met before planning obligations can be required by local authorities and provides that they ‘must be relevant to planning; necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the proposed development; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed develop­ment; and reasonable in all other respects’. Although these obligations operate vis-a-vis local authorities, they will no doubt be an important influ­ence on IPC decision-making.