One could be forgiven for finding themselves unable to keep up with all of the strategies, plans and reforms the government is consulting on, publishing and announcing of late relating to industry and energy.

Within the last few weeks we have seen the publication of the Modern Industrial Strategy and alongside this the Clean energy Industries Sector Plan following the Chancellor’s Spending Review, and then a week or so ago the Onshore Wind Taskforce Strategy, which was swiftly followed by the announcements on the Review of the Electricity Market Arrangements which included confirmation that the Government will not implement zonal energy pricing (a great disappointment to many in the industry who have been vocally campaigning for this for some time), to name but a few.

All of this is ongoing as the deadline for the submission of evidence by developers and DNOs of project maturity for positioning in the re-ordered connection queue (now extended beyond 29 July by not less than five days due to issues with the connections portal) fast approaches, after which NESO will begin the process of reorganising the over 3,000 projects in the transmission connection queue.

Undoubtedly the Government’s focus is on seeking to create an environment in which the investment decisions needed to make Britain a Clean Energy Superpower can be taken with confidence, against a clearer and more certain policy and regulatory framework, to deliver on the 2030 target of at least 95% of total electricity generation being from clean energy sources and realise the catalytic benefits for the economy.

The Government has acknowledged that it has high ambition for delivering clean energy, and that ambition is echoed in the target of 29GW of energy generation from onshore wind by 2030, a near doubling of current capacity.

To achieve that target there will need to be a rapid development of new onshore wind across Britain and the repowering of existing sites, and the Onshore Wind Taskforce Strategy seeks to address this by considering the actions needed for the further streamlining of the planning and consenting processes for onshore wind, the shortening of the route to market for developers and long-running barriers to wind development from aviation and defence will be addressed to achieve this.

The Strategy details no less than 42 actions across 6 themes, and in this piece I will take a look at key actions relating to the consenting and communities themes, which have historically been some of the most difficult issues to address for onshore wind projects in England, and consider whether those actions will be effective to increase the certainty of obtaining consents in reasonable timescales.

Theme 1 – Site Selection, Preparation and Consenting

The problem summarised for Theme 1 is that it takes too long to plan for projects and to obtain consents, and there is a lack of certainty which means consents applied for have a relatively high chance of being refused.

In a plan led system having planning policies which clearly direct the criteria to be met by projects to achieve approval, and how the relevant considerations should be balanced in the national interest of achieving the targeted 29GW of generation capacity, is key. This would ensure developers know where to plan their projects, and how to design them to be on the right side of policy and the planning balance.

The Strategy does not directly address this in relation to site selection and the preparation of projects. Instead, Action 1, in relation to site selection and preparation of projects, references the “increasingly complicated, inaccessible” system of environmental assessment, and proposals to replace this with Environmental Outcomes Reports. A roadmap to bring forward EORs, last consulted on in March 2023,  is promised. It then references the establishing of a Nature Restoration Fund, which is currently included for within the Planning and Infrastructure Bill in the form of Environmental Delivery Plans.

Those Environmental Delivery Plans (EDP) will need to be produced by Natural England and must be evidence based and properly scrutinised before they are put in place. They will also define the environmental impacts they cover, such as nutrient pollution, or the impact development might have on a protected species, and they will be spatially specific with clear maps setting out where development is covered by an EDP and what scale of development the EDP can support. They must also set out the measures that are to be taken to address the impacts on the relevant protected receptors. Accordingly, they are not a panacea to all difficulties of mitigating and compensating for impacts on habitats (where they arise).

Neither EORs or EDPs will be quick to establish, and they will therefore be of limited assistance to deliver on the targets to be reached by 2030. That is no criticism of those proposals and the more proportionate approach to assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts that it is hoped they will deliver in the future, but there does have to be an acknowledgement that those measures will not be able to effect the necessary change in the short term to assist the quicker consenting of onshore wind projects.

Action 7 of the strategy, in respect of issues with consenting, does relate to the updating of planning policy and guidance, with the preceding text having framed that there is a need to update policy to address the shifts in technology since the 2015 de facto ban of onshore wind in England took effect. The approach will be to designate the Onshore Wind NPS following the inclusion of onshore wind into the NSIP regime (discussed in my previous blog piece here), and there will also be updates made to the Planning Practice Guidance in Autumn 2025 which would relate to projects which are consented within the TCPA regime.

That would appear to suggest that the Government’s approach from a planning policy perspective will be to have policy in place for nationally significant scale projects only, which can then be argued to be a material consideration for smaller scale projects consented outside of the NSIP regime. As EN-1 confirms, “Whether the policies in this NPS [and technology specific NPSs] are material, and to what extent, will be judged on a case-by-case basis and will depend upon the extent to which the matters are already covered by applicable planning policy”.

Designated planning policy for nationally significant onshore wind projects will be a significant improvement, but it is also does not provide a clear policy framework for many projects which will be of a scale which does not meet the 100MW NSIP threshold.

Looking at the relevant NPPF policies relating to renewable and low carbon energy generation and the current PPG policies which confirm that “Suitable areas for wind energy development will need to have been allocated clearly in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan”, this requires plans to have been made which support the location of projects for there to be policy support. And whilst significant weight must be given to the benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy generation (as per para 168), how that significant weight sits in the planning balance will be a matter of judgement for the decision maker, and it does not create any clear presumption in favour of such development or provide clear guidance on where it is or is not appropriate to be located in the context of what will be an existing policy vacuum.

Arguably then the Government has not addressed the consenting certainty and timing problems that it has identified for a very significant number of potential onshore wind projects. A more robust policy framework that can be relied on by all onshore wind projects with certainty now is still very much needed for there to be significantly increased numbers of new onshore wind developments.

How the PPG (and possibly also the NPPF) is updated to ensure onshore wind projects below the DCO threshold can come forward before new local plans are made identifying suitable locations for them will be of critical importance for the delivery of many of the projects needed to meet the 2030 generation target.

Theme 3 – Communities and Public Perception

The problem summarised for Theme 3 is that whilst public support for onshore wind is high, this does not always translate into proactive support for onshore wind projects at the local level. It is also recognised that collective objections to onshore wind projects can slow the consenting and development process and even lead to project termination.

The solution to the problem of public opposition or apathy towards onshore wind projects (collectively non-support) is for the relationship between onshore wind developers and local community stakeholders to be enhanced, through the refinement of best practice engagement processes and a clearer establishing of community benefits (which will continue to be an immaterial consideration for planning purposes).

To address the issue of good engagement, Action 15 of the Strategy is the embedding of best practice principles of engagement into planning guidance in England, to ensure that pre-application consultation is undertaken to the highest standards. The purpose of this is to ensure that “developers are clear on the expectations, while retaining flexibility, when consulting with the local community on their plans”, and that  “they do so in a transparent manner, … with a representative cross- section of the community, and engage often and always, using a range of techniques”.

This would appear to be a move towards increased consultation requirements for onshore wind projects, when the position on local public opposition is longstanding, and where there has been a more general recognition that the extensive upfront consultation approach of the NSIP process has failed to meet the objective of supporting the social acceptance of major infrastructure decisions and instead has become a drag on the consenting of such projects.

The proposal of consulting ‘often and always, using a range of techniques” appears to have the potential to compound the negative effects of consultation for projects, rather than assisting consultation in a proportionate manner. The lack of a clear policy framework supporting onshore wind development will also, inevitably, increase the volume that can be given to negative responses and the likelihood that they may result in “project termination”.

Action 16 is the mandating of community benefits, to make sure that local communities benefit from hosting new clean energy infrastructure. However, it is noted in Action 16 that “[t]he onshore wind industry already does this as a matter of course, voluntarily offering generous community benefits packages that allow for communities to invest in local initiatives of their choosing” and that as this practice is already widespread and conducted to high standards in the onshore wind sector, the Government “wishes to consider introducing a mandatory obligation on developers of [other] energy infrastructure projects in Great Britain to provide community benefits”. As such, there is no action relating to onshore wind, rather there is a focus on how the onshore wind approach could be beneficial for other project types.

Again then, it does not appear that the Government has identified proposals to make a meaningful difference for the delivery of onshore wind projects in the required timescales.

Concluding Remarks

Some of the key challenges for the planning and consenting of onshore wind projects appear to have not been addressed as robustly as they could be, and as arguably they need to be to provide conditions for increased delivery in the short term.

Given the national need for delivery (as an economic growth catalyst as well as to meet carbon emission reductions from electricity generation), providing greater policy support for onshore wind projects of all scales, alongside establishing more proportionate consultation requirements where persons engaging can more clearly understand the need for such projects and the policy support which they benefit from as a result, could provide a much more coherent and effective environment for such projects to be planned for and consented.

Whilst NSIP scale projects will be in a much enhanced position, those projects will inevitably take a significant period to work through the planning and consenting process. Projects below that threshold subject to the TCPA regime, which should be quicker to deliver, would appear to continue to be subject to high levels of planning uncertainty and risk in the short to medium term.

The updates to the PPG and the consultation guidance which are of most relevance to TCPA scale projects remain to be published. Hopefully the Government will approach those updates (and possible updates to the NPPF) in a manner which provides the more full-throated support for onshore wind projects that the forewords in the Strategy suggest, and that is needed for the rapid deployment of new onshore wind projects in England.