Onshore windfarm applications hit 10-year high in England
Onshore windfarm applications in England have reached their highest annual level in a decade, following the Labour government's decision to scrap the Conservatives' de facto ban shortly after taking office in 2024. A Guardian analysis of government data found around 45 applications were submitted in the year to March, with the pace of capacity entering the planning system more than tripling since the ban was lifted. The rebound matters because onshore wind is among the cheapest sources of new electricity and can be built quickly, offering a route to improving energy security and lowering bills at a time when England had fallen far behind other countries, including Ukraine, in building new capacity.
Monthly applications rose from around 9MW on a rolling average before the election to about 36MW by early this year, and from as little as 1MW a month at the low point before September 2023. However, English projects remain markedly smaller than those in Scotland: the average English scheme proposed since the ban was lifted has just two turbines and 8MW of capacity, against nine turbines and 59MW in Scotland, and only one English project has exceeded 100MW compared with 18 in Scotland. Total English proposals stand at 438MW, against 490MW in Wales and 5,280MW in Scotland, while the largest subsidised English scheme, the 20MW Imerys project near St Austell, is dwarfed by many Scottish windfarms. RenewableUK's Tara Singh welcomed the growth, citing cheaper power costs, community benefit funds worth £5,000 per megawatt annually, and nearly 3,000MW now operational in England.
- English onshore windfarm applications hit a 10-year high after Labour lifted the ban.
- Applications rose from 9MW to 36MW a month on average.
- English projects remain far smaller than those proposed in Scotland.
New here? Start with this
Onshore wind farms are large-scale electricity generators built on land, as opposed to offshore turbines out at sea. For years, planning rules in England made it very hard to get new onshore wind projects approved, because a single local objection could effectively block a scheme. That changed in 2024, when the newly elected Labour government scrapped the restrictive rules shortly after taking office, reopening the door to developers.
The story is about what has happened since that policy shift: how many new wind farm applications have been submitted, and how big they are. It draws on planning data analysed by the Guardian, comparing activity in England with Scotland and Wales, where onshore wind has long been more established. Key figures in the debate include the government, which changed the rules, and industry groups such as RenewableUK, which represent wind energy companies and support the expansion.
This matters because onshore wind is widely regarded as one of the cheapest and quickest ways to add new electricity generation, which is relevant to debates about energy bills and the UK's reliance on other, often costlier, power sources. It also touches on planning policy more broadly, since decisions about where turbines can be built affect local communities, land use, and the pace at which the country can add renewable capacity.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that scrapping the de facto ban was a rational correction to a policy that had left England lagging far behind Scotland, Wales and even Ukraine in cheap, quick-to-build generating capacity. They contend that onshore wind is among the least expensive forms of new electricity, that faster deployment strengthens energy security and eases pressure on bills, and that community benefit payments of £5,000 per megawatt give local areas a tangible stake in hosting turbines rather than simply absorbing their impact.
The case against
Critics, often speaking for rural and local communities, argue that the previous planning rules existed precisely to ensure nearby residents had a genuine say before large turbines reshaped the landscapes they live in, and that easing those safeguards risks sidelining local consent in favour of national targets. They contend that even modest English schemes can alter valued countryside and amenity, that intermittent wind output still requires costly backup and grid investment, and that community benefit funds, however welcome, do not fully answer legitimate concerns about the pace and scale of development being pushed through local planning systems.