Sep 24, 2026 · 10 min · 6 segments
In this Espresso Shot episode, David and Mike ask who stands to gain as onshore wind returns to England after a decade under a de facto ban. With around 45 applications in the year to March , the…
David MarlowHost
Mike SpicerHost
Mike, I mean, the episode is drawn from the news that around 45 onshore applications were made in England in the year to March, which is the highest in a decade.
Capacity entering the planning system has more than tripled since the de facto ban went from about nine megawatts a month before the 2024 election to roughly 36 by the start of this year.
But at least two things separate this from Scotland, and only one of them is actually about wind.
England spent a decade under a de facto ban and put its renewable efforts into offshore and solar at utility scale, developer-led, industrial, real cluster and supply chain benefits.
Should England and spatial development strategy geographies be setting some sort of onshore wind target at all? But the second difference is, I think, conceptual, and it's one that I think really should interest us.
Scotland has consistently treated onshore wind as a community wealth question, an onshore wind sector deal with 63 commitments, community benefit guidance of, I think it's £5,000 per megawatt a year, a shared ownership ambition running back to 2017, Local Energy Scotland and now a Community Wealth Building Act.
England's nearest equivalent instinct runs through GB Energy's Local Power Plan, which is a public ownership idea rather than a community one.
I have to say the model is more present in Scottish thinking than in Scottish delivery, with a CLES blown away report in June finding community benefits much lower than the policy ambition.
I think it was about 3,600 per megawatt as opposed to the 5,000 per megawatt per year.
So should community wealth building be prominent in English thinking at all? Where are you coming from on this?
Mike, I mean, the episode is drawn from the news that around 45 onshore applications were made in England in the year to March, which is the highest in a decade.
Capacity entering the planning system has more than tripled since the de facto ban went from about nine megawatts a month before the 2024 election to roughly 36 by the start of this year.
But at least two things separate this from Scotland, and only one of them is actually about wind.
England spent a decade under a de facto ban and put its renewable efforts into offshore and solar at utility scale, developer-led, industrial, real cluster and supply chain benefits.
Should England and spatial development strategy geographies be setting some sort of onshore wind target at all? But the second difference is, I think, conceptual, and it's one that I think really should interest us.
Scotland has consistently treated onshore wind as a community wealth question, an onshore wind sector deal with 63 commitments, community benefit guidance of, I think it's £5,000 per megawatt a year, a shared ownership ambition running back to 2017, Local Energy Scotland and now a Community Wealth Building Act.
England's nearest equivalent instinct runs through GB Energy's Local Power Plan, which is a public ownership idea rather than a community one.
I have to say the model is more present in Scottish thinking than in Scottish delivery, with a CLES blown away report in June finding community benefits much lower than the policy ambition.
I think it was about 3,600 per megawatt as opposed to the 5,000 per megawatt per year.
So should community wealth building be prominent in English thinking at all? Where are you coming from on this?
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
