Delivery was the defining theme of Onshore Wind 2026. Delegates brought a sense of relentless optimism, albeit combined with frustration at the pace of deployment due to remaining barriers.

Discussions over the two days centred on how we move this well-established sector decisively into the delivery phase: aligning key stakeholders, accelerating grid and planning decisions, prioritising repowering and building durable community support. The scale of the opportunity is clear; coordinated delivery will determine whether it is realised.

Our key takeaways from Onshore Wind 2026 are:

1. The opportunity for UK onshore wind is substantial – but the 2030 target is at risk
2. Coordination, certainty and communities are the critical unlockers
3. Repowering is essential, but it is not an easy win
4. England presents a key opportunity, but its scale remains uncertain
5. Grid and planning barriers have alleviated but bottlenecks remain

1. The opportunity for UK onshore wind is substantial – but the 2030 target is at risk

The UK is among Europe’s leading onshore wind markets, supported by a positive policy outlook from both the UK and Scottish Governments. A third of the 42 actions in the 2025 Onshore Wind Strategy have already been delivered, demonstrating clear political intent. However, the ambition to reach 20 GW by 2030 looks increasingly difficult as grid and development timescales compress the delivery window. Repowering existing Scottish sites was hailed as the silver bullet to make a significant contribution to the target, but early exploration has indicated that this is not as easy as most hope.

2. Coordination, certainty and communities are the critical unlockers

Incremental reforms across policy, planning, grid and market design have reduced key obstacles, but no single entity controls every lever. Delivery depends on coordinated decisions across multiple diverse and independent stakeholders including OFGEM, NESO, Scottish Government, UK Government, Nature Scot, SEPA, MoD, CAA, Met office, DfT. This is particularly prevalent with e.g. Eskaledmiur (see later). TNUoS reform, greater transparency and clearer investment signals remain important for investor confidence.

The industry was prompted to communicate accurately and consistently to maintain public confidence, counter misinformation and bring onshore wind to the forefront of the political agenda. We were reminded that onshore wind remains one of the quickest and lowest-cost clean energy technologies available to the UK, and politically it is now being framed as addressing affordability and energy security, two key priorities for the current Governments, moving on from solely addressing carbon targets.

Community involvement was a central part of the conference with renewed discussions around meaningful community involvement embedded from the earliest stages of project. Technical excellence is not enough: developers need to listen, clearly explain trade-offs and demonstrate lasting local value. Strong engagement is central to securing support, especially in England and for repowering projects, and keeping projects deliverable.

3. Repowering is essential, but it is not an easy win

Repowering was a hot topic and remains one of the sector’s biggest opportunities, with renewed emphasis on the size of the opportunity specifically for Scotland. Yet it is more complex than initially expected. Existing wind farms should be treated as strategic energy assets, with established infrastructure, grid relationships and local acceptance. In practice, projects face uncertainty over additional grid capacity, access for larger modern turbines, noise constraints, environmental impact assessment baselines and planning assumptions that start from full restoration rather than continued energy use. A stronger presumption in favour of repowering, and earlier engagement on viable sites, could unlock investment and capacity.

4. England presents a key opportunity, but its scale remains uncertain

The potential for onshore wind development in England generated considerable discussion and enthusiasm. England’s opportunity is real, but projects are likely to be more difficult than originally anticipated or hoped because of population density, cultural heritage constraints and sensitivity around taller turbines. Some developers at the conference suggested that English projects are likely to be significantly smaller than hoped after the defacto ban on wind in England was lifted. However, this may favour small and medium-sized developers with this expertise. Success will depend on early, credible stakeholder engagement: policy change alone does not remove local concerns, particularly in places where wind development has not been visible for many years.

5. Grid and planning barriers have alleviated but bottlenecks remain

Any mention of grid tended to be followed with a bit of a heavy sigh once again this year. Grid queue reform has removed around 300 GW of projects and represents a major positive structural change, however many viable schemes are still waiting for connection offers and delivery remains slower than developers need. Discussion was centered on how this reform must now translate into credible, investable connection timelines. We are seeing a number of projects where connection dates are moving back 2-4 years despite being phase 1 projects.  In addition, revised connection offers are coming back with significantly higher costs which, in some cases, means these projects are no longer commercially viable. Despite the above there is still a very significant number of projects that will need to be delivered over the next 5-8 years.

There was a general consensus that planning barriers have eased, and significant recruitment within Scotland’s Energy Consents Unit is beginning to support faster decisions. However, limited local authority resources and lengthy national determinations continue to slow projects. Progress on aviation and seismic constraints around Eskdalemuir could unlock 5–6 GW (but we’re still eagerly awaiting to hear), while forthcoming guidance on environmental assessment and cable routes should improve consistency. Developers still need greater certainty on how much flexibility can safely be built into consent without increasing judicial review risk. The Strategic Spatial Energy Plan is expected to become a critical part of the development landscape and may become a material planning consideration. It should help developers identify priority areas, but concern was raised for it to retain enough flexibility to avoid excluding high-quality projects outside mapped zones.