Onshore Wind Community Benefits Roundtable report
Overview
The UK Government has set a strategic ambition to deliver 27–29 GW of onshore wind generated energy by 2030, with new policies aimed at streamlining the planning system, updating the community benefits system, improving grid capacity, and reducing legal barriers. Yet progress on the ground remains limited, with the latest DESNZ data showing little movement compared with last year.
On 6 November 2025, renewable energy planning consultants, tor&co and Charles Russell Speechlys LLP, a City law firm with specialist clean-tech and renewable energy lawyers, hosted a roundtable to explore how social and economic benefit arrangements – including shared ownership models - can be structured to strengthen community buy-in and accelerate project delivery.
This report summarises and analyses the six core discussion topics from the onshore wind roundtable. The session examined the legal and policy context for community benefits and shared ownership, practical challenges in implementation, and options for future frameworks at both project and system level. The six topics were: best practice for community benefits (including transparency and governance), scope to leverage regional and local authority funds, the future of community shared ownership schemes, potential for a mandatory payment system, allocation of cost responsibility among stakeholders, and the planning “conundrum” given the legal position established by case law.
Executive Summary
On 6 November 2025 tor&co and Charles Russell Speechlys LLP held an industry roundtable. These are some of the take-away points from the discussion:
Policy ambition but slow progress
The UK aims for 27 – 29 GW of onshore wind by 2030. Despite policy moves to streamline planning, update community benefits, and improve grid capacity, delivery on the ground remains limited.
Legal position remains unchanged
Following Wright v Resilient Energy Severndale and Forest of Dean DC, voluntary community benefits are not material to planning decisions. Any benefits must be designed and administered strictly outside the planning determination process. Query whether some local plan policies requiring community benefits are lawful.
Current and emerging policy
Updated 2025 guidance keeps community benefits voluntary, with an index-linked benchmark of at least £5,000/MW/year for projects ≥5MW, delivered via community funds, bill discounts, or shared ownership options subject to prudent risk management. Government is expected to respond in early 2026 on introducing mandatory community benefits and “shared ownership” for low -carbon infrastructure; indications are that onshore wind may retain £5k/MW and solar fall in the £400–£1,000/MW range.
Mandatory schemes
A mandatory payment system could improve consistency and certainty. Design questions include basis of contribution (capacity vs output), treatment of technology differences and co-location, and apportionment among developers, suppliers and landowners. Viability impacts must be carefully managed; tying obligations to the generation licence holder may misalign with market practice and repowering realities. General consensus is against a mandatory scheme but favoured a more structured and transparent voluntary system being the expectation.
Case for a public register
There was broad support for a formal registry recording benefit flows, governance and outcomes to build trust, enable cross-project learning, and support cumulative impact planning. If any elements become mandatory, registry reporting should likely be mandated as well.
Local authority alignment without losing local control
Local Authority five-year local investment plans could help coordinate and co-fund across multiple projects, but many communities resist routing benefits through councils. A dual-track model—community control over decisions with local authority strategic frameworks and co-investment—was favoured.
Shared ownership
While attractive in principle, shared ownership faces barriers around capital, risk, and capacity. Hybrid models (e.g., income-linked benefits with a floor) can deliver participation without equity risk or upfront capital, maintaining the legal separation from planning considerations.
Cost allocation must balance incentives
Over-shifting costs to landowners could deter land availability; putting all costs on developers may threaten viability. Contributions should be simple, predictable, index-linked, and durable through transfers and repowering, with transparent treatment in land agreements.
Repowering experience
Communities often engage more constructively with community benefit proposals at repowering or extension stages, but community benefits cannot overcome fundamentally hostile local opposition to a scheme.
Best practice priorities
Early and continuous engagement, transparency, community-led decision-making, proportionality to project scale/impact, and long -term governance are essential. Defining the “community” is a recurring challenge; multi-tier allocations can balance local proximity with wider regional priorities. Robust governance is needed to avoid dominance by the loudest voices.
View the full report here.
