Permitted development rights for onshore wind turbines in England

Now I have the full consultation text. Here's the memo:

---

What this is about

Since 2015, onshore wind in England has been subject to planning restrictions that made new deployment nearly impossible. The Conservative government's changes to the National Planning Policy Framework required communities to identify specific sites for onshore wind and gave local objectors an effective veto. The result: England's cheapest generation technology was frozen out while Scotland and Wales continued deploying.

This consultation proposes a new permitted development right (PDR) allowing small-scale wind turbines — up to 30m tip height and 200m² swept area, roughly 50kW capacity — on non-domestic land in England without a full planning application. The scope is deliberately narrow: one turbine per site, non-domestic only (farms, businesses, public buildings), with prior approval from the local planning authority on siting and amenity. DESNZ frames this as supporting energy independence for businesses, not as a return to utility-scale onshore wind. It follows the July 2025 Onshore Wind Taskforce Strategy, which committed to consulting on PDRs.

The ambition is modest. A 50kW turbine at 20% load factor generates roughly 88,000 kWh/year — enough to power a medium-sized farming operation but a rounding error in terms of the generation mix. The structural significance lies in the precedent: this is the first relaxation of England's onshore wind planning restrictions in over a decade, and the consultation explicitly asks whether the scope should be wider.

Options on the table

#### Option 1: New PDR for single small-scale non-domestic turbines (the core proposal)

A single standalone turbine, maximum 30m tip height and 200m² swept area (≤50kW), on non-domestic premises. Subject to: MCS certification, buffer distances (tip height + 10% from site boundary; 10× rotor diameter from neighbouring homes), excluded sites (National Parks, AONBs, SSSIs, conservation areas, listed building curtilage, safeguarded land), non-reflective blades, decommissioning obligation, and prior approval from the LPA on siting, amenity, and contamination risk.

Who wins: Farmers, rural businesses, and public sector bodies with enough land to meet the buffer distances. The turbine industry gets a reopened market segment. Consumers see no direct impact at this scale — the volumes are too small to move wholesale prices.

Who loses: Local objectors lose the ability to block small installations through the planning process, though prior approval on siting still gives LPAs oversight. The constraint is practical: only 31 domestic turbines have been MCS-certified in England since 2009, so uptake may be limited regardless.

#### Option 2: Larger or multiple turbines (explored but not proposed)

The consultation asks whether PDRs should cover turbines above 30m or allow multiple turbines per site, potentially scaled to land area (e.g. one turbine per 100 hectares). No specific proposal is made — DESNZ is testing appetite.

Who wins: Larger agricultural holdings and businesses with high energy demand. Multiple small turbines or a single larger one could meet more of a site's energy needs.

Who loses: The visual and noise cumulative impacts increase. DESNZ flags this as the reason for caution: clustering effects, landscape character, and acoustic overlap. The EIA threshold also bites — any turbine with a hub height exceeding 15m triggers EIA screening, which could negate the streamlining benefits of a PDR for larger installations.

#### Option 3: No change to domestic PDRs (proposed)

DESNZ proposes leaving existing domestic PDRs unchanged (11.1m standalone, 15m building-mounted, 3.8m² swept area). The rationale: only 31 certified installations since 2009, larger turbines would over-generate for household needs, and bigger turbines in residential settings raise amenity concerns.

Who wins: Neighbours of domestic properties who would object to larger garden turbines.

Who loses: Homeowners with suitable sites who cannot install anything meaningful under the current 3.8m² swept area limit. DESNZ asks whether improvements could be made, but is clearly not minded to act here.

#### Option 4: No PDR for repowering or community energy (proposed)

DESNZ considers repowering and community energy projects too large and complex for PDRs. Repowering typically uses bigger turbines with different impact profiles. Community energy needs scale to be financially viable, pushing beyond 30m.

Who wins: The planning system retains oversight of larger installations.

Who loses: The repowering pipeline. Existing wind farms reaching end-of-life face the same planning barriers as new builds, despite being on established sites with known impacts. Community energy groups lose a potential route to faster deployment. DESNZ points to the NPPF reforms (which proposed giving "substantial weight" to low-carbon development on established sites) as the alternative route.

Questions being asked

#### Scope and eligibility (Q1–Q4)

- Q1a–b: Should a new PDR be introduced for non-domestic wind turbines? [The gateway question — if you oppose the principle, this is where to say so.] - Q2a–b: Should the PDR be limited to a single turbine per site? - Q3a–d: Are the 30m tip height and 200m² swept area limits right? - Q4a–h: Should larger turbines or multiple turbines be permitted, and under what criteria? [DESNZ is testing whether the scope should be wider than the core proposal. The land-area-proportional approach — one turbine per 100 hectares — is floated as an example.]

#### Siting restrictions (Q5–Q8)

- Q5a–b: Is the excluded sites list correct? [National Parks, AONBs, SSSIs, conservation areas, listed buildings, safeguarded land. DESNZ is asking whether anything should be added or removed.] - Q6a–f: Are the additional protections for heritage sites, habitat sites, and radar sufficient? [The radar question is notable — wind turbines interfere with air traffic control and defence radars, and DESNZ hasn't yet decided what the condition should look like.] - Q7a–d: Are the buffer distances right — tip height + 10% from boundary, 10× rotor diameter from neighbouring homes? - Q8a–b: Should there be a mandatory separation distance between turbines on neighbouring sites? [This targets clustering — adjacent farms each installing a turbine could create cumulative impacts that no single installation would trigger.]

#### Standards and conditions (Q9–Q11)

- Q9a–e: Is MCS certification the right standard? Should equivalents be accepted? [DESNZ wants MCS but is open to alternatives to avoid restricting the market to MCS-certified products only.] - Q10a–d: Should blades be non-reflective and turbines decommissioned when no longer needed? - Q11a–b: Should LPAs have prior approval over siting, amenity, and contamination? [This is the key question on local authority oversight. Prior approval is lighter than a full planning application but heavier than pure permitted development.]

#### Broader scope (Q12–Q17)

- Q12: Any other impacts to consider? - Q13: How should EIA requirements interact with the PDR? [The tension: a 30m tip-height turbine with a hub height above 15m triggers EIA screening, potentially requiring a full planning application anyway.] - Q14a–b: Should existing domestic PDRs be changed? - Q15a–c: Should there be a PDR for repowering? How else could planning be improved for repowering? - Q16a–c: Should there be a PDR for community energy? How else could planning be improved for community energy? - Q17: Any other circumstances where PDRs could apply to onshore wind?

#### Evidence and general (Q18–Q20)

- Q18: Further comments. - Q19: Evidence on load factors, installation forecasts, barriers, wider impacts. [DESNZ is building its impact assessment — data submissions here will directly shape the cost-benefit analysis.] - Q20a–b: Equality impacts.

How to respond

Deadline: 10 June 2026

Online (preferred): https://energygovuk.citizenspace.com/energy-security/permitted-development-rights-onshore-wind-turbines

Email: onshorewind@energysecurity.gov.uk

Post: Not recommended — DESNZ says they may not be able to access postal responses.

DESNZ aims to publish its response in Autumn 2026, within 12 weeks of the consultation closing.