This year’s theme, “Our Wind, Our Community”, feels particularly relevant as more projects begin to move from first-generation development into repowering.
Across the UK, a significant proportion of the wind fleet is ageing. Many projects were built under earlier subsidy regimes, with the Renewables Obligation (RO) coming to an end next year. At the same time, policy has shifted, grid capacity is constrained and the need for more clean, homegrown power is only becoming more urgent.
Repowering offers a practical answer. It can increase generation from sites that are already proven, already connected, and already familiar to host communities. In many cases, it can mean fewer turbines producing more electricity with a reduced overall footprint. But that does not mean the consent and engagement approach is straightforward.
For communities, repowering can feel like being asked to accept impact all over again. Some residents may ask why a project is coming back after years of operation. Others may expect more from developers than they did when the original scheme was consented. The lesson from Europe is technical upgrades alone are not enough. Repowering needs to be framed as a renewed community conversation.
Several European examples offer useful lessons for the UK:
In France, the Saint-Brieuc offshore wind farm in Brittany faced continuous opposition from the fishing industry and local marine stakeholders. The project’s eventual progress was not built on a single consultation exercise, but on structured dialogue over many years. Working groups, joint studies between the developer and local stakeholders (for example, impacts on fishing zones) and practical changes to the scheme helped to show that concerns could influence outcomes. For repowering, this is an important point. Communities need to see the process as a redesign opportunity, not simply a developer returning with a fixed plan.
That principle also comes through in Belgian and Italian examples. At Kluizendok in the Port of Ghent, repowering replaced older turbines with fewer, more productive machines. The message was not just that the project would generate more power, but that it would do so as part of an established industrial landscape. In Sicily, the Partinico and Monreale repowering scheme reduced the number of turbines significantly while increasing output. The narrative was simple and effective: better technology, lower visual clutter (and therefore impact) and more clean energy from an existing site.
For UK projects, ‘fewer turbines, more power’ is likely to be one of the strongest repowering messages available. However, it only works if communities can see what that means in practice. Visualisations matter. The Rampion offshore wind project, off the coast of Worthing in West Sussex, demonstrated the value of showing people clearly what they will see, rather than relying on abstract images. For repowering, before and after visuals should be central to engagement. They help reduce speculation and give residents a clear basis on which to respond.
Another lesson is that community benefit must feel tangible. In parts of Europe, wind projects have been linked directly to municipal revenue, lower local costs, improved public services or long-term community funds. The strongest examples are not framed as compensation, but as a continuing local return. In Tula, Italy, revenue sharing supported public services and tax reductions. In Allande, Spain, benefits were connected to community assets – the developers agreed to share project revenues locally and use the fundings for public buildings and local services. In Scotland, funds linked to wind projects have supported local priorities from youth services to transport and heritage.
For repowering, the question should not be “what benefit can we offer?” but “how can the value of an existing site be increased for the local area?” If a project is asking a community to host upgraded infrastructure for another generation, the benefit package should feel renewed as well. The key is shifting the narrative from ‘developer vs community’, to ‘developer and local government working together’.
The most successful examples also show that developers should be prepared to engage with detractors, not just supporters. Opposition groups often know the local area well and can identify issues that may otherwise emerge later in the process. The challenge is not to agree with every objection, but to demonstrate that concerns have been heard and considered. The most powerful phrase in any engagement process remains: “because of feedback, we have changed…”
This matters because wind, like other forms of infrastructure, is increasingly being delivered in a more politically contested environment. Public support for renewables remains strong at a national level, but individual projects are judged locally. Land use, visual impact, ecology, construction disruption and fairness all shape whether a project is seen as acceptable.
Repowering has an advantage because it starts from a site that already works. But it also carries a responsibility. Developers cannot assume that familiarity equals consent. Communities may have lived with the impacts of a wind farm for decades. They will expect honesty about what changes, what improves and what stays the same.
The core repowering narrative should therefore be clear: we are upgrading an existing site, reducing overall impact where possible, increasing clean power output, and renewing the local value created by the project.
To conclude:
Global Wind Day’s theme is a useful reminder that wind energy is not only about turbines, megawatts and grid connections. It is also about the places that host projects and the relationships that sustain them over time. As the UK enters a new phase of wind repowering, the industry has an opportunity to take the best lessons from Europe and apply them with care.
The projects that succeed will be those that communicate clearly, engage early and show that communities are not simply being asked to accept change, but to help shape it.