Infrastructure Planning Blog

Today's entry looks at the Secretary of State's (SoS) decision to grant development consent for the Morgan and Morecambe offshore wind farms transmission assets project.

The decision letter dated 14 September 2026 is here. The Examining Authority's (ExA) recommendation to the SoS was to withhold consent and its report is here. The made Order is here.

This is a complex decision but what follows is hopefully a useful and (relatively) concise summary.

The Order grants consent for the transmission infrastructure required to connect the Morgan Offshore Wind Project: Generation Assets and the Morecambe Offshore Wind Farm: Generation Assets to the National Grid.

Those offshore wind projects were subject to separate Development Consent Order applications, granted in 2025 (see here and here). So, that's three separate but linked DCOs in total: two generation, one transmission connecting both wind farms to the National Grid. The generation projects are electrically independent of each other, with separate transmission cables albeit via a shared corridor (i.e., the project which is the subject of this blog entry), and are being delivered by two separate commercial entities.

This is where things get a little complex. The Morecambe offshore wind farm project is viable and likely to be developed. The Morgan offshore wind farm is subject to more uncertainty. Earlier this year, the developer of that project confirmed it was not proceeding with the project. The Crown Estate (TCE), which is responsible for the lease and grant of commercial rights for offshore wind farm development, has launched a tender for the Morgan Project and its view was that the project "remains viable and is likely to be brought forward by a new developer without significant delay". The SoS agreed.

However, the residual uncertainty in respect of the Morgan Project caused the SoS to make some notable changes to the made Order. In particular:

• Article 3(2) was added to the Order. The effect of this is that the transmission assets (TA) which service the Morgan offshore wind farm ("the Morgan TA") cannot be built until 1) another developer has taken on the Morgan project and entered into a lease with TCE, 2) written confirmation to that effect has been given to the SoS, 3) a funding statement for the Morgan TA has been given to the SoS; and 4) the SoS has confirmed that development of the Morgan TA can commence. Whew. In a nutshell, this prevents development of the Morgan TA until there is certainty the Morgan offshore wind farm project will go ahead. None of this affects the development of the Morecambe generation or transmission development.
• The removal of all compulsory acquisition powers in respect of the Morgan TA. This was to address the SoS' concerns about the ability to meet blight claims (which could follow if the Order was made with compulsory acquisition powers included) until a new developer comes on board and proves they have the financial standing to cover any blight liabilities. TCE was also unwilling to provide a short-term guarantee whilst the bidding process and subsequent transfer of the Morgan Project was taking place. The SoS has effectively excised all land powers which include provision for the payment of compensation including temporary possession (TP) powers, even though blight liability does not attach to TP powers. Unless all of the rights can be secured by agreement, the eventual developer of the Morgan TA will need to come back for compulsory acquisition powers another day.

This generally seems a pragmatic approach and is welcome to the extent that the obvious alternative would have been to refuse consent for the Morgan TA altogether. The lack of compulsory acquisition powers for the Morgan TA is obviously significant and the process for securing those later will take time.

There is much which could be said of a decision of this size, but here are our top five:

• Site selection and alternatives: a number of concerns were raised with respect to site selection and alternative cable routes and points of connection to the National Grid. These did not find favour with the SoS. In what is now a familiar rejection of those alternatives suggested, the SoS confirmed that paragraph 4.3.9 of the 2024 NPS EN-1 does not contain any requirement to consider alternatives or to establish whether the development proposed represents the best option from a policy perspective. Further, alternatives which are inchoate or immature (as here, in the SoS' view) can be excluded from consideration. In this case, National Grid Electricity Transmission made a number of submissions explaining why alternative points of connection to the National Grid were not being pursued. These carried significant weight in the SoS' view.
• Aviation: the development includes three ornithology mitigation areas to mitigate the effects of habitat loss for birds. The mitigation sites were opposed by aviation stakeholders, including Blackpool Airport, on the grounds of potential for increase bird strike risk to aviation safety. The Order includes a specific requirement (27) to address these concerns, which provides that the relevant works must not commence until a wildlife hazard management plan has been approved by the SoS. The SoS also amended the requirement to say that the plan can only be approved if the SoS is satisfied that it will manage aviation safety to "an acceptable level". If the plan fails to do so, "the Applicants are expected to use their best endeavours to identify alternative mitigation options which do not present a bird strike risk". This also meant that, on a reasonable worst-case basis, the SoS assigned significant negative weight to onshore ecology, biodiversity and intertidal ornithology, because it was possible that some of the identified mitigation would not come forward if the SoS concluded there were unacceptable risks to aviation safety.
• Section 106 obligation: the construction of the project would impact Blackpool Road Recreation Ground. A section 106 agreement was therefore proposed to provide appropriate mitigation. However, this had still not been agreed by the time of the SoS' decision. Therefore, the Order includes a somewhat unusual Grampian style requirement (28) preventing works affecting the recreation ground from commencing until a section 106 agreement, in a form acceptable to Fylde Borough Council, acting reasonably, is entered into. That does not give the developer much bargaining strength going forwards in those negotiations.
• Green Belt: this was the basis on which the ExA recommended refusal. The ExA concluded that elements of the development, most notably the onshore substations, would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The policy tests provide that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Those very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations (here, the benefits associated with renewable energy). In this case, the ExA concluded that the harm to the Green Belt, in combination with the other harms of the development, outweighed the benefits. The SoS took a different view, noting that the information supplied and agreements reached during the determination stage meant that "the various harms have reduced sufficiently". Accordingly, the SoS concluded that "the very special circumstances, in terms of the significant increase in the production of renewable energy, now clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm resulting from the Proposed Development".
• DCO changes:
  
  • The Order now precludes weekday site mobilisation activities, which could be noisy, an hour either side of the core construction hours. On that, the SoS was "disappointed that it took three requests for the Applicant to provide the requested updates".
  • The Order requires development to commence within five years of the Order, despite the applicant's request that it should be seven to reflect inherent uncertainties associated with the supply chain, contracting and project financing. The SoS concluded that these were the generic justifications and that the applicant had "failed to identify a specific reason which will delay the start of construction of the transmission project". However, a seven year period was granted for the exercise of compulsory acquisition powers in respect of the Morecambe transmission assets. The SoS said this was linked to the fact that the developer of the Morgan transmission assets would in all probability need to apply for compulsory powers and that process could take 12 to 18 months. On that basis, the SoS noted that "if [compulsory acquisition], [temporary possession] and other land powers for Morecambe TA are limited to five years, this could force Morecambe TA to push ahead, potentially precluding the option of a coordinated construction period with Morgan TA".

The next DCO decision due is Green Hill Solar Farm on 8 October, followed by the Steeple Renewable Project a couple of days later.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at September 2026.  For more information see our terms & conditions.