- The government has approved the transmission infrastructure needed to connect the 480 MW Morecambe offshore wind farm to the grid at Penwortham.
- Morecambe now has consent for both its turbines and transmission system, alongside a seabed lease and an agreed grid-connection date.
- Planning risk has fallen sharply, but the project still requires a bankable revenue route, financing and a final investment decision.
The 480 MW Morecambe offshore wind farm has cleared its principal planning barriers after the UK government approved its offshore and onshore transmission infrastructure.
The development consent order covers export cables, landfall works, onshore substations, grid-connection cables and circuit-breaker compounds required to connect the project to National Grid’s Penwortham substation in Lancashire.
The application was submitted in October 2024 and examined alongside transmission assets for the neighbouring Morgan offshore wind project. The Planning Inspectorate delivered its recommendation in January, but the government extended its decision deadline from May to September while seeking further information.
Morecambe’s offshore generating assets had already received consent in December 2025. The new decision therefore completes development consent for the overall project, which is located approximately 30km off Lancashire and is intended to enter operation around 2029-30.
Owner Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners estimates that the wind farm could generate electricity equivalent to the consumption of more than 500,000 UK homes. Copenhagen Offshore Partners is leading its development and construction.
“The Secretary of State’s decision follows many years of development and engagement with local stakeholders,” COP UK and Ireland chief executive Holly Cartwright said. The developer will now move into detailed design and delivery work.
Shared corridor
Consent is facing an unusual complication. It was developed jointly with Morgan, a much larger project whose original sponsors EnBW and JERA Nex BP decided in January not to proceed with their agreement for lease.
The transmission order nevertheless covers two electrically separate systems. Morecambe says it remains viable independently and already possesses a secured seabed lease and agreed grid-connection date.
Morgan’s consent still has option value. The Crown Estate launched a competitive process to return the consented 1.5GW site to the market, aiming to select a new developer during 2026. Preserving its permitted transmission route should reduce the time and risk facing any replacement investor.
The joint corridor does, however, create interface risks. Developers and authorities must determine how shared construction assumptions, environmental mitigation and land access operate if the two projects advance on different schedules. Morecambe’s progress does not depend on Morgan’s electrical system, but delayed coordination could still affect costs and sequencing.
There is also local opposition to the chosen onshore route. Lancashire County Council, Fylde Council and Wyre Council had asked ministers to consider alternatives around Rossall, Stanah and Hillhouse. A council-commissioned assessment claimed these could avoid up to £520mn in national infrastructure costs and support about 1,100 additional jobs. Those figures are the councils’ estimates rather than government findings.
The larger commercial issue is revenue. Development consent authorises construction; it does not provide an electricity offtake contract or guarantee financing. No Contract for Difference (CfD) award or final investment decision for Morecambe has been announced.
That distinction is increasingly important in UK offshore wind. Consenting delays remain serious, but higher capital costs, turbine supply chain pressures and the price available under government auctions have become equally decisive.
Morecambe is now materially more investable because its planning package, lease and connection position are substantially assembled. Its next milestone must show that those permissions can be converted into an economic project – most plausibly through a future CfD round – without reopening the cost and coordination problems that planning consent has just settled.
