RWE’s Dogger Bank South development consent is reportedly facing a judicial review bid by Equinor, SSE and Vårgrønn after a long-running dispute over wake effects between neighbouring offshore wind projects in the UK North Sea.
The reported challenge concerns the consent granted for Dogger Bank South East and Dogger Bank South West, the two offshore wind farms being developed by RWE and Masdar.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero confirmed on 14 May 2026 that the Planning Inspectorate process had ended with development consent under the Planning Act 2008. Lord Whitehead approved the decision on behalf of the UK Energy Secretary’s legal authority.
The legal issue is not whether offshore wind is needed, but how the planning system deals with commercial harm between neighbouring infrastructure projects.
Dogger Bank A, Dogger Bank B and Dogger Bank C are being developed by SSE Renewables, Equinor and Vårgrønn, with SSE leading construction and Equinor expected to operate the wind farm once complete.
In Planning Inspectorate filings, the Dogger Bank project companies argued that wake effects from Dogger Bank South could reduce output across DBA, DBB and DBC and said modelling indicated potential lifetime losses of about £669 million in 2025 terms.
RWE and Masdar have taken the opposing position through the consent process, disputing the wake-loss case and pressing ahead with detailed design, procurement and a planned final investment decision in 2027.
RWE says the 3GW Dogger Bank South project secured Contracts for Difference in Allocation Round 7 and could generate enough electricity for about three million UK homes each year. The official consent also covers associated offshore and onshore cables, converter stations and connections to the National Grid.
Burges Salmon advised RWE on the development consent order and related consenting matters, with the firm naming Jen Ashwell and Julian Boswall as leads on the planning and compulsory purchase team.
That gives the dispute clear legal-sector significance beyond energy policy because it raises questions about evidence, mitigation, protective provisions and compensation in nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Wake-loss evidence is now likely to carry more weight in offshore wind, transmission, ports and interconnector work, particularly where one project may reduce the output or commercial value of another.
The dispute also gives energy lawyers and in-house teams a clear reason to keep stronger records of engagement with neighbouring asset owners where revenue forecasts, subsidy assumptions or financing covenants could be affected.
Law firm management should see the dispute as a sign that renewable infrastructure work is moving from consent promotion into high-value contentious planning, judicial review and project-risk advice.
The next legal test will be whether the reported challenge produces a court ruling capable of reshaping how future offshore wind consents address wake-loss evidence and compensation.