Photo by John Fornof
Greenpeace UK has warned the Crown Estate that it is considering legal action over what the environmental group describes as “monopoly profiteering” that is driving up costs for offshore wind developers and energy bill payers. The threat comes ahead of Allocation Round 7, a major auction where energy firms are expected to bid for seabed plots on which to build new wind farms.
The environmental lobby group alleges the Crown Estate has driven up costs for wind power developers and boosted its own profits, as well as the royal household’s income, due to the “aggressive” way it auctions seabed rights. The Crown Estate, as the legal owner of the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is responsible for auctioning offshore wind rights and has benefited from the huge growth in the industry, commanding hefty option fees from renewable energy developers to secure areas of the seabed to build their wind farms.
The Crown Estate made a £1.1 billion profit in its financial year ended in March, double its level just two years ago. About 12% of Crown Estate profits flow to the monarchy through the sovereign grant to fund its work, though this was lowered from 25% in 2023 to offset the rise in profits from offshore wind projects. King Charles’s official income will jump from £86.3 million this year to £132.1 million in 2025-26, almost exclusively because of profits derived from offshore wind, according to Greenpeace.
Will McCallum, co-executive director at Greenpeace UK, said the estate should be “managing the seabed in the interest of the nation and the common good, not as an asset to be milked for profit and outrageous bonuses”. He added: “We should leave no stone unturned in looking for solutions to lower energy bills that are causing misery to millions of households. Given how crucial affordable bills and clean energy are to the government’s agenda, the chancellor should use her powers of direction to ask for an independent review of how these auctions are run. If the problem isn’t fixed before the next round, we may need to let a court decide whether or not what’s happening is lawful.”
Greenpeace argues the Crown Estate has a legal duty not to exploit its monopoly position as owner of the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but that it is now in breach of this obligation. The lobby group expressed concern that the Crown Estate is rationing supply of the seabed to protect high prices, and argued this could harm the development of offshore wind power in the UK.
The legal warning from Greenpeace comes after what the organisation describes as lengthy correspondence and a face-to-face meeting with Crown Estate management. In the first three auction rounds, the option fee paid by bidders was capped. However, in the fourth round that concluded in January 2023, the estate shifted to a price-uncapped competitive auction, leading to what Greenpeace characterises as a dramatic increase in fees that turned the seabed into the Crown Estate’s most lucrative source of revenue.
The Crown Estate Commissioner’s pay has risen fivefold from around £385,000 annually in the period 2015-2020 to £1.9 million in 2024-25. Greenpeace is requesting that excess profits from the last auction round be invested in marine recovery and is calling for an urgent review of the bidding process.
Writing to the Crown Estate Commissioners, Greenpeace pointed out that the estate has a legal duty to both support the UK in meeting its climate targets and to remove monopoly value from its seabed leasing. The Crown Estate Act 2025 includes an amendment stating that Commissioners must keep under review the impact of their activities on achieving sustainable development in the United Kingdom.
However, in replies to Greenpeace, the Crown Estate rejected the claim that it has a duty to support decarbonisation and cheaper energy prices, arguing instead that its duty is to “manage and turn to account the assets under its stewardship”—in effect, to maximise profit. This position appears to contrast with testimony given to MPs in 2010 by Roger Bright, then CEO of the Crown Estate, who stated that the organisation’s Act expressly prohibits exploiting its monopoly position.
A spokesperson for the Crown Estate said: “Greenpeace has misunderstood the crown estate’s legal duties and leasing processes. Option fees are not fixed by the crown estate. They are set by the developers through open, competitive auctions and reflect market appetite at the time. As our net revenue is returned to the Treasury, option fees help to ensure that taxpayers benefit from the requisite value from the development of our scarce and precious seabed resource.”
The spokesperson added: “The crown estate is accelerating offshore wind in line with government policy to move forward the energy transition at pace and improve energy security.”
A Treasury spokesperson said the Crown Estate “operates independently and makes its own commercial decisions”, adding that “every penny of profit [that] goes to the Treasury … [helps] pay for vital public services like schools and hospitals”.
Greenpeace also argues that the current system creates inefficiencies through a form of double charging for bill payers. As energy demand is higher in England, power generated by Scottish wind farms—where option fees are capped under Crown Estate Scotland—sometimes needs to be carried south. When transmission is not possible, wind turbines are paid to switch off through curtailment payments, creating an additional cost burden.
The dispute highlights tensions between maximising returns from public assets and supporting the deployment of renewable energy infrastructure necessary for meeting climate targets. The UK’s wind industry is at a critical juncture as the government plans to double onshore wind and quadruple offshore wind power capacity by the end of the decade—from around 15 GW today to between 43 and 50 GW by 2030.
The Crown Estate, which also includes a portfolio of London properties concentrated around Regent Street and St James’s, as well as rural real estate, is worth £15 billion. The property assets in London are valued at £7.1 billion. The outcome of Greenpeace’s threatened legal action could have significant implications for the future structure of seabed leasing in UK waters and the economics of offshore wind development.