Government U-turns on planning approvals

However, ahead of the court case’s first hearing on 22 January 2026, the government issued a legal letter admitting that its decision to grant planning permission for the project should be quashed.

The government said in the letter – seen by Computer Weekly – that it had received assurances that a “suite of mitigation measures” would be in place that would negate the need for an EIA, but it admitted that not all of these measures were secured at the time permission for the project was granted.

“The secretary of state accepts that in screening out EIA based on mitigation measures, but then failing to secure those measures, there was a serious logical error… [and] the secretary of state accepts that the [legal] claim is arguable and permission [for the project] should be quashed.”

This admission has now prompted calls for a reassessment of two other hyperscale datacentre projects the government has previously decided should go ahead, despite planning permission for them being initially denied at local authority level.

Among those calling for a reassessment of past projects the government has given the green light to, in the wake of the government’s U-turn on the WLTP project, is Tom Hegarty, head of communications at Foxglove.

“That should be an urgent wake-up call to halt the mad rush to build out massive datacentres at any cost that has been an obsession of this government,” he told Computer Weekly. “Having acknowledged the shoddy state of their decision at [WLTP], we have to hope ministers will now learn that pushing these power-guzzling monsters through without a thought for the environmental consequences is not the right way forward.”

This is a also view shared by Mark Butcher, founder and director of IT sustainability consultancy Posetiv Cloud, who said the government’s stance on the WLTP development makes it “difficult, if not impossible” to justify not re-examining other large datacentres approved under similar circumstances.

“At the very least, [these projects] should be reviewed for consistency,” Butcher told Computer Weekly. “This is not about opposing datacentres in principle, but from a planning and legal perspective, [it is] about ensuring there is credibility in the planning system and that due process has been followed.

“There is also an important planning-system angle here. Inconsistent application of EIAs creates real problems for planners. It undermines professional judgement, increases legal and judicial review risk, and makes future decisions harder to defend.”

The government’s other green-lit projects

Out of the other projects the government has given its seal of planning approval to, one is also based in Iver, Buckinghamshire and is being overseen by US investment company Affinius Capital. The government granted that development permission to proceed in December 2024.

Computer Weekly contacted Affinius Capital for an update on how the project was progressing, given more than a year has passed since approval for the build was granted. At the time of writing, no response had been received.

However, Computer Weekly is aware that the go-live date for that development hinges on work the National Grid is doing in the local area to bolster energy availability through the creation of its new Uxbridge Moor substation, which is due for completion in 2029.

The other hyperscale datacentre the government has given its blessing to is another Greystoke development, located in Abbots Langley, Hertfordshire. Planning for that project was originally denied by Three Rivers District Council in January 2024, before the government overturned that decision in May 2025.

As is the case with the WLTP development, the local councils overseeing both projects said the developers did not need to submit an EIA as part of their planning applications.

Computer Weekly contacted Greystoke for a progress update on the Abbots Langley development, but the company said it had no comment to make regarding the project at this time. 

According to Butcher, the fact one of these approved developments has been retrospectively deemed to require an EIA leaves the government open to questions about why other projects of comparable scale are being treated differently. And that kind of uncertainty and inconsistency is likely to concern investors, but also developers plotting similar projects across the UK, he continued.

“[It will] likely push more cautious capital towards regions with clearer, more predictable planning frameworks,” he said. “From a government perspective, the approach also looks hugely short-sighted. By prioritising speed of approval and treating datacentres as nationally critical infrastructure without robust scrutiny, environmental and social risks are effectively pushed down to local authorities and communities.”

As mentioned, two of the projects the government has approved are in the same area, with approximately 10 miles separating them. They are also set to be built on the outskirts of West London and within the South East, which are already densely populated with datacentres.

If developers were mandated, for example, to complete an EIA as part of their planning permission applications, it would make it easier to assess the combined and cumulative impact of building so many datacentres in one area, added Butcher.

“Individually, sites may appear manageable, but without EIAs there is no proper mechanism to assess the combined effect of multiple hyperscale developments on regional power capacity, water stress, carbon intensity and community infrastructure,” he said. “That is exactly what we are now seeing in London and the South East, and is a significant part of wider infrastructure and resilience risk assessments.”

One of the drawbacks of planning for projects being viewed in this siloed way can be seen from the concerns previously raised about the impact that the influx of datacentres into West London, specifically, has had on the region’s energy security.

Speaking to Computer Weekly, John Booth, managing director of sustainability-focused IT consultancy Carbon3IT, said this is precisely why the UK datacentre industry is so keen to see the government deliver on its promised national planning policy statement.

“We’ve been asking for planning guidance for years and were advised that a national planning policy statement would be published in December 2025, but we are still waiting,” he said. “If planning guidance was in place, EIAs would be required, but most operators ask for a screening assessment for EIA prior to outline planning. If a local authority says no, then the EIA is still probably done but just not submitted.”

And datacentre operators are keen to do the right thing and would rather submit an EIA than not because they want to be seen as good citizens in the local communities where they are plotting to build their server farms, said Booth, adding: “Datacentres are trying to be as environmentally sound as they can be, but with a confused policy environment, this is difficult for them – hence our desire for guidance.”

Having planning approvals for datacentres based on a set of standards that are being “consistently applied” across different projects would be a huge benefit to operators, said Positiv Cloud’s Butcher. “Failing to do [so] risks the accusations and perceptions that the planning system is biased and being applied selectively, which ultimately slows the sector down through opposition, legal challenge and loss of trust,” he said.

In terms of what should be contained in such guidance, Foxglove’s Hegarty said it would be good to see the inclusion of an EIA made a “mandatory baseline for any datacentre planning application” as a starting point.

“[We also need to] mandate credible and enforceable conditions that require each datacentre operator, from Amazon to Equinix, to supply the full power needs of each site through new renewables at all times, so they don’t drain the grid and jack up prices for everyone else,” he said. “Otherwise, ministers will have demonstrated once again they are happy for Big Tech to reap the profits of polluting datacentres while our environment carries the cost.”

Computer Weekly contacted the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for comment on the points raised in this story, but no response was forthcoming by the time of publication.