Lee Gordon, partner in the planning and infrastructure consents team at Walker Morris, examines whether recent planning reforms have genuinely accelerated data centre delivery or simply provided an alternative route through the planning system
The UK’s ambition to become a global leader in the digital economy has placed data centres at the heart of economic growth, innovation and investment. Demand for computing power continues to rise rapidly, driven not least by automation and AI adoption. As a result, pressure is growing on the planning system to facilitate data centre delivery.
Recent planning reforms mean data centres can now seek consent through the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) regime via a Development Consent Order (DCO), rather than relying solely on the traditional planning application process under the Town & Country Planning Act (TCPA). For the right project, this has the potential to help expedite delivery.
While the change has been widely welcomed, the new route is not necessarily a simple solution to accelerating development though.
Under the reforms, developers can apply for a Section 35 Direction from the secretary of state, allowing qualifying projects to be treated as nationally significant infrastructure and considered under the NSIP regime. This is a quick and relatively straightforward process. The key potential benefits of doing so are:
Ability to incorporate other consents into the DCO, including compulsory acquisition powers where third-party land rights are required for the project.
Ability to combine an energy generation project with a data centre project under a single consenting route. Data centres have significant power needs; some will have a long wait for a grid connection and interim energy generation projects of over 50MW would qualify as an NSIP in their own right.
Typically, greater predictability in terms of overall timescales and outcome (though not necessarily faster, see below).
Secretary of state as the ultimate decision-maker rather than local planning authority.
Therefore, the principal advantages of the NSIP are greater certainty and the extra powers that can be included in the DCO. With the DCO process operating within a defined timetable, with a final decision made by the secretary of state, it provides developers with greater confidence over timescales and outcomes for very significant projects.
There have been a few early examples of developers of data centres “opting in” to the DCO process. See examples on page three. This is particularly the case for very large developments where there is co-location with an energy generation project.
In contrast, applications submitted through the TCPA route remain under the control of local planning authorities (LPAs). This means if planning is refused, developers may face further delays, uncertainty and expense through the appeals process. However, where an LPA is supportive of a scheme, then there is the potential for the TCPA route to be faster and less costly.
The greater certainty offered by the NSIP regime can come with significant financial and resource implications. While recent reforms have sought to speed up the DCO process by removing the statutory requirement for extensive pre-application consultation, in practice, for significant data centre developments there will be extensive work involved at the pre-application stage regardless of the consenting route.
The scrutiny of a time-limited DCO examination only increases the importance of ensuring the application is as well prepared as it can be. This means applicants also typically wish to engage with key consultees early both to agree methodologies of assessment and seek to address any fundamental issues.
Developers must therefore assess whether the benefits of a DCO justify the additional investment when compared with a conventional planning application. This is particularly important where the LPA actively support data centre investment, has favourable planning policies or has identified suitable employment and infrastructure sites and where no additional statutory powers are required to deliver the project as the traditional planning route may be a more cost-effective and timely pathway to consent.
The future
Further planning reforms are anticipated, including proposals for a new National Policy Statement (NPS) specifically addressing data centres within the DCO process. We expect this will set out criteria for determining whether a project is of national significance and can proceed down the DCO route and include policy criteria against which DCO applications will be considered.
The draft NPS was originally expected to be published in early 2026 but has been subject to delays. Once published, it will provide greater certainty for both applicants and stakeholders.
Two routes, one objective
The decision to open the NSIP regime to data centres reflects the growing strategic importance of digital infrastructure and provides developers with an additional route to consent where local support may be uncertain or additional powers may be required.
However, the reforms have not removed the inherent complexities of planning major infrastructure projects. The NSIP process still requires extensive consultation, stakeholder engagement and local authority involvement, and it does not guarantee faster delivery.
Instead, developers have two distinct planning options. One offers greater certainty through a nationally significant infrastructure process, albeit with increased cost and complexity. The other may be more efficient where local policy and authority support align with development objectives.
Recent TCPA appeal decisions for data centres demonstrate that the path to consent through the TCPA processes can often be contentious, adding to project timescales and increasing risk.
The proposed development at Iver, Buckinghamshire, is a case in point as this required both a planning appeal and then permission was quashed following a legal challenge. Regardless of the route, it remains imperative to have legally robust applications and decision-making processes to ensure applications stand up to scrutiny at appeal, during DCO examination or during a judicial review challenge.
Ultimately, the question is not whether NSIP is better than TCPA. The challenge is determining which route best meets the needs of the project, balancing certainty, powers, cost, timing and local support. Planning reform has expanded the options available to data centre developers but it’s a new pathway rather than a shortcut.
Practical examples of data centres planning applications
Below are recent examples of applicants of hyperscale projects seeking to use the DCO process and opting into this. Projects remain at an early pre-application stage.
Wapseys Wood Data Centre Campus, Buckinghamshire
The secretary of state issued a Section 35 Direction in March 2026, allowing a proposed hyperscale campus of up to c.300MW to proceed through the DCO regime as a nationally significant project.
The decision cited the project’s economic significance, growth benefits and impacts extending beyond a single local authority area.
In addition, the project includes and energy centre which would qualify as a NSIP in its own right and combining with the data centre proposals into a single DCO application would avoid multiple consents.
New Barn Road Data Centre Campus, Dartford
A Section 35 Direction was granted in July 2026 for a proposed AI-focused data centre campus of up to 300MW. The secretary of state considered the scheme nationally significant due to its economic impact, scale and strategic importance.
By contrast, a number of major data centres have recently secured consent under the TCPA regime, albeit often after protracted appeals, highlighting both the opportunities and risks associated with the current transitional policy landscape.
Court Lane, Iver (Buckinghamshire)
A 65,000 sq m hyperscale data centre was approved by the secretary of state in December 2024 following a recovered planning appeal.
Bedmond Road, Abbots Langley (Hertfordshire)
An approximately 84,000 sq m data centre was approved on appeal by the secretary of state in 2025.
Woodlands, Iver (Buckinghamshire)
A 72,000 sq m, 90MW hyperscale data centre was approved on appeal in July 2025 following local authority refusal.
The secretary of state attached significant weight to national need and economic benefits.
However, this permission was successfully challenged in the courts due to the secretary of state accepting a serious legal error had been made through a failure to follow appropriate environmental impact assessment processes.
The post Data centres and planning reform: Which route to take appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.