Policy tailwinds and new consenting routes

A major shift since late 2024 is that planning policy in England has moved from treating data centres implicitly to explicitly referencing them. The updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities to consider data centres when preparing local plans and determining applications, giving greater weight to demonstrated need and to the sector’s specific locational requirements.

This policy direction strengthens the strategic case for development, but it does not eliminate scrutiny. The land strategy still needs to show how a proposal fits its setting and how key local impacts are mitigated, particularly in constrained markets, where competing uses, limited industrial land, and community concerns (See Social Impact section of the report) can intensify the planning debate.

At the same time, consenting routes are broadening. Larger schemes can opt into the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) regime and seek approval via a nationally determined Development Consent Order (DCO), while AI Growth Zones are being positioned as another acceleration mechanism for major AI-related infrastructure. In combination, these changes mean consent strategy is increasingly about selecting the right route for scale and context, and assembling evidence and landing early enough to withstand potential challenges.

The hidden critical path: land rights beyond the red line

Even with supportive policy, projects can stall on land consents that sit outside the site boundary. In practice, the most time-sensitive agreements often relate to third party land needed for cable and pipe routes, surveys, temporary working areas delivery and construction access. When this work starts late, sponsors can face programme risk and inflated compensation expectations, especially where a small number of owners control unavoidable corridors.

Best practice is to run land rights as an early, parallel workstream: map ownership, test constraints through targeted surveys, and secure voluntary rights, such as easements or option agreements, before construction timetables harden. Where voluntary agreements cannot be reached on reasonable terms, a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) can provide a statutory back stop, but it is not a quick fix. It requires early preparation, a clear record of reasonable engagement and offers, and acceptance that determinations can be uncertain. Used well, CPO preparation reduces exposure to last-minute ‘ransom’ situations while keeping negotiated solutions as the preferred route.

Because these consents touch multiple parties, developers, contractors, utilities and landowners, risk allocation matters. Misalignment in approach, documentation, or the timetable can create avoidable exposure. Treating land consents as a governed package, with clear decision points and realistic lead times, is increasingly central to protecting delivery and value.

Investor and developer checklist: what to underwrite

• Start beyond the boundary early: treat third party land rights, surveys, access and reinstatement as a critical path workstream, not a post-design task.

• Price negotiation and delay risk: assume corridor control can translate into schedule pressure and higher compensation expectations if engagement starts late.

• Use CPO strategically (not reactively): if a Compulsory Purchase Order may be needed as a back stop, begin evidence-building early and plan for timetable uncertainty.

• Choose the consenting route deliberately: align project scale with the most appropriate pathway (local planning vs NSIP/DCO vs acceleration mechanisms) and tailor the evidence accordingly.

• Govern interfaces and accountability: ensure delivery partners share the same approach to land rights, documentation and decision-making so the programme is not undermined by misalignment.

>>  For more information, please contact our EMEA Data Centre Advisory team

_{Read the articles within Spotlight: UK Data Centre Building Capacity below.}