Westminster has formally added data centres to the list of business and commercial projects that can be directed into the Planning Act 2008 regime. The statutory instrument made on 7 January and in force from 8 January 2026 inserts “Data centres” into the 2013 Regulations’ schedule, opening a national consenting option for major schemes in England. The drafting mirrors earlier categories such as tourism and industrial processes, but it is the first time stand‑alone data centres have been named. The legislation is narrow in wording but wide in impact for site selection, capital planning and power procurement across the sector. ([legislation.gov.uk](Link

What changes in practice is the route to consent. Rather than relying solely on local planning permission, qualifying projects can be “directed” by the Secretary of State into a single Development Consent Order (DCO) process under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects framework. The DCO timetable is defined: up to 28 days for acceptance, an examination capped at six months, then three months for the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation and three months for the ministerial decision. That creates clearer long‑stop dates for investment committees. ([infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk](Link

This is not a blanket designation. Ministers have been explicit that the regime is optional and case‑by‑case: developers may request to opt in, and a direction will only be given where a proposal is judged of national significance and the statutory tests are met. Government has also confirmed that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will prepare a dedicated National Policy Statement for data centres to guide decisions, including parameters and indicative thresholds. ([questions-statements.parliament.uk](Link

For finance directors and project sponsors, the draw is schedule certainty. The local route can still work for smaller builds, but the DCO’s statutory clock reduces timing risk on large, complex campuses-especially those bundling generation, grid upgrades, heat‑re‑use or water infrastructure. Pre‑application remains material and can run for months, yet once accepted, the process is time‑boxed, making it easier to sequence EPC procurement, equipment orders and offtake agreements against known milestones. ([infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk](Link

Power remains the real constraint. London Assembly analysis last month set out how rising electricity demand-including from clusters of data centres in West London-has already delayed new housing, prompting short‑term fixes but warning of structural capacity gaps through the 2030s without strategic upgrades. That finding underlines why developers are scouting beyond traditional hubs to locations with earlier grid capacity or co‑located generation. ([london.gov.uk](Link

Connection reforms are moving too. The system operator and Ofgem have begun reshaping Britain’s queue, prioritising shovel‑ready schemes and clearing long‑dormant projects. Industry briefings indicate the intention is to cut wait times materially and align limited capacity with projects most likely to deliver, a shift that could marginally improve timelines for energy‑hungry campuses if backed by timely network investment. ([spglobal.com](Link

Project scale and budgets are stepping up. Turner & Townsend and Savills put recent European build costs in a broad £7–£13 million per MW range, with averages drifting higher on AI‑grade designs. That pencils a 100MW campus at high hundreds of millions to low single‑digit billions before IT kit. Recent UK examples include the 85‑acre DC01UK scheme in Hertfordshire and a hyperscale campus in North East England that secured local approval in 2025, illustrating how site footprints and capital needs are expanding. ([savills.com](Link

The supply chain is tight. Global lead times for large transformers and high‑voltage gear remain extended, with manufacturers only now adding capacity after years of under‑investment. That matters because DCO certainty only bites if long‑lead electrical equipment can be locked in early; otherwise programmes slip back to the equipment delivery date. Developers should expect pricing pressure on critical power components to persist into the second half of the decade. ([reuters.com](Link

Human‑centred impacts will be felt locally. Construction phases support thousands of jobs on large campuses, while operational teams are smaller but skilled. Communities worry about noise, water use and traffic; the DCO examination puts those issues on the record and tests mitigations such as heat recovery to nearby users, on‑site storage and grid services. A clear policy statement from DSIT should reduce policy ambiguity for hosts while setting expectations on design standards and community benefits. ([questions-statements.parliament.uk](Link

Where this leaves investors: the risk profile changes, not the homework. The national route can compress consent risk and standardise documentation, but fundamentals still decide bankability-early grid rights, resilient cooling strategies, land assembly with buffer zones, and credible pathways for renewable supply. For many sponsors, the immediate step is a two‑track approach: maintain local applications while preparing a Section 35 request dossier to keep the DCO option live. ([legislation.gov.uk](Link

What to watch next. The DSIT National Policy Statement will be the key text for thresholds and siting cues, and the Planning Inspectorate’s enhanced pre‑application service-including a fast‑track pathway-should help experienced promoters map issues early. Expect the first wave of Section 35 directions to focus on very large, complex or power‑integrated campuses where a single consent and a clearer timetable unlock finance. ([questions-statements.parliament.uk](Link