There is much fanfare around Government changes to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) consenting process, the latest update to which is a
new suite of guidance published on the 3
rd July 2026, that comes into force this week - 24 July. The ambition of the changes is to cut through the procedural burden on applicants to make the process more attractive to use. In outline, changes involve redesigning the pre-application stage to create a more applicant-led process, with earlier technical input from PINS, removal of statutory consultation requirements and a greater focus on tracking the ‘main issues’ hopefully leading to a focused issue-led Examination.
There is undoubtedly a real effort being made in streamlining the process, but whether it will deliver on supposed time savings remains to be seen - as applicants are likely to remain nervous about shifting away from current practices on consultation, particularly with guidance removing procedural requirements yet still encouraging early engagement and consultation with all parties involved. There remains a need for Examinations to have no surprises - but how will this be achieved without supplying statutory consultees with sufficient information through meaningful (and time-consuming) consultation. But for data centre promoters, there is a lot to consider in deciding whether to progress projects through the DCO system.
Data Centre Options (DCO…?!)
Hugh Scanlon’s
blog in December last year discussed the potential implications of the reforms and opportunities for promoters, and in particular the latest state of play regarding data centre NSIP opt-in. The Government’s July 2026 consultation response re-affirms the reforms for data centre consenting, in particular the apparent benefits of the approach for data centre projects, stating:
Much-needed infrastructure like data centres can now opt in to the NSIP regime that allows developers to rapidly deliver these projects, if granted, through strict, fixed timeframes rather than facing endless delays locally. Ministers have already directed three data centre proposals into the NSIP regime at Wapseys Wood in Buckinghamshire, Ampthill Road in Bedford, and New Barn Lane in Dartford.
The tone set is to highlight the benefits of the DCO regime for data centre projects. However, while there is the possibility to opt-in, there is also the choice to opt out (if qualifying) where the SoS is satisfied that an alternative regime is appropriate for the development.
Guidance on Powers to Direct a Project into or out of the NSIP Regime discusses the alternative consenting regimes under which qualifying developments that can seek to opt out of the DCO process may consider as appropriate alternatives. The obvious being the TCPA, which to date has been the clear or only route for most Data Centre projects, though not without its trials.
What differences between DCO and TCPA should data centre developers be considering?
The attraction of the DCO route is its offer of a nationally managed process without local politics at play, clarity of timeframes from submission, and a single development consent that brings together planning permission, compulsory acquisition powers and other consenting powers within a single decision which may be difficult to assemble through a standard planning permission. For large data centre campuses involving grid connections, energy generation, complex highway works, or the need for compulsory acquisition, the DCO regime could provide a more attractive consenting route to a locally determined planning application.
However, the DCO process is front-loaded, resource-intensive and can be procedurally demanding (even with the removal of statutory consultation requirements). Promoters need a mature scheme, an efficient consultation and engagement strategy to enable the key issues to be drawn out and dealt with early on, detailed environmental material and legal input throughout. The new PINS guidance on preparing the DCO application reinforces the transition to applicant-led issues tracking during the pre-application stage to ensure the scheme submitted is examination ready.
Is opting-in a real alternative for data centres?
With only three data centre schemes currently opting in, attitudes towards the NSIP consenting option appears less than enthusiastic. Furthermore, two of these projects include on-site energy generation that would constitute NSIPs in their own right – in such circumstances, a single DCO for the entirety of the scheme (data centre and energy production) presents the only coherent consenting strategy for the proposals. However, earlier this month, a third was directed into the NSIP process, with the SoS stating in its Direction that the project by itself is nationally significant for the reasons of significant economic impact; driving economic growth; substantial physical size; and transboundary impacts. Perhaps we are on the cusp of a new wave of opt-in data centre schemes, as applicants look at the new streamlined consenting approach with new vigour?
To opt-in or not? What should developers consider going forward?
In advance of the long-promised National Policy Statement (NPS) on data centres, there is some uncertainty as to the potential treatment of data centres in the DCO system. The Government’s positive attitude towards the sector is clear (see the NPPF, its designation as Critical National Infrastructure, and various appeal precedents), but the NPS will need to cement this support. Assuming this outcome, potential DCO applicants may want to consider the following in consenting strategy decisions:
-
S35 qualifying criteria: Are projects of national significance? The opt-in mechanism depends on a Section 35 direction; it is not an entitlement. The promoter must demonstrate to the SoS that the project is nationally significant. Is there clear evidence to the economic impact and reach of the scheme; is the physical size and capacity that of national significance; is it important to the delivery of a NSIP or other significant development?
-
Other consents: Are compulsory acquisition powers required, or is there required links to power sources, grid infrastructure, highways or other enabling infrastructure that would require separate consents and licensing to enable delivery of the project?
-
Programme: The DCO process has statutory stages, with relatively fixed timeframes for most parts, and even with the removal of statutory consultation, the overall period is still likely to remain protracted. Comparison to other consenting regimes should be mapped with your planning consultant to consider realistic time savings.
-
Statutory consultee engagement: With the removal of statutory consultation, what’s ensuring the assistance of statutory consultees through the pre-application process – when their views and guidance on key issues to these major infrastructure projects is vital? The cost recovery system for some statutory consultees is a consideration but does not enforce the same mandatory participation in pre-application advice and consultation on NSIPs.
-
Local authority attitude to the sector/proposals: Local authority attitude towards development proposals is critical. Any reaction to an application proposal will of course be bespoke to the characteristics of that scheme and its context, but increasingly, issues related to power availability and a focus towards on-site job generation, rather than wider (and significant) economic benefit are heading agendas. Furthermore, with the rise in data centre development, promoters are facing increased interest from lobby groups, challenging the merits of the sector. Despite an NPPF direction to consider the needs of data centres in its plan-making and development management decisions, as a consequence of this context, the sector might find increased resistance to development proposals. In such a scenario with an unsupportive local authority, the DCO consenting option may well become a more attractive proposition.
In or Out?
The reforms represent a huge shift in NSIP consenting and only add to the attractiveness of the DCO process as a consenting option for major data centres schemes. Consenting strategies will remain dependent upon project circumstances, but Lichfields has witnessed an increased level of enquires from the sector exploring the possibilities on offer. The final piece in the jigsaw is the long-awaited data centre NPS – many are hoping that it will create sufficient encouragement to the burgeoning data centre sector to definitively tip the balance in favour of the ‘opt-in’. The early pioneers already the subject of successful s35 directions may be sitting pretty.
Footnotes
Lichfields has advised on the data centre proposals at Ampthill Bedfordshire
