The UK is in a hurry to build new datacentres. Not wanting to be left behind, the Starmer government green-lit plans for new sites up and down the country, along with five dedicated artificial intelligence (AI) “growth zones”. Early into the Burnham administration, there have been no clear changes in tack, although he’s yet to fully set out his stall on the issue.
This swathe of new datacentres has sent alarm bells ringing among campaigners. Concerns have been raised about their economic benefits: some argue new jobs will only be created in the construction phase, with few staff needed to maintain the centres when they’re up and running. Others have questioned whether they should be prioritised over other key infrastructure or housing.
But perhaps the most prominent criticism levelled at datacentres is of their environmental impact. These centres threaten to ramp up energy demand at a time where the public is being told to use less energy. Some have argued the grid may not be able to handle the extra demand, and some datacentres will rely on gas rather than renewables.
Datacentres also need clean water to keep them cool – an issue brought into sharp focus this summer amid five successive heatwaves, and a subsequent hosepipe ban. How much water these datacentres use is contested, but the trade body Water UK says it could reach nearly 20 million litres a day by 2030, equivalent to 60,000 homes. Meanwhile, operators have been accused of obscuring their figures.
Nature’s Rights bill
A separate – but intertwined – conversation has been happening around how the UK manages its natural resources. Some environmental campaigners have been looking to overhaul the UK’s planning and legal systems altogether and massively strengthen safeguards.
Inspired by circular economics and indigenous approaches to rights, the Green peer – and former party leader – Natalie Bennett has put forward a Nature’s Rights bill, which is currently at committee stage in the House of Lords.
“We clearly need a different approach,” says Bennett. Current regulations are centred on “how much we will allow nature to be trashed”, she says. She would instead like a system where the environment is the top consideration.
The bill would create a hierarchy of rights between the environment, people and development. Nature would be recognised as possessing intrinsic rights and as “the foundation of human life, society and economic activity”.
Meanwhile, “economic, corporate and property rights are to be exercised within, and in a manner that supports rather than undermines, the rights of nature and human rights”, its wording states.
Bennett continues: “Although this is new in the British context, it’s something that has a history [for] as long as [there have been] human beings.” She points to protections granted to natural features in places such as New Zealand and Ecuador, which build on Indigenous approaches to land stewardship.
Bennett is under no illusions that it might be tricky to get the bill passed – the odds are never good for a private member’s bill from the House of Lords, selected by lottery – but she wants it to “start a debate”, and she hopes that forcing a conversation about the bill in Parliament could lead to similar legislation in the future.
Legal challenges
So, what would this mean for the dozens of new datacentres expected in the UK in the coming years?
While her bill doesn’t explicitly address individual industries, Bennett is concerned with the recent proliferation of datacentres and the amount of clean water required to run them, stating: “We need to protect it for growing food. We need to protect it for the nature that we need around us.” A nature’s rights approach would be one mechanism to enforce this, she adds.
Earlier this year, a legal challenge was made against a “hyperscale” datacentre in Buckinghamshire. The case – brought by campaigning organisations Foxglove and Global Action Plan – was the first major legal challenge brought against a new datacentre development in the UK. Ultimately, the government accepted that safeguards had not been followed, with the project lacking an environmental impact assessment.
Donald Campbell, director of advocacy at Foxglove, says the organisation is not wholly against building new datacentres, but warns they come with “very significant environmental and social costs. The way things are going, those costs are going to be borne by the public and the planet, rather than by the wealthiest companies in the world.”
The transparency gap
One lesson from the case is a lack of transparency. Campbell points to difficulties Foxglove has had in understanding how much water is being used by the industry.
“There’s a very big gap in terms of transparency and scrutiny around datacentre impact, and putting concrete requirements on them to make sure they don’t cause environmental and social harm,” says Campbell.
He points to Foxglove’s attempts at finding out which datacentres are drawing from water sources directly. “Only about half of the English water companies can provide that information,” he states.
Information requests to the government have also been a mixed bag. The Environment Agency hasn’t been able to provide a complete record of which datacentres are drawing water directly, Campbell says, with the figures only accessible by asking about specific companies. It’s a small point, but it means there isn’t an easy way to understand water usage for the industry as a whole.
The planning environment
The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents local authorities across England, has also cautioned that Westminster’s push for more datacentres is conflicting with local environmental targets.
In a briefing from June 2026, it warned a “widening central-local tension has emerged”, adding: “While central government articulates datacentre expansion as a national strategic imperative, local government remains responsible for the planning, land‑use, environmental and community impacts.”
The LGA further echoed Foxglove’s concerns about transparency, saying information was often provided via “limited or generic corporate statements on environmental performance, rather than consistent, transparent, granular data on energy use, water consumption and emissions”.
While the body has not called for a Nature’s Rights approach to the problem, they have asked for new “policy levers” to manage how datacentres are rolled out.
Green Party leader Zack Polanski also recently weighed into the debate. In a statement at the end of August, he called for the government to “slam the brakes on the rampant building of new datacentres”.
“We need clear criteria to distinguish between datacentres vital to national security or public services and those that simply serve private tech companies and private profit,” he said. “And crucially, there must be no scenario in which a datacentre receives priority in a drought over households, public services or essential food production.”
The party wants to see a new strategy for AI infrastructure, which aims to have datacentres powered by 100% renewable energy and minimise their water usage.
Red tape?
Would a Nature’s Rights bill put unnecessary constraints on new developments, leaving the UK left behind other economies?
Tom Willerton-Gartside, head of press at Looking for Growth, a campaign group, was unimpressed with attempts to expand environmental controls.
“Government after government has blocked Britain from building,” he said. “As a result, our industries are decimated and our cost of living has skyrocketed. The government must stop adding red tape and let our companies and our people build once more,” he added.
There’s an analogy to be drawn with housebuilding, which some see as hamstrung by overbearing regulations. Recent legislation will allow developers to offset environmental protections by contributing to a nature restoration fund, in a bid to boost the number of homes being built.
A spokesperson for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said claims of datacentres “draining the country’s water or blowing carbon targets” were “simply false”.
“In England, they account for just 0.2 per cent of non-household water usage,” they added, also citing International Energy Agency research which suggests carbon savings from AI could outstrip emissions created by the datacentres themselves.
“A pause on building new datacentres would simply send investment and good jobs abroad, while leaving Britain dependent on other countries for the processing of sensitive health and defence data. Put simply: it would be a disaster for jobs and national security,” they said.
They conceded this was not a “blank cheque for big tech” or that every datacentre should be approved. “Developers should prioritise clean power, use water responsibly, create British jobs and supply chains, and provide investment to the communities in which they are built,” they added.
With new developments planned up and down the country, environmental campaigners will be planning further action. Nature’s Rights or not, the fight over datacentres is just getting started.
