On 23 January 2026, the government conceded in the High Court that it had made a material error in granting planning permission for a £1bn data centre complex in Iver, Buckinghamshire, without requiring a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The proposed 72,000 sq m scheme, located on a former landfill site within the green belt, has long attracted opposition from local residents and campaign groups Foxglove and Global Action Plan, who issued judicial review proceedings on environmental grounds. During the hearing, the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government accepted that an EIA should have been sought before the permission was granted in 2024. The court has now allowed the claim to proceed, and the permission is expected to be reconsidered following the full hearing.
As with many planning disputes involving high‑energy‑use infrastructure, the case highlights the increasingly intricate relationship between development policy, environmental regulation and community impact. Although the project had previously been “called in” after a series of refusals by Buckinghamshire Council, the challenge focuses on the adequacy of the government’s decision‑making process and, in particular, whether the environmental implications of such a power‑intensive scheme were properly scrutinised.
For those involved in the commercial property sector, several wider themes emerge. First, the case reinforces the growing scrutiny applied to major developments, especially data centres, whose substantial energy and water demands draw heightened regulatory attention. Secondly, it is particularly instructive for developments involving green belt land or former landfill and other brownfield sites, where environmental constraints are more pronounced. Robust environmental assessment is no longer a peripheral consideration but a central component of any viable planning strategy. Thirdly, it underscores the increasing litigation risk where government decisions may be vulnerable to challenge due to flawed or incomplete procedural steps. Finally, it reflects the growing influence of environmental groups in shaping the development landscape, particularly where energy‑intensive assets are concerned.
This case shows that, despite the Labour government’s pro‑growth agenda and its push to accelerate AI‑related digital infrastructure through initiatives such as the AI Opportunities Action Plan and ‘grey belt’ planning reforms, procedural rigour and robust environmental assessment remain essential to strengthening the planning case and securing timely delivery of schemes.
