Infrastructure Planning Blog

Today’s entry looks at the proposed changes to the NSIP thresholds for overhead lines, as well as data centre infrastructure policy.

Toe the line

The Government this week published its response to the consultation on electricity networks. The most relevant changes in the context of the Planning Act 2008 are that the government will take forward its proposal to remove 132 kV wooden pole lines from the scope of the NSIP regime and increase the distance threshold for NSIP classification. In particular, the government has confirmed that it will proceed with increasing the distance threshold for NSIP classification from 2km to 15km.

That is welcome, and will ensure that the NSIP regime is used only for the most complex and significant schemes. It also means that for those schemes under the threshold, there is still a route to going down the NSIP route through section 35 (as the response document itself notes). In a further nuance, the Government is also amending the Planning Act 2008 to remove the automatic requirement for a project that increases the voltage of an existing line (that exceeds 132 kV and is 15km or longer, in line with the revised thresholds detailed above) in a SSSI or European Site to be consented via the NSIP process.

Perhaps one for the nerds: the government has also confirmed that the definition of a continuous overhead line should relate to each stretch of overhead line that is unbroken by a substation.

Outside of the NSIP context, there are a raft of measures to streamline, and expand, the land access rights as well as permitted development rights. One particular measure that caught my eye was the introduction of the power to set time limits for the acquisition of necessary wayleaves. These sorts of legal changes, whilst resisted by those who either want to slow down development, or are happy to accept the status quo, are to be welcomed.

AC/DC

Some members of Edinburgh City Council have declared their interest in a moratorium on new data centres. The official motion from councillors states that “Officers [should] prepare a report for the next Full Council on whether it would be possible for Edinburgh Council to implement a moratorium on data centre applications until a definition or guidance [of a ‘green data centre] exists’. The wider context here is that a developer of a 212MW hyperscale AI data centre at the Gyle Edinburgh, which was turned down permission in February, and they have now appealed that decision. That refusal was based in large part because there was insufficient definition on how sustainable a data centre should be.

There is a strong case to be made that the introduction of moratoria of this nature are damaging. A moratorium like this overlooks the wider role data centres play in the economy and the transition to lower carbon systems. Data centres underpin cloud computing, which can reduce the need for duplicated physical infrastructure and support new ways of working, including remote and hybrid models, with associated emissions benefits. In addition, AI enabled optimisation can improve efficiency across logistics, energy networks and industrial processes, supporting broader efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

A second, and related, consideration is the relationship between data centres and clean energy deployment. Beyond energy consumption, data centres and technology companies are increasingly significant drivers of renewable energy investment through Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). In the United States, they are estimated to account for a substantial proportion of PPAs, while in Europe data centres already represent around a third of new renewable PPAs. This suggests that a meaningful share of clean energy investment is linked to data centre development. Policy approaches that do not take account of these indirect effects may have implications for the pace of renewable deployment, even where concerns exist about the sustainability of individual developments.

Third, there are always trade offs in the planning system. To the extent there are adverse impacts, they have to be weighed appropriately in the context of substantial bill reductions for the average person. According to one analysis, the saving to existing consumers is approximately £1.8 billion per year, rising to £2.2 billion if 1 GW of the build-out of data centres lands behind the Scotland-England transmission boundary.

Given the strategic importance of both digital and clean energy infrastructure, the discussion arguably needs to go beyond a simple case for or against moratoria. It requires recognising the urgency of infrastructure delivery in a context shaped by high costs, long lead in times and relatively high energy prices. Current Government policy reflects an emphasis on tackling these systemic challenges rather than maintaining existing approaches. In that context, the forthcoming National Policy Statement on Data Centres is expected to provide clearer direction on their role within the planning system, reflecting their significance not only to decarbonisation and economic growth but also to the UK’s AI capability and wider national resilience.

One of the things highlighted in the Nuclear Taskforce report was a “status quo mindset”. This is loosely based on the idea of a “cheems mindset” from Jeremy Driver, whereby changes are seen as too difficult, and met with simply saying ‘mission accomplished’.

There are a myriad of causes from risk aversion, institutional practices, gold plating, and badly resourced regulators to remedy the high costs and delays. These all have specific remedies, but a lot of the causes are downstream of the law itself, or even when it relates to how the law is implemented, could be optimised through legal changes (much like those noted above). It is not either legal changes or cultural shifts. It must be both. The urgent, and critical, need means that we shouldn’t accept the cheems mindset.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at April 2026. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.