Data centre growth puts energy and water tests on city planning agendas

A report covered by Smart Cities Dive says the growth of data centres is pushing local policymakers to reconsider how zoning, permitting, electricity demand and water use are handled in city planning.

The report, from the Kansas Health Institute according to the Smart Cities Dive summary, is not a London document and should not be read as evidence of a specific change in London policy. Its relevance for London Urbanism Desk readers is narrower but still important: digital infrastructure is increasingly a land-use, utilities and climate-resilience issue, not just a technology-sector matter.

For planners, borough officers, infrastructure providers and residents, the core question is how cities should assess large new utility loads before they are locked into development decisions. Data centres can support cloud computing, public services and private-sector digital systems, but they may also compete for grid capacity, water resources, land and cooling resilience if they are not planned transparently.

What the report says

Smart Cities Dive’s summary says data centres’ growing demand for electricity and water is forcing local policymakers to rethink zoning, permitting and resource planning. The article frames the issue through a Kansas Health Institute report, with the focus on local government choices as data-centre capacity expands.

The available source material does not provide a London case study, a UK policy decision or a named local planning application. That matters. The strongest safe reading is that the report identifies a city-planning pressure that other urban authorities, including those in London, may need to test against their own evidence.

For London readers, the useful takeaway is not a claim that the same figures or impacts apply locally. It is that data-centre schemes, like other energy-intensive urban uses, should be assessed through ordinary planning questions: where they are located, what infrastructure they require, whether their resource use is disclosed, and how their impacts are weighed against jobs, services and wider public need.

Key facts

Why this belongs in an urban-planning debate

Data centres often sit awkwardly between planning categories. They are essential parts of the digital economy, but their most visible urban impacts may be indirect: electricity connections, backup power, heat management, water demand, construction traffic, security requirements and land consumption.

That makes them different from many familiar development debates. A housing scheme can be tested against homes delivered, tenure mix, design quality, public realm and transport access. A transport scheme can be assessed against capacity, reliability, safety and emissions. A data centre may have fewer daily visitors and less street-level activity, but it can still place heavy demands on the systems that allow the city to function.

For a dense city such as London, the planning question is therefore not simply whether digital infrastructure is needed. It is where it should go, what it displaces, how it connects to energy systems, and whether the public record gives enough information for councillors and residents to understand the trade-offs.

The Smart Cities Dive item points to zoning and permitting as areas under pressure. In a UK context, the equivalent concerns would include the evidence submitted with planning applications, the role of borough development management, strategic infrastructure coordination, environmental assessment where required, and the way energy and water capacity constraints are communicated before decisions are made.

The electricity and water test

Electricity demand is the most obvious planning issue. A large data-centre project may need substantial grid capacity, and that can affect when a scheme can be delivered, what reinforcement is required and whether other local development depends on the same infrastructure.

Water is a second test, especially where cooling systems are involved. The source summary does not provide details on technology, location or exact demand profiles, so this draft should avoid generalising across all data centres. Some facilities may have different cooling systems and resource needs. The planning lesson is that the applicant, utility provider and decision-maker should make those assumptions clear.

Climate resilience adds another layer. Hotter summers, flood risk, electricity-network stress and water-resource constraints are no longer separate technical issues. They increasingly shape whether urban infrastructure is robust enough to serve residents and businesses over time. A data-centre proposal that looks acceptable on land-use grounds may still raise questions if its energy and water assumptions are not transparent.

For London, that means the relevant checks would include grid connection evidence, water demand, cooling strategy, heat rejection, flood risk, emergency power arrangements, construction impacts and whether any infrastructure upgrades create knock-on disruption for streets or neighbouring development.

What London decision-makers can check

Because the cited report is not London-specific, the most practical use is as a checklist rather than a direct comparison. When a data-centre or similar high-load digital infrastructure proposal comes forward, councillors, officers and residents can ask a few concrete questions.

First, what is the expected electricity demand, and has the grid connection route been identified? If reinforcement is needed, the planning record should explain where it is likely to happen and whether it affects roads, footways, substations or other development sites.

Second, what is the water demand and cooling method? If a scheme relies on water-intensive cooling, that should be stated plainly. If it does not, the applicant should be able to explain the alternative and its own impacts.

Third, what is the public benefit? Digital infrastructure can be economically and operationally important, but planning decisions still need to show how benefits have been weighed against land use, design, carbon, resilience and local disruption.

Fourth, who bears the infrastructure cost and risk? If a project depends on upgrades to energy or water systems, the public should be able to see whether those upgrades are secured, funded and coordinated with wider growth plans.

The limits of the available evidence

This is a thin-source item for a London site. The available material confirms the topic and the broad policy concern, but it does not provide the underlying report text, detailed figures, London planning references or UK regulatory context.

That limitation should shape how the story is used. It is not evidence that London faces the same scale of water or electricity pressure described in the US-focused coverage. It is also not evidence that any particular London data-centre project is problematic. Those claims would need primary documents: planning applications, environmental statements, utility correspondence, committee reports, local plans, infrastructure delivery plans or official data.

The stronger editorial angle is that data-centre growth belongs in mainstream city planning scrutiny. If cities are expected to host more digital infrastructure, planning systems need clear evidence on resource demand before permissions are granted, not after constraints appear.

For London readers following development, climate resilience and infrastructure capacity, the next step is to check local planning files and strategic infrastructure documents when specific schemes arise, rather than relying on international trend reports alone.

Source: Smart Cities Dive, “As data centers expand, cities face tough energy, water questions: report” — https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/us-data-centers-could-4x-water-use-by-2028-double-electricity-by-2030-khi/825868/