137 Businesses, Zero Green Groups: How the UK Shaped Its AI Datacentre Policy

Senior UK officials met 137 businesses to shape the country's AI datacentre policy — and not a single environmental organisation. That asymmetry is the headline finding of a year-long investigation by the nonprofit Spotlight on Corruption, published after 40 freedom of information requests to 18 government agencies covering July 2024 to June 2026.

The numbers tell the story starkly. Over twelve months of policymaking on "AI growth zones" — the flagship programme of former prime minister Keir Starmer — ministers, permanent secretaries and directors general held meetings with 137 businesses, some repeatedly. Community groups got two meetings. Environmental NGOs got none.

Kamila Kingstone, a campaign lead at the NGO, didn't mince words: "The government totally failed at the most senior level to speak to environmental NGOs or community groups when developing its flagship policy on AI datacentres. This is despite the serious environmental implications of its plans."

What does this change for the UK's AI build-out?

For practitioners, the finding lands at a moment when the policy itself is under strain. AI growth zones promised to "turbocharge the economy" and create jobs through massive datacentres across five regions — in Starmer's words, "mainning AI into the veins" of the country. Some planned facilities would be larger than any datacentre ever built in Britain, often in partnership with US tech companies.

But the Guardian's own investigations have called those foundations into question: unaudited financial figures, exaggerated job-creation projections and power plans that don't add up. Government departments even disagree among themselves on how much electricity the datacentre programme will require — and therefore what its environmental cost will be.

The transparency gap compounds the problem. The handful of civil society meetings that did occur were, per the report, "held a few days before the launch of the policy, meaning they had no meaningful input". And many business meetings likely went undisclosed altogether, because Starmer's policy was driven by a special adviser, Jade Leung, whose role carried far less stringent transparency requirements.

A revolving door with the AI industry

The investigation also documented what it calls a "considerable revolving door": 38 ministers, senior civil servants and special advisers took positions at AI companies between July 2024 and September 2026 — a period overlapping the policy's formulation.

Nine of those departures came from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the department central to Britain's AI strategy. The list includes a former minister for AI and intellectual property, a former AI adviser to the prime minister, a former director of AI opportunities, a deputy director of AI international policy and a head of AI engineering. Top officials also left for jobs at OpenAI and Anthropic.

Growing backlash — and a political warning

Opposition to datacentre developments is already visible on the ground, from Auchtertool, a rural village north of Edinburgh, to Brick Lane in east London. Chi Onwurah, the MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, said the UK backlash — and the far larger one in the US — should be a warning shot.

"It is critically important that AI benefits communities and is also shaped by them," she said. "I've been concerned about what we've seen in the US, where there's a strong feeling that datacentres are being imposed without adequate consultation. We can see the backlash influencing the midterms. It's really important that communities are involved in datacentres and AI growth zones and see the benefits."

How does the UK compare?

Poorly, by Spotlight on Corruption's assessment. The group examined policymaking in Canada, Germany and Australia and found those countries consulted far more widely and applied more stringent environmental criteria. Its verdict: the UK has "fallen behind equivalent jurisdictions" in building an equitable strategy.

A government spokesperson pushed back, saying: "We are clear that datacentres should create British jobs, strengthen supply chains and deliver benefits for the communities that host them, while prioritising clean power and using water responsibly – and meet with these companies to make sure that happens. We want to work closely with industry, local authorities, environmental groups and communities, and welcome opportunities to hear their views."

The spokesperson added that community benefits are handled through local planning processes for most proposed developments, and noted that local authorities hosting datacentres in English AI growth zones will keep all the additional business rates they generate.

Whether that reassures anyone depends on what comes next: the report's core claim — that the previous policy was "largely shaped by conversations with business" and "failed to take the environmental and social impacts [of datacentres] seriously" — will hang over every future planning fight, from Auchtertool to east London.