Summary

• Wiltshire Council granted permission in October for another Ark Data Centres building at Spring Park, near Corsham, following more than 1,000 objections.
• Neston and Westwells Action Group is considering judicial review over the adequacy of flood and drainage evidence available when the decision was made.
• The group has until 14 November to bring a challenge, but proceedings had not been confirmed when its concerns were reported.

Planning permission for an additional Ark Data Centres facility in Wiltshire faces a possible judicial review, after local campaigners questioned whether the council had sufficient evidence about flooding and drainage before authorising the development.

Neston and Westwells Action Group is considering a legal challenge to Wiltshire Council’s approval of a seventh data centre building at Ark’s Spring Park campus near Corsham. The council granted formal permission in October, allowing a new building and associated energy, power, water, and supporting infrastructure on land known locally as Donkey Field.

The site covers approximately 18 acres near residential properties and the Wadswick Green retirement village. More than 1,000 objections were recorded during the planning process, addressing concerns including noise, traffic, ecology, air quality, drainage, and the development’s effect on neighbouring communities.

The campaign group believes important questions about surface water management should have been resolved before consent was issued, rather than being left for further investigation under planning conditions. It has until 14 November to seek judicial review and was still assessing public support and funding for possible proceedings when the dispute was reported on 2 November.

Drainage evidence under scrutiny

The disagreement concerns how much technical evidence a planning authority needs before deciding that a development is acceptable. Data centre construction can involve large buildings, access roads, electrical infrastructure, and other surfaces that change how water moves across a site.

Managing that water may require drainage systems, attenuation measures, and arrangements designed to prevent development from increasing flood risk elsewhere. The suitability of those measures depends on local conditions and engineering assessments, particularly where neighbouring properties could be affected.

Planning permissions commonly contain conditions requiring further technical submissions before construction begins. These may govern detailed drainage designs, landscaping, ecological measures, or other aspects of a development that have already been assessed in principle.

Neston and Westwells Action Group argues that the outstanding issues at Spring Park concern whether an acceptable drainage solution could be demonstrated in the first place. Its position is that conditions should verify a solution already shown to be viable, rather than become the process through which fundamental feasibility is established after permission has been granted.

Wiltshire Council’s planning officers considered the drainage issues capable of being addressed through conditions. The council proceeded with approval after considering the application, technical material, representations, and recommendations available through its planning process.

Those opposing positions concern the adequacy of the decision-making process rather than evidence that the proposed facility has already caused flooding. Neither the existence of objections nor the prospect of legal proceedings establishes that the council acted unlawfully.

The planning application, identified as PL/2024/05527, has an extensive record of submitted documents, revisions, and representations. Material concerning flood risk and drainage formed part of that record before the October decision, although campaigners continue to dispute whether it was sufficient.

Judicial review would examine the decision

A judicial review would focus on the lawfulness of the council’s decision-making rather than simply reconsider the commercial or environmental merits of building a data centre. A court could examine whether relevant legal requirements were followed, whether the authority considered appropriate evidence, and whether its conclusions were reached through a lawful process.

That differs from a new planning determination in which elected councillors or planning officers decide whether a proposal should receive permission. Courts do not ordinarily replace the planning authority’s judgement with their own preferred outcome merely because another decision could have been reached.

The campaign group has not established that its proposed challenge will proceed. It is seeking support and considering the available legal route before the 14 November deadline, leaving the existing permission in place unless a subsequent legal or planning process changes its status.

Campaigners have separately asked the council to clarify the authorisation of proposed construction logistics activity on adjacent land. They have questioned how that use was addressed in the submitted application material, adding another issue to their examination of the development’s approval.

These matters will require consideration against the relevant planning records. The campaign group’s concerns should not be mistaken for findings by a court or an independent determination that the council’s decision was defective.

Expanding an established computing campus

Ark operates secure data centre facilities serving organisations with demanding infrastructure requirements. Its Spring Park campus is part of an established concentration of computing facilities in the Corsham area, where additional development can make use of existing operational expertise and infrastructure connections.

Expanding a campus may offer advantages compared with establishing an entirely new location, particularly where network connectivity, management arrangements, and supporting services are already present. However, a further building still requires its own assessment of construction activity, electricity infrastructure, water management, and effects on neighbouring land.

Demand for computing capacity is contributing to the expansion of data centres across Britain, with cloud services and artificial intelligence increasing the need for reliable electricity and specialist facilities. Securing suitable sites can involve competing requirements for land, power, water, and access infrastructure.

The environmental characteristics of individual developments vary according to their design. Cooling arrangements, equipment density, energy demand, and site conditions all affect the infrastructure required, making project-specific evidence important when authorities assess planning applications.

At Spring Park, residents have raised questions extending beyond drainage. The objection record includes concerns about construction traffic, operational noise, air quality, ecology, and the wider effect of development on nearby properties.

These issues were considered through the planning process, although the volume of objections demonstrates the extent of local concern. Public opposition does not automatically prevent permission being granted, just as a development’s strategic or economic benefits do not remove the requirement to assess its potential adverse effects.

Technical certainty and construction risk

For infrastructure developers, planning conditions can provide flexibility where detailed engineering needs to continue after permission is granted. They can also introduce uncertainty if significant aspects of a project remain subject to subsequent approval, particularly where the development timetable depends on resolving those requirements.

Local authorities face the corresponding responsibility of determining which matters can lawfully be controlled through conditions and which require sufficient evidence before a planning decision is made. The approach taken can influence construction schedules, investment decisions, and the potential for legal challenges.

A dispute about drainage information may also affect relationships with neighbouring communities. Residents need confidence that the potential consequences for their properties have been examined, while developers require a process that produces clear and dependable decisions.

At Spring Park, the council’s October permission remains the operative decision. The immediate development is the campaign group’s consideration of whether to ask a court to examine how that decision was reached.

Neston and Westwells Action Group must decide whether to lodge a challenge before 14 November. Until then, the questions it raises about drainage evidence and planning conditions remain contested matters within the wider development of Ark’s Corsham campus.