Help us take the government to court to protect our water, our power and our climate.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, has overruled a local Council to force through the construction of a massive 90MW data centre in Buckinghamshire.

She did so without properly considering the huge environmental consequences: data centres are known to consume vast amounts of water and electricity, and produce colossal climate emissions.

This isn’t just a local planning row — this is a fight about who gets priority over scarce resources: the public, or Big Tech’s power-hungry servers.

Foxglove and Global Action Plan are launching the first legal challenge in the country against the decision. And we need your help. 

Why this matters

A data centre is a huge building that houses computer servers to store, manage, and process large amounts of data. Tech giants are investing billions in a vast expansion of data centres to power their AI ‘race’. The Government has said it wants to see a ‘rapid build out of data centres,’ and there are applications to construct them across the UK.

We’re not against all data centre development — but we are against developments that damage the planet and put the demands of tech giants ahead of local communities and our environment.

This data centre – planned for Woodlands Park, Iver – is what’s called a ‘hyperscale’ data centre.  This means it’s far larger than the data centres we already have in the country, and will use far more electricity to run and cool its equipment. According to the Government, once it’s built it will be run by a ‘global’ company – potentially a US tech giant such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft or Meta.  We’ve already seen in the US and elsewhere the harm these huge new data centres cause – hoovering up vast quantities of water to cool their servers and spewing out climate pollution.

The UK’s largest water company estimates that data centres can use 4–19 million litres of drinking water every day to keep cool — worrying news in a year when we’re already facing droughts. Data centres also require massive amounts of electricity, competing with households and businesses for supply and pushing up energy prices.

Yet in her decision letter, Rayner dedicated just one paragraph to these impacts — and still decided there was no need for a proper Environmental Impact Assessment.

Worse, she appears to have accepted the developer’s claim that the data centre’s “large amount of power” would come from “Iver Power Station” — a substation that doesn’t generate electricity at all. This means the centre will simply take more power from the local grid, squeezing supply for the rest of us.

Reports suggest there’s a Cabinet battle over whether to prioritise climate and resource concerns or push ahead with tech-driven growth at all costs — and Rayner appears to have chosen the latter.

If this decision stands, it sets a dangerous precedent: ministers can ignore environmental impacts and local communities to push through massive data centres wherever they choose.

Our legal challenge

We've launched the UK's first legal challenge against the government forcing through construction of a new hyperscale data centre in Britain.

Foxglove and Global Action Plan have filed a Planning Statutory Review Appeal under Section 288 of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. We are asking the Court to quash Secretary of State’s decision on this matter. We argue the government has failed to carry out proper assessments that evaluate the potential environmental effects of this data centre and failed to adequately consider the impact it will have in terms of energy and water consumption. For these reasons, the approval of the data centre should not have been granted.

This case could set a vital precedent for all future data centre planning decisions — ensuring environmental and resource impacts must be properly considered before data centres are approved.

Why we need to raise £30,000

We hope the government will address our concerns in response to our legal letter. But if they don’t — or their reply falls short — we’re ready to take them to court. To do that, we must raise £30,000 to cover essential costs.

What your donation will fund

1. Foxglove and Global Action Plan’s time

We’re both small non-profits. We’re seeking a modest contribution of £10,000 total towards the staff time we’ll need to run this case.

2. Legal costs

Our expert legal team is working on conditional fee agreements — meaning they’ll only be paid heavily discounted fees. Even if we win, our ability to recover their fees from the other side is limited. However, if we lose, we may have to pay part of the other side’s legal bill.

Because this is an environmental case, it qualifies for Aarhus Convention protections. If the court grants these, our liability for the other side’s costs if we lose will be capped at £10,000 per organisation, instead of facing an unlimited bill.

Your support will make sure we can see this challenge through — and stand up for our environment, our resources, and our communities.

What happens to funds raised if we don’t spend them on legal fees?

If for some reason we don’t need to spend all the donations on this case or if we don't end up in court, you will be offered a refund. Should you choose not to request a refund your donation will go to Foxglove and Global Action Plan to support our work fighting to protect our water, climate and power from Big Tech.

Our team

Foxglove is a non-profit which exists to make technology fair for everyone. They are co-claimant in the case.

Global Action Plan is an environmental charity which works to improve the health of people and the planet. They are co-claimant in the case.

This case is being brought by a fantastic team of lawyers, including David Wolfe KC from Matrix Chambers, Ruchi Parekh from Cornerstone Barristers, Anna Stein from No5 Chambers and Rowan Smith from Leigh Day solicitors.