Why the data centre boom has become a communications minefield: from national ambition to local opposition

By Kelvin Morgan, Head of Digital 

For years, we’ve talked about the ‘cloud’. In fact, in October 2007, Google Trends first records UK interest in cloud computing. Unfortunately, Google’s data doesn’t go back further than 2004 so it’s harder to determine when Artificial Intelligence was first searched for, but it’s safe to say it’s been a topic of interest for a while.

However, both topics have largely remained out of the daily news cycle until OpenAI launched ChatGPT for the first time in 2022. Fast-forward to today and the impact that the required infrastructure to make this technology possible, has become uncomfortable for basically everyone involved and impacted.

Today, AI is part of how we work, communicate, innovate and grow. This requires infrastructure and data centres are no longer abstract, they are the physical infrastructure making the AI revolution possible.

By July, UK search interest in ‘data centre’ had overtaken ‘artificial intelligence’. This is because the debate is shifting from whether we need data centres to how we build them, where we put them, what they deliver and why particular communities should host them.

Governments understandably want to talk at a national level, discussing economic growth and a political football to play into the AI race. The benefits can be significant and shared across society, but the infrastructure has to exist somewhere.

And whilst billions of pounds are invested into new infrastructure, the lives of the local communities and people in them have come into the spotlight. Communities report issues with planning rules, noise outside their bedroom window and issues with their electricity and water supplies, whilst every day, the mainstream media or another trade body warns of job losses because of AI.

We did some number crunching of our own. Analysis from the beginning of this year to now suggests the industry is already losing the communications battle. Across UK-focused conversations on Reddit, X and podcasts in 2026, 52% of posts were negative, compared with just 9% positive.

This has become a communications minefield. Similar to the many infrastructure projects we advise on, which range across nuclear, waste, biomass and hydrogen, we have seen this tension with data centres – having the permission to build is different to having permission to belong. Data centres are critical infrastructure, but every project still must earn its place in the social fabric and communications cannot manufacture a social licence that project design, economics or local engagement have failed to earn to date.

The stories we’ve seen shaping the debate: 

• The economics between job creation and local benefits are blurred (Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission)
• Scottish residents see a vast permanent industrial building and reasonably asks what the permanent local return is (FT.com) 
• Residents across different U.S. states report noise pollution next to data centres (TikTok: nbcnews)
• Iconic Brick Lane property repurposed for a data centre in the middle of East London (BBC)
• Digital cities: the future of Britain's data centres (The Times)

There are some consistent questions that keep appearing: Who benefits, who pays for it, why here, who decided and can we trust you?

The imbalance is striking. Water and environmental strain, energy and grid capacity, and local planning collectively account for more than half of the conversation we analysed. Jobs and investment account for only around 5%. The industry's traditional argument of investment, growth and employment is competing with a very different set of public concerns.

These questions are not unique to data centres as they sit at the heart of almost every contested infrastructure debate we work in. What is different is the speed and scale at which data centres are being built, their connection to a technology already generating social anxiety, and the collision between national ambitions for AI and the very local consequences of delivering the infrastructure it requires.

The challenge for governments, developers, technology companies and their supply chains is therefore no longer simply how to communicate the benefits of data centres. 

It is how to close the gap between national ambition and local legitimacy. These are five principles that we follow when working with clients on infrastructure projects:

1. Start with the why here question. Without trying to be too Simon Sinek-y, communities don’t need to hear more soundbites about the value of AI on growth and the economy.
2. Lead with local benefits and value. Stop communicating at a macro level. Start communicating on local investment, skills, supply-chain opportunities, new infrastructure, community funding and long-term local economic value.
3. Talk to the community while decisions can still change. Public or private consultations are not a tick box exercise. Map the people shaping local opinion, understand the narratives and concerns emerging around the project, and involve communities early enough that engagement can still influence decisions.
4. Be transparent with the trade-offs. Be open, honest and vulnerable. Use a human spokesperson and acknowledge legitimate concerns about water use, noise and environmental impact. Explain the knowns and unknowns and be proactive with what is being done to mitigate them. Building credibility starts with honest truths. 
5. Build trust first. The first time a community hears from a developer shouldn’t be when a planning application lands. Developers, technology companies and governments need a longer-term presence, credible local voices and evidence of listening and responding. Communications should track how narratives and sentiment change throughout the project, not simply at launch.

Data centres increasingly face a collective reputation problem. Our analysis suggests individual UK developments are being judged not only on their own merits, but through stories circulating about water use, noise, grid pressure and contested developments elsewhere. Every new project inherits some of the reputation of the projects that came before it.

For communicators like us, that means moving beyond selling the national benefits of AI to answering the much harder local questions - why here, why this, what does it mean for us, and can we trust you?

The organisations that answer those questions early, honestly and empathetically will be far better placed to secure not only permission to build, but permission to belong.

Drop us a line at [email protected] to find out more.