A sustainable approach to data centre site selection

BY ANDREA MERKLE

I’m Andrea Merkle, based in Frankfurt, Germany. I lead Ramboll’s environment & health data centre sector globally, and in this article I’m focusing in particular on Europe and APAC.

Ramboll is an independent architecture, engineering, and consultancy company – founded 1945 in Denmark. Ramboll works with data centre developers, investors, and operators, as well as public-sector stakeholders, on the questions that sit right at the intersection of today’s topic:

• Where to build
• How to build in urban setting and on brownfield sites
• and how to do it in a way that is compatible with the places we build in

We support the full lifecycle of data centres from strategic planning, site feasibility and

selection, design and engineering, commissioning and operational support and also in case of site closure, and repurposing, all with a sustainability and circularity focus.

Practically, that means we support early site screening and due diligence—looking at planning policy, environmental constraints and permitting, land contamination and brownfield feasibility, water strategy, blast and climate risk and resilience, and how power and grid realities shape what is possible. We also bring the urban and infrastructure lens—master-planning, stakeholder engagement, and opportunities like heat reuse—so data centres can be part of a wider regional strategy and urban planning rather than a standalone project.

Another theme I’ll come onto later is that brownfield regeneration can work very well when remediation, materials management and community benefits are designed in early—helping projects stay on programme while delivering visible public value.

We also do BREEAM and LEED assessments (as talked about on the first day of the conference) for Data Centres. In this article I’m looking forward to sharing what we’re seeing across European markets and fast-growing APAC hubs, and what collaboration approaches are proving most effective.

What is effective site selection?

Effective site selection for data centres involves balancing environmental, urban planning, and infrastructure considerations, so essentially ecological, social and technological factors, to support sustainable development and community integration. This includes prioritizing brownfield redevelopment, early stakeholder engagement, and aligning projects with local economic and decarbonization goals.

Power is the key location factor: Data centre site selection is primarily driven by grid access, connection timelines, and reinforcement plans, partially leading to shifts from traditional markets to secondary regions with existing infrastructure.

Permitting and community acceptance shape decisions: Local authorities favor data centre projects aligned with regional economic development, land use, and sustainability strategies such as renewable energy and heat reuse and biodiversity.

Brownfield sites gain renewed interest: Repurposing legacy industrial land is preferred due to existing utilities and regeneration benefits, provided contamination and impacts are managed early.

Water and climate resilience are early filters: Screening for water availability, drought, flood risk, and future climate conditions is essential to avoid late-stage redesigns and reputational risks, especially in APAC and southern Europe.

Urban constraints drive new typologies in APAC: Land scarcity promotes higher-density and vertical data centre designs with strong efficiency and public value demonstrations to gain approvals.

Planning shifts to net benefit frameworks: Cities increasingly focus on conditions under which data centres provide measurable local benefits, integrating noise, traffic, water use, emissions, and climate resilience standards.

Collaboration before site lock-in is vital: Early engagement with communities and stakeholders tied to real design choices enhances acceptance, while clear communication of technical impacts in accessible terms builds trust.

Successful projects integrate multi-stakeholder planning: Examples include early masterplanning with evidence-based assessments, heat reuse aligned with municipal decarbonization, and authority-led performance frameworks that foster regulatory alignment and measurable community outcomes.

What are you seeing in the market in terms of how site selection is driving the location of data centre’s?

Power is the primary ‘geo-constraint’ now: in Europe we see projects shifting from traditional FLAP markets to wherever grid access, connection timelines, and credible reinforcement plans exist—often pushing campuses toward secondary regions, industrial corridors, like old-coal mining areas, or locations with existing high-capacity substations and transmission nodes.

Permitting and community acceptance increasingly shape ‘where’ and ‘how’: local authorities are more likely to support schemes that are visibly aligned with regional economic development, land-use strategies, and decarbonisation pathways defined priority areas where data centres are being built (e.g., heat reuse, renewables, biodiversity, water stewardship). Consider biodiversity early can also be a positive.

Brownfield and “infrastructure-adjacent” sites are back in favour: across Europe we see stronger interest in repurposing legacy industrial land because it can shorten planning arguments (industrial precedent), provide existing utilities/access, and offer regeneration co-benefits—if contamination, noise, air and receptors are managed early.

Water and climate resilience are becoming early go/no-go filters: especially in parts of APAC and southern Europe, water availability/permissability, drought exposure, flood/typhoon risk, and future heat conditions are now assessed at screening stage to avoid late design rework and reputational risk.

In APAC, land scarcity and policy direction drive new typologies: we’re seeing a rise in higher-density / vertical solutions and retrofits in constrained urban settings, with stronger emphasis on efficiency standards, operational performance, and demonstrating ‘public value’ to secure approvals. What this means in practice: best-in-class developers are running integrated early site screening—power, planning, environmental and design constraints, and community/ stakeholder risk—before entering exclusivity, so they reduce sunk DD cost and improve speed-to capacity.

How are we currently balancing the infrastructure demands of data centres (power, cooling, connectivity) with the broader goals of sustainable urban development?

Core principle is industrial symbiosis, and interconnection is key: turning one facility’s waste into another’s resource should be the guidance, that means better integration and exploiting maximum synergies, also visual integration through better building design and integration (e.g. green facades helping also local microclimate) or biodiversity, i.e. it could even be biomimicry approaches. Data centres can also provide positives with regard to heat exchange and provision to public and private buildings via district heating, being used for food production (e.g. strawberry growing in greenhouses) or leisure activities (e.g. heating local swimming pools). There are also examples where the developers or operators are happy to be engaged in upgrading local water infrastructure and using cooling wastewater for irrigation purposes (e.g. in Spain).

We’re moving from single-asset optimisation to system optimisation: not just PUE on site, but how the data centre interacts with the power system, water system, the ecosystem and the city’s decarbonisation, climate, energy and heat infrastructure plan and masterplanning.

On power: we increasingly see hybrid strategies—grid connection plus on-site flexibility (batteries, controls, demand response) and credible procurement of renewables—paired with early grid studies so the project supports, rather than surprises, regional capacity planning.

On cooling/water: there’s a clear trend toward minimising potable water reliance, increasing reuse/reclaim options where feasible, and designing for heat and water resilience (future wet-bulb temperatures, drought/flood extremes). In parts of APAC, this is coupled with stronger performance standards and operational transparency.

On connectivity and land use: location decisions are being made with a sharper understanding of the trade-off between latency/edge needs and the reality of available infrastructure corridors, enabling a more intentional mix of core campuses and edge nodes. public as Helen from Pulsant mentioned earlier this afternoon – the very direct way – use of waste heat.

Urban integration is becoming a design requirement: buffering and compatible land uses, landscape/visual strategies, and blue-green infrastructure are now part of the “permission to operate”, especially near residential receptors. Engage with stakeholders like regulators and public as Helen from Pulsant mentioned earlier this afternoon – the very direct way – use of waste heat.

Authorities are requiring and questioning more.

Ramboll perspective: the balance works best when we integrate environmental permitting, energy/power systems, water, sustainability and masterplanning early—so constraints inform the test-fit and concept design, rather than being discovered after the layout is fixed. And on brownfield sites in particular, treating remediation and construction material flows as part of the sustainability strategy (e.g., on-site screening and reuse of demolition materials as End-of-waste where allowed) can cut haulage, reduce virgin material demand, and help keep delivery on programme.

See TeraWulf case study

How can we further collaboration between data centre and local communities? Are there barriers/do we need to incentivise?

Start collaboration before the site is ‘locked’: if the first time a community hears about a project is at statutory consultation, you’re already behind. Early engagement should be tied to real design choices: layout, buffers, traffic routing, water strategy, visuals, and heat reuse feasibility. We have great opportunity when brownfield sites are being redeveloped in getting in contact earlier and helping the municipality or city to a more positive development.

Translate technical performance into community outcomes: communicate in plain terms—noise at boundary, traffic peaks, water source and safeguards, emergency planning, and what changes during construction vs operation. And emphasise positives which are in for the city or the community.

Co-develop ‘community benefit’ packages that are measurable. We have heard about biodiversity metric in UK and also US: examples include skills and training pathways, local supply-chain commitments, supporting grid upgrades that unlock wider electrification, and—where context allows or law requires e.g. through the energy efficiency directive — waste heat use that supports local heating/decarbonisation strategies. In Germany, there is a legal requirement for renewables for supply and waste heat usage. On regeneration projects, it can also be tangible place-making: public green space, active travel links (cycle paths), and wider public works that offset urbanisation costs, alongside landscaping and visual-impact design. Also, there are initiatives on-going regarding tax developments like in Germany. A coalition of municipalities in the Frankfurt-Rhein-Main region has officially launched a political initiative in February 2026, seeking a fundamental reform of the German Trade Tax Act.

Build partnerships with cities/utility operators: joint planning sessions with municipalities and utilities align phasing, reinforcement works, and resilience measures; this is especially important where grid/water/planning constraints are politically sensitive.

Common barriers: grid connection delays; lack of transparency; perceived “no local benefit”; water use concerns; noise/visual impact; land competition/housing; planning uncertainty; fragmented permitting; misinformation; and misalignment between developer timelines and public infrastructure timelines.

Incentives that actually help: predictable and transparent planning pathways; incentives for brownfield regeneration; enabling infrastructure co-investment models (grid, heat networks, water reuse); and recognition/credits for verified resource efficiency and circularity outcomes.

Do we have successful examples of collaboration that have aligned data centre projects with regional urban planning strategies, and what made them work?

Europe – Brownfield regeneration aligned with municipal priorities (Italy case): an underused former industrial/research site was progressed through early environmental due diligence for site selection, an updated remediation plan with accelerated waste removal coordinated with public authorities, and a circular approach to demolition/construction materials (on-site treatment and reuse where permitted). What made it work from an urban planning perspective was that mitigation and compensation were designed in from the start—public green space, active travel infrastructure (e.g., cycle path/road links), watercourse maintenance and landscaping—plus façade/visual impact design, so the project could be positioned as regeneration plus public value, not just a standalone facility.

Europe – Mixed-use / regeneration-led planning outcome (UK example): we supported the redevelopment and planning application of an existing industrial site for a large-scale data centre (with associated substation and potential complementary uses). What made it work was early, iterative masterplanning tied to evidence-based assessments (noise, air quality, landscape/visual, ecology, flood risk), plus clear mitigation and stakeholder engagement—resulting in a planning approval pathway that recognised both economic value and environmental safeguards.

Europe – Heat reuse aligned with municipal decarbonisation (Nordics example): where heat networks exist or are planned, coupling the data centre energy centre concept to district heating can turn a perceived externality into a local asset. Success factors include: early agreement on temperature/flow interfaces, realistic phasing, commercial governance between operator and heat network, and a clear narrative around local decarbonisation benefit.

APAC – Authority-led performance frameworks and early multi-party alignment (Singapore example): projects progress fastest when developers align early with authority requirements and timelines (efficiency standards, operational performance, resilience), and can evidence a credible pathway to compliance through design and commissioning plans—supported by structured engagement with regulators and utilities.

What made these examples work (the replicable pattern):

• Start with a shared ‘place brief’ (what the city needs) + ‘technical brief’ (what the data centre needs)
• Translate constraints into the concept/test-fit early;
• Integrate utilities and authorities into the programme plan;
• Commit to measurable mitigations and community outcomes
• Keep governance simple so decisions don’t stall across multiple stakeholders.