Summary As proposed, CADA would require that environmental assessments for the spatial plans behind data centre acceleration zones be combined rather than run separately. Article 10(3) provides that where such plans are subject to assessment under the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC) and Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), "those assessments shall be combined", and that, where applicable, the combined assessment "shall also address the impact on potentially affected water bodies referred to in" the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC). The obligation falls on the national, regional and local authorities preparing those plans. CADA is a proposal and not yet in force, so this is what would apply if adopted.

Detail

The Cloud and AI Development Act (CADA) would introduce a framework to accelerate the deployment of data centre capacity across the EU. A central mechanism is the designation of "data centre acceleration zones" (the proposal's shorthand: "acceleration zones"), where permitting would be streamlined — but on the basis of environmental scrutiny carried out up front, at the planning level. Combining environmental assessments is a key procedural step intended to reduce duplication while still evaluating environmental impacts.

The legal basis: Article 10(3)

The governing provision is Article 10(3) of the CADA proposal, which places obligations on the national, regional and local authorities responsible for preparing spatial and development plans — the bodies that define the parameters of acceleration zones.

As proposed, where those plans are subject to assessment under specific EU environmental directives, the assessments must be combined:

"Where those plans are subject to an assessment pursuant to Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC, those assessments shall be combined."

This means authorities could not treat the Strategic Environmental Assessment required by Directive 2001/42/EC (the SEA Directive) and the assessment required by Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive) as separate, sequential processes. As proposed, they would be integrated into a single evaluation.

Addressing water bodies: the Water Framework Directive

Article 10(3) also extends to water resources:

"Where applicable, the combined assessment shall also address the impact on potentially affected water bodies referred to in Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council."

Directive 2000/60/EC is the Water Framework Directive. By bringing water-body impacts into the combined assessment, the proposal would have the significant water consumption and thermal discharge associated with data centres evaluated together with the other planning impacts, rather than in a separate, later process. The "where applicable" qualifier means that where a zone has no relevant interaction with the water bodies the Directive refers to, that specific water analysis need not be triggered.

The role of spatial and development plans

The trigger is the plan, not each individual project. Article 10(3) opens:

"National, regional and local authorities responsible for preparing spatial and development plans shall consider including, in those plans, provisions for the development of data centre projects deployed in acceleration zones, and of the necessary infrastructure."

The environmental due diligence thus moves upstream, from the project to the plan. Once the spatial plan is adopted and the combined assessments completed, individual projects in the zone would benefit from the streamlined permitting in Article 13. The aggregated baseline permit for the zone (Article 13(2)) would rely on the thoroughness of these initial combined assessments, and Article 13(3) provides that all necessary procedures and assessments — including relevant environmental assessments — would be carried out before that baseline permit is issued.

Implications for data centre operators

For in-house counsel and compliance officers, Article 10(3) matters for timing and risk, even though the operator does not itself conduct the SEA or Habitats assessment.

  1. Due diligence on zone designation. Before committing capital to a site in a proposed zone, check whether the competent authorities have initiated or completed the combined assessment under Article 10(3). If the spatial plan is still in draft and the assessment pending, there is a risk of delay or of changes to the zone's parameters.
  2. Water-body proximity. Given the reference to Directive 2000/60/EC, conduct early hydrological due diligence. If a site is near a relevant water body, the combined assessment is likely to include a detailed analysis, and you may be asked to provide technical data on water use and cooling — even though the legal duty to assess rests with the authority.
  3. Infrastructure planning. Article 10(3) refers to "necessary infrastructure", so the combined assessment can cover not only the data centre footprint but also associated grid connections, cooling infrastructure and transport links. Ensure ancillary infrastructure is reflected in the spatial plan to avoid fragmented reviews later.

Timeline and authority coordination

The proposal does not set a specific deadline for completing the combined assessment itself, but it ties the effectiveness of a zone to completion of these planning steps. Article 10(1) requires Member States deploying data centre capacity to designate at least one zone within six months of entry into force, which implies the combined assessments under Article 10(3) would need to be carried out promptly.

Article 10(3) also requires Member States to ensure that "all relevant spatial planning data are available to data centre operators", allowing operators to monitor progress. If an authority failed to combine the assessments as required, the resulting plan and permits could be exposed to challenge under national administrative law or EU environmental law.

What this means for you

For in-house counsel and compliance officers, Article 10(3) presents both opportunities and risks.

Opportunities

  • Predictability. A combined assessment reduces the risk of sequential, open-ended environmental reviews and aims to clarify when a zone is "ready" for development.
  • Upstream engagement. Because the assessment is tied to spatial planning, operators have a window to engage early and provide high-quality environmental data (for example on water efficiency or waste-heat recovery).

Risks and obligations

  • Verify compliance. Check that the authority has actually combined the assessments. If it conducts an SEA but neglects the Habitats Directive assessment (or vice versa), the resulting plan may be legally vulnerable, which could affect later permits.
  • Water-impact scrutiny. Given the reference to Directive 2000/60/EC, expect closer attention to water use; be ready to show that cooling systems minimise impact on relevant water bodies.
  • Documentation. Keep records of communications with authorities about the combined assessment; evidence of non-compliance with Article 10(3) can support administrative appeals or timeline discussions.

Actionable steps

  1. Monitor spatial plans. Track draft spatial and development plans for your target regions and check whether a combined assessment under Directive 2001/42/EC and Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC is included.
  2. Engage early. Offer environmental impact data to authorities during the planning phase.
  3. Legal review. Have counsel review final spatial plans and environmental reports against Article 10(3) and the relevant directives.

Common misconceptions

Misconception 1: The combined assessment replaces project-level environmental impact assessments (EIAs).

  • Reality: The combined assessment under Article 10(3) applies to the spatial and development plans for the zone. It does not itself remove any project-level EIA that may be required under national law or the EIA Directive, though the zone-level scrutiny and the aggregated baseline permit (Article 13) may reduce what remains for individual projects.

Misconception 2: Only national authorities are responsible.

  • Reality: Article 10(3) names "national, regional and local authorities". In many Member States spatial planning is a regional or local competence, so the responsible authority must be identified accordingly.

Misconception 3: Water bodies matter only if protected under the Habitats Directive.

  • Reality: The reference to Directive 2000/60/EC is separate from the Habitats Directive. The combined assessment addresses, where applicable, the impact on the water bodies the Water Framework Directive refers to, independently of Habitats Directive protection.

Misconception 4: The combined assessment is optional for small zones.

  • Reality: Article 10(3) provides that where the plans are subject to assessment under the SEA and Habitats provisions, those assessments "shall be combined". The text contains no size-based exemption.

Related

This is general information about a draft EU regulation, not legal advice.