What is RIBA Stage 1 and its relevance to data centre masterplanning

Among other things, RIBA Stage 1 is intended to confirm whether a project brief can realistically fit on a given site. This stage is especially important for data centre projects where early decisions affect everything from power and land use to project timing and investor confidence. However, current guidance for Stage 1 does not address the practical and technical challenges unique to data centres.  

According to the RIBA Plan of Work, Stage 1 should end with the client approving the project brief with confirmation that it fits the site. The current guidance suggests no design team is needed for Stages 0 and 1, although client advisers may give input until Stage 2. Whilst that approach generally works for standard buildings, this guidance is not suited to data centres.  

BSRIA’s BG6 design framework highlights a similar gap. While BG6 acknowledges that spatial requirements matter early on, it does not specify any Stage 1 tasks for mechanical, electrical, or public health engineers. For data centre sites, where engineering is often the deciding factor, this is a big miss. You really cannot know if a site will work for a data centre without early input from a range of experienced engineers and specialists.  

The difference becomes obvious with today’s huge projects. A gigawatt-scale data centre campus has no comparison to an office building or housing estate. Power supply and the overall site layout are the major factors that determine whether a project is feasible, so you need engineers involved from the start to get these answers. Stage 1 is also the best time to optimise land use, reduce carbon footprint, maximise efficiency, undertake early engagement with planners and pave the way for optimised returns on investment.  

Bringing a full multi-disciplinary design team on early is not excessive; it is essential if you want a strong foundation from which to build the project.  

Engineering considerations at Stage 1

Data centre sites bring engineering challenges you do not encounter with most other projects. As sites grow in scale with AI and high-power computing, the challenges also scale up. Getting the electrical systems right is often the biggest hurdle. Most sites need their own substation, perhaps operating at 132kV or at even higher voltages, depending on the capacity required. That means you need specialist power systems design from the start, along with planning for space, safe access, and long-term maintenance.  

You also have to plan early for how large transformers will be delivered and replaced, as these are not typical loads. Security concerns and required distances from boundaries shrink the usable land even more and can change where buildings go. If you wait until later to deal with these issues, the scheme may fall apart.  

Ground conditions matter just as much. Early geotechnical surveys help shape the approach to foundations, earthing, and the ease of building on the site. If you skip this, you risk making wrong assumptions that lead to delays and extra costs.  

Sometimes sites are designed with one specific user in mind, sometimes it needs a more flexible approach. Choices about modularity, phasing and resilience should be made with experience, striking a balance between certainty and flexibility.  

All these checks, and more, need to be completed before you can demonstrate that the site will meet the required power, reliability, and environmental requirements, and that it can be built in phases. These are not details to work out later; they are critical to knowing whether the site will actually work.  

Backup power, cooling, and environmental constraints

Backup power requirements add complexity. Alternatives are being tested, but generators remain the norm. Where you put them matters. This is because of noise, air quality, fuel storage, and interactions with the cooling systems. If you do not coordinate the layout well, you can get issues such as hot air from radiators or flues, downgrading chiller performance.  

Solving these problems typically means running detailed analytical studies to figure out airflow dynamics and how different parts of the site interact. These studies are not just for tweaking the design later to ensure the site will work when at full capacity.  

Planning and environmental issues add more complexity. Noise, emissions, and how the site looks can affect whether the project moves forward, so not addressing these aspects in Stage 1 could severely limit future options

Why early coordination matters

Developers, funders and future users want confidence before they commit to a site. This can only come from understanding and tackling engineering challenges early, and, most importantly, from a joined-up approach. If Stage 1 is rushed or under-resourced, you risk missing major problems until it is far too late.  

Having an experienced, multi-disciplinary team on board early lets you spot risks, test different options, and make informed decisions, while retaining flexibility. Getting everyone involved from the start helps keep the design, schedule, and budget aligned. It also helps to get experienced contractors involved early. Again, while not standard in the RIBA playbook, their insights into building methods, logistics, and sequencing can significantly reduce risks later.  

The goal behind RIBA Stage 1 is clear: a solid foundation is key. The problems that arise stem from following the guidance that you do not need detailed engineering design input to get you there. For data centres, checking if a project fits a site is a technical challenge first and foremost. Bringing other disciplines in early as well means you can operate with as close to perfect information as possible, greatly mitigating future risks. 

Clearly specialist engineering input is a “must have” for Stage 1 of data centre projects and not something that can be deferred to later stages.