New report questions who shaped the UK’s AI growth zones

A report published on 27 October by Spotlight on Corruption questions whose views shaped the UK's AI growth zones. The campaign group argues that disclosed access to senior decision-makers was dominated by business interests, with limited community participation. [1]

Its analysis covers July 2024 to June 2026. It identifies 137 distinct companies in the relevant meeting records and says no environmental organisations appeared in the meetings it examined with ministers, permanent secretaries and directors general. Those are findings of the group's analysis, not an independent audit by EWN. The company count must not be mistaken for a count of meetings. [1][2]

The methodology matters. The researchers used published transparency returns across eleven departments and searched for terms relating to data centres, compute and the AI policy programme. They say the disclosure rules prevented a comparable assessment of special advisers' meetings. An absence from this dataset therefore does not demonstrate an absence from every possible government conversation. [2]

The government told the Guardian it welcomes input from industry, councils, environmental organisations and communities. [3]

The report calls for broader participation and clearer public scrutiny of AI infrastructure policy. For residents, the useful question is how their views enter decisions before plans are settled, rather than whether a meeting count alone proves misconduct. [1]