‘People are standing up and fighting back’: the north Devon revolt against a vast AI datacentre
Plans for a 1.5GW artificial intelligence datacentre and 1.8GW battery storage facility in north Devon have triggered fierce local opposition. The proposed campus would occupy about 344 hectares within a Unesco-designated biosphere reserve, raising concerns about damage to protected landscapes, farmland, water and energy use.
Xlinks, the British company behind the project, proposes five buildings up to 130 feet high and says listed buildings would be converted into a visitor centre. Campaigners say council officials held confidential discussions with the company from March 2025 and gave “in-principle support” before environmental assessments or public consultation; the council says this was a standard, confidential planning process and did not confirm approval.
- North Devon residents oppose a huge AI campus in a protected landscape.
- The proposal includes a 1.5GW datacentre and 1.8GW battery system.
- Campaigners question early confidential discussions between developers and council officials.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters could argue that the datacentre and battery facility would bring major investment, skilled jobs and upgraded infrastructure to north Devon, while helping meet growing demand for computing and renewable-energy storage. They may view the confidential preliminary discussions as a normal part of developing a complex proposal, with the merits properly tested through environmental assessments and formal public consultation. They could also argue that converting listed buildings into a visitor centre and imposing planning conditions might reduce some impacts while preserving local heritage.
The case against
Opponents could argue that a development of this scale would industrialise a protected biosphere reserve, consuming farmland and placing serious pressure on landscapes, water supplies and the electricity system. They may question whether the economic benefits justify permanent environmental damage and the substantial energy and infrastructure demands of AI computing. They could also argue that confidential council discussions and reported in-principle support undermined public confidence by creating the appearance that the project was advancing before residents had a meaningful opportunity to scrutinise it.