Proposed London datacentre will have annual carbon footprint of 27,000 flights to New York
A proposed "hyperscale" datacentre in outer London would generate more than 1m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, equivalent to roughly 27,000 flights from London to New York, according to planning documents. The East Havering Data Centre Campus, put forward by developer Digital Reef on 218 hectares of green belt in north Ockendon, would be one of the largest datacentres in Europe if approved by Havering council, raising fresh questions about how the UK's rapid expansion of AI infrastructure can be squared with legally binding net zero commitments.
The £14.7bn scheme's own planning application admits it "does not align with a science-based 1.5C compatible trajectory and achieving net zero by 2050", with projected emissions of over 72m tonnes of CO2 equivalent across its 60-year lifespan, the highest disclosed by any UK datacentre developer analysed by the Guardian. At likely 50% load, the campus would consume 2.65bn kWh of electricity annually, more than 1m UK households' worth, drawing on a new 600MVA National Grid connection requiring major substation upgrades by 2033. Critics, including tech justice group Foxglove and the North Ockendon Residents Group, warned of the strain on decarbonisation efforts, shared energy resources, and the loss of farmland and wildlife habitat.
- London datacentre plan would emit 1.2m tonnes of CO2 yearly
- Emissions equal roughly 27,000 return flights to New York
- Highest-emitting UK datacentre proposal disclosed so far
New here? Start with this
London has a proposed "hyperscale" datacentre, a very large facility that houses thousands of computer servers used for cloud computing and, increasingly, artificial intelligence. The plans, from developer Digital Reef, cover 218 hectares of green belt land in north Ockendon, part of the London borough of Havering, and would need approval from Havering council.
Datacentres like this one require huge amounts of electricity to run and cool their servers, and demand for them has surged as AI use has grown. That has put them at the centre of a wider debate about how the UK can expand its digital and AI infrastructure while still meeting its legally binding target of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The scheme has drawn attention because of the scale of its projected emissions and energy use, and because it would be built on green belt land, which is normally protected from development. Objections have come from campaign groups including Foxglove and the North Ockendon Residents Group, who have raised concerns about climate impact, pressure on the electricity grid, and the loss of farmland and wildlife habitat.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the scheme argue that Britain's economic future, from AI development to financial services and public digital infrastructure, depends on a rapid build-out of computing capacity, and that datacentres of this scale are unavoidable if the UK wants to remain competitive and avoid ceding this infrastructure to other countries. They would contend that a £14.7bn investment brings substantial jobs, business rates and local economic activity to Havering, and that a new 600MVA grid connection with major substation upgrades ultimately strengthens regional energy infrastructure for everyone, not just the site. They might also argue that concentrating capacity in one large, purpose-built campus is more efficient than dispersing it across many smaller sites, and that developers should not be expected to guarantee 1.5C alignment single-handedly when national energy policy and grid decarbonisation are government responsibilities, not those of any one applicant.
The case against
Opponents, including local residents and environmental campaigners, argue that approving a scheme which its own developer admits does not align with a science-based 1.5C trajectory would make a mockery of the UK's legally binding net zero commitments, and that planning authorities should not wave through projects that concede incompatibility with climate law from the outset. They would emphasise that building on 218 hectares of green belt destroys farmland and wildlife habitat that, once lost, cannot be recovered, undermining protections designed to prevent exactly this kind of development. They are also likely to raise concerns that consuming electricity equivalent to more than a million households risks straining shared energy resources and could crowd out capacity needed for home electrification and other decarbonisation efforts, meaning local communities bear the environmental and infrastructural cost of a facility serving largely non-local, corporate computing demand.