The people v the datacentre? The fight for Brick Lane – podcast
A Guardian podcast episode explores growing opposition to plans for a large datacentre on Brick Lane, one of London's best-known streets, long famous for its curry houses, 24-hour bagel shops and role as home to successive migrant communities. Reporter Annie Kelly speaks to residents, local politicians and activists who say the development represents a new, distinctly modern threat to the area's character, following decades of pressure from gentrification.
The episode examines why campaigners are fighting the scheme and why central government approved it despite opposition from the local community. It sets the datacentre project within the wider story of change on Brick Lane, framing it as a fresh chapter in the street's long history of contested development.
- Podcast covers Brick Lane campaign against a proposed large datacentre
- Residents and activists oppose scheme despite government approval
- Explores tension between development and the area's migrant heritage
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 urgently needs more digital infrastructure to underpin everything from cloud computing to AI development, and that sites in well-connected urban locations are often the most practical places to build it. They contend that the developer followed proper planning procedures and that central government's approval reflects a wider national interest in economic growth and technological capacity that can outweigh purely local objections. Advocates may also note that such developments can bring investment, construction jobs and modernised infrastructure to an area, and that change on Brick Lane is nothing new given its long history of successive transformations.
The case against
Opponents argue that Brick Lane's identity, built over generations by migrant communities and independent traders, is a fragile cultural asset that a large-scale datacentre would irreversibly damage, replacing lived-in vibrancy with a sealed, low-footfall industrial facility. They believe local residents and businesses, who best understand the street's character and community needs, should have a decisive say in decisions that will reshape their neighbourhood, and see central government overriding local opposition as a troubling erosion of democratic accountability in planning. For campaigners, this case exemplifies a broader pattern in which distinctive, historic urban communities are sacrificed to infrastructure and commercial priorities set elsewhere.