Adding the template protest letter here. Please email this to Clearstone Energy (contact@ebbsfleetdc.co.uk), Southfleet Parish Council (clerk@southfleetparishcouncil.gov.uk), your local MPs and Councils.
NOTE: This petition only counts as ONE objection, regardless of the number of signatures, please send an email if you are able! Please also amend to be personalised to you!
Letter of Objection: Proposed Clearstone Energy AI Data Centre
Dear [Councillor/Planning Officer/MP's Name],
I serve this letter of objection to Clearstone Energy and the Southfleet Parish Council regarding the proposed Clearstone Energy AI Data Centre Campus near New Barn Road, south of Ebbsfleet, Kent. As you are currently in the process of gathering community feedback, we would like to share our strong concerns.
While I recognise the growing demand for digital infrastructure, this proposal raises serious questions about the environmental impact, sustainability, local employment opportunities and wider consequences for the surrounding community.
The development of such a substantial facility must not come at the expense of Kent's countryside, its residents or its already stretched infrastructure.
Our concerns include:
Size of the centre and its environmental impact
Water consumption
Long-term employment benefits
Energy consumption
The need for transparency and meaningful public consultation
1.Size of the centre and its environmental impact
In your supporting statement to the Secretary of State, you describe data centres as “the invisible yet essential infrastructure” of the modern economy.
However, this proposed development will be far from invisible. The proposed site covers approximately 58.5 hectares, equivalent to roughly 80 football pitches. This is a substantial industrial development that will have a physical presence in our community and potentially a lasting impact on the people who live here.
We are concerned about the additional pressure this development could place on local infrastructure, including roads, electricity networks and water supplies.
The communities surrounding Southfleet and Ebbsfleet already rely on transport networks that connect them to Dartford, London and the wider region. The construction and operation of a major data-centre campus could bring additional construction traffic, HGV movements and operational vehicles.
From an environmental standpoint, your supporting statement also acknowledges that:
“The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt (…) the land-use [is] dominated by electricity, road and railway infrastructure, including multiple overhead lines. Other commercial uses are located to the north, (…) including a large garden centre, and a community recycling facility (…). The western section of the site comprises of open farmland and woodland blocks.”
You recognise that the site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and that parts of it comprise open farmland and woodland. However, the fact that an area already contains infrastructure does not mean that it has no further environmental or community value. The Green Belt should not be treated as a convenient reserve of land for increasingly large industrial developments.
The existing electricity infrastructure, roads and railway lines already contribute to the industrial pressures on this landscape. Introducing a substantial AI data-centre campus will only intensify those pressures and do not serve the community the way the aforementioned infrastructure does.
I am also concerned about the proposed removal of polytunnels and the potential loss of productive agricultural land. Polytunnels play an important role in local food production, enabling growers to cultivate crops and support the agricultural economy. The replacement of agricultural land with a large-scale AI data centre raises concerns about food security, biodiversity and the irreversible loss of valuable green space.
At a time when the UK is increasingly conscious of the importance of domestic food production and resilient supply chains, it seems counterproductive to remove productive agricultural infrastructure to accommodate an energy-intensive technology development.
I would urge the planning authority to carefully consider:
The number of polytunnels and agricultural facilities that would be removed.
The impact on local growers and food production.
Whether alternative, previously developed sites have been adequately considered.
The long-term environmental consequences of permanently damaging this land to industrial use.
2. Water consumption
Artificial intelligence requires enormous computing power, and the data centres supporting these technologies can place considerable demands on water and electricity supplies.
According to evidence submitted to the UK Parliament, data centres in the UK were estimated to use approximately 6.6 million litres of water per day, equivalent to the water consumption of around 20,000 average homes. If the UK's data-centre capacity were to triple, this figure could rise to approximately 19.8 million litres per day.
The UK Government has also acknowledged that AI's growing water demand could pose a threat to national and local water security, particularly in areas already experiencing water stress with the hose pipe ban. We should not be expected to accept potential pressure on their water supplies to support an industry whose benefits may be concentrated among large technology companies and investors.
It has also been proposed that this centre will use closed-loop cooling systems in an effort to be more sustainable. Although closed-loop systems are better for water retention, the name itself is a bit misleading. In a closed-loop cooling system, cold liquid circulates past the servers, absorbs heat, then flows through a heat exchanger where it is cooled before repeating the cycle. That loop is sealed; no liquid is gained or lost. However, the second loop: the heat exchanger is open. It sends cold water through the heat exchanger and hot water out to a cooling tower.
This is the loop that is responsible for data centres consuming 60% of the water they withdraw. There are two main ways to cool the liquid in the closed-loop system. Chillers and water cooling towers (in this proposal, it seems they are pushing for water cooling towers). Towers dominate at an industrial level and use air conditioning, but air is only practical in very cold climates, (which is not UK given climate change). In most places, they rely on evaporative cooling; heated water is sprayed or run over a wet medium, some of it evaporates, and that evaporation carries away heat. The process cools the remaining water, but it also requires a continuous water supply. Towers evaporate water constantly.
This is why data centres consume staggering amounts of water. Only one loop is closed; the other burns through millions of gallons daily to keep superheated machines GPUs melting down. That’s why closed-loop is misleading / not truly closed.
It is also worth noting that lead toxicity was found in Northfleet, Kent, and the site should be checked for lead toxicity, and that can affect water supplies if the ground is contaminated.
I therefore request that any planning assessment provides clear, independently verified information about:
The proposed facility's anticipated annual water consumption.
The cooling technology that will be used to be truly sustainable.
The potential impact on local water supplies, particularly during drought conditions.
The indirect water consumption associated with the electricity required to operate the facility.
Measures to ensure that local residents and existing businesses are not disadvantaged by the development.
If the lead toxicity report affects the site’s proposed location, and if so, what are the next steps?
3. Questionable long-term employment benefits
One of the arguments that comes up with these developments is the creation of jobs and economic opportunities. On your website, it states Clearstone proposes 1,400 new jobs, a maximum of 420 may be permanent, and that is also assuming they will not be made redundant by AI in the near future.
Data centres are highly automated facilities. Although they require specialist engineers, security and cleaning staff, the number of permanent employees may be small compared with the scale of the development.
I am concerned that local residents could be asked to accept the loss of countryside, increased traffic and pressure on public infrastructure without receiving long-term employment benefits. The creation of jobs should not be used as a justification for development without transparent evidence of the actual benefits to the local community.
5. Energy consumption and pressure on local infrastructure
AI data centres require substantial and continuous electricity supplies. The scale of energy consumption associated with this development raises questions about the impact on local infrastructure, energy security and the UK's wider transition towards a sustainable energy system.
It is essential that the development does not simply shift environmental costs onto local communities through increased demand for energy infrastructure, additional industrial equipment or the indirect carbon emissions associated with electricity generation.
I ask that the planning process fully considers:
The impact on local electricity infrastructure.
The project's overall carbon footprint.
The environmental impact of backup generators, cooling systems and associated infrastructure.
Whether the development genuinely supports the UK's long-term sustainability objectives.
6. The need for transparency and meaningful public consultation
While I understand being classified as ‘nationally significant infrastructure’ allows projects like these to bypass authorities, the scale and potential long-term consequences of this proposal will permanently affect local residents. We deserve to have a clear understanding of what is being built in our community and how it will affect our daily lives. Economic growth and technological advancement should not automatically take precedence over environmental protection, agricultural land, water security or the quality of life of residents.
I believe that the following safeguards are essential:
Meaningful consultation with residents before any decision is made
A clear explanation of why this particular site has been selected over alternative locations
To conclude, I am asking the relevant authorities to give serious consideration to the concerns raised by local residents. I respectfully request that these concerns are formally recorded and fully considered as part of the planning process.
I would also appreciate a response outlining:
How the environmental and transport impacts of this proposal will be assessed.
What safeguards will be put in place to protect local water supplies and agricultural land.
What guarantees, if any, exist regarding permanent local employment.
How residents can participate and make a difference in future consultations and planning decisions.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to receiving your response.
Yours sincerely,
[ Full Name]
[Address or Area]
[ Email Address]
[Date]