Goodbye Greenbelt – Hello ‘Greenwash’, Say Campaigners

This article has been submitted by the North Ockendon Alliance and reflects the views of the author.

Yesterday, Councillor Graham Williamson authored an article in the Havering Daily entitled, ‘Creating a Greener Future: The Ecology Park and Visitor Centre at East Havering’.

Anyone who has read the consultation documents for the East Havering Data Centre may well be confused by this article, and wonder whether residents are being treated as if they will not question these claims.

Cllr Williamson claims that the Data Centre Campus ‘could also deliver significant economic benefits’ (I’m sure we all noticed that he doesn’t say that it will offer environmental benefits). The North Ockendon Alliance believes he does not appear to reference:

• Thousands of lorries delivering for 20+ years of construction;¹
• The HSE ‘major hazard zone’ due to the high-pressure gas transmission pipeline running through the site;²
• 286 back-up generators which documents suggest could produce around 2.8 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide annually;³
• Evaporative cooling towers, which carry a recognised risk of Legionnaires disease if not properly managed;⁴
• 600MW of electricity (around the same amount of electricity used by Leeds or Bristol), and government-published material acknowledging a possible association between high voltage exposure and health risks;⁵
• The potential risk of pollution from so-called forever chemicals used in cooling and equipment, particularly given the site’s fenland location draining into the Mardyke river.⁶

1 If works are started within the 20-year period, they may be continued beyond the 20 years – Appendix 5 – Statement of Reasons [7.1].
2 Appendix 5 – Statement of Reasons [4.10].
3 ES Chapter 4: Proposed Development & Construction [4.21].
4 https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg458.htm.
5 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electric-and-magnetic-fields-health-effects-of-exposure/electric-and-magnetic-fields-assessment-of-health-risks.
6 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/04/pfas-pollution-data-centers-ai.

The North Ockendon Alliance says Cllr Williamson’s article describes Digital Reef’s proposal as showing ‘environmental responsibility’. Questions have been raised about this, particularly following works on the site which the Council’s Director of Planning confirmed in early 2025 had been undertaken without planning permission.

If Digital Reef, the Council, and the Havering Resident’s Association are environmentally responsible, then why does the Council’s proposal allow the developer to pay to pollute if air quality benchmarks are not met?⁷ If the development is going to ‘reduce carbon emissions’ then why does the Council provide for carbon offsetting payments?⁸

What could be better for carbon emissions than the existing rolling hills and fields? Not only do they not emit carbon, they also absorb vast quantities from the environment, cleaning the air and providing part of the environment which has led to Havering being known as the green borough.

Seven-story warehouses with emission chimneys nine-stories high are described as ‘integrating natural landscapes with cutting-edge technology’, but some may question how biodiversity will be improved by a collection of large industrial buildings, which studies suggest can impact birds and wildlife.⁹ And as for the ‘accessible green space’ Cllr Williamson promotes, the site already has public footpaths available to those who value open countryside and natural surroundings.

Cllr Williamson says there will be jobs and economic benefits. However, the Council’s draft s.106 agreement indicates that 20% of the workforce would be local.¹⁰ If this build is to benefit Havering, then why does the agreement set out 25% of contract procurement from suppliers in Havering, and 50% from suppliers in surrounding boroughs?¹¹ If this Ecology Park and Visitors Centre is to benefit the people of Havering, then why is the Visitors Centre only proposed to be available free of charge for local schools?¹² How much are visiting residents likely to be charged? Are we to be pleased that there will be 50,000m2 of horticulture production instead of the 25 open fields of the 4 working farms this replaces?¹³ Surely, no matter how important the Council considers data centres to be, the agricultural independence and food security of the UK remains an important consideration.

7 Draft Heads of Terms for s.106 agreement [12].
8 Appendix 5 – Statement of Reasons [6.12]. Draft Heads of Terms for s.106 agreement [13].
9 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93dnnxewdvo https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0056966/00001/citation
10 Draft Heads of Terms for s.106 agreement [12].
11 Draft Heads of Terms for s.106 agreement [6].
12 Draft Heads of Terms for s.106 agreement [13].
13 Draft Heads of Terms for s.106 agreement [13].

The North Ockendon Alliance wonders whether Cllr Williamson has fully considered his own Council’s LDO documentation. If this is presented as a ‘statement of Havering’s dedication to sustainability and quality of life’, some residents may feel this raises further questions about the future of the borough formerly known as ‘Green.’

Stay up to date with all of our latest updates and content by following us on our social media accounts!

We have created community pages where we will share our up-to-date stories happening in the area. Add the area closest to where you live.