Summary
- Meridian One proposes a five-building campus with 100MW of planned electrical capacity.
- The developer's investment ambition exceeds £1bn, subject to planning, grid access, and financing.
- CPRE Sussex has called for stronger scrutiny ahead of a formal planning application.
Countryside charity CPRE Sussex has raised concerns about a proposed 100MW data centre campus at Hickstead, warning that its development could increase pressure on local electricity and water infrastructure while changing the use of countryside land.
The project, known as Meridian One, is being promoted as a five-building campus at Northlands Farm Enterprise Site in West Sussex, with a potential investment programme exceeding £1bn.
The developer’s plans envisage phased construction over approximately ten years, accommodating AI, cloud, and other computing infrastructure.
A formal planning application is expected before the end of 2026. The project has not yet secured permission for the proposed development, and its full electricity requirement has not been established as connected capacity.
CPRE Sussex published its objections on 10 November, with subsequent reporting bringing the dispute into wider consideration.
The charity argues that the proposed development could compound existing pressure on local water and electrical infrastructure, while raising questions about the countryside’s role in accommodating large new industrial facilities.
It is also concerned about how local communities will participate in planning decisions, particularly where nationally significant infrastructure procedures may apply.
Those objections are concerns raised by a campaigning organisation rather than findings from a completed environmental assessment.
Meridian One’s published project material identifies a planned campus power requirement of 100MW, five buildings, and a development period extending over a decade.
The proposed investment exceeds £1bn, but that figure represents the developer’s ambition rather than expenditure already committed to construction.
Its plans remain conditional on planning permission, detailed design, grid delivery, and financing.
The developer describes an approach incorporating liquid cooling, electrical resilience, and architectural design intended to integrate the buildings with their surroundings.
It also identifies an ambition to align the technical design with Tier IV standards. That should not be confused with completed certification of a facility that has not yet been built.
An important unresolved requirement is the provision of sufficient electricity.
A campus seeking 100MW of power would need substantial electrical infrastructure, including a suitable grid connection, transformers, distribution equipment, switching systems, and supporting resilience arrangements.
The final engineering specification must also distinguish electricity available to computing equipment from power consumed by cooling and other supporting systems.
A stated campus power requirement does not establish the amount of IT capacity that could ultimately be installed.
Nor does the presence of an existing industrial or enterprise site demonstrate that the electricity network can supply the proposed load within the developer’s intended timetable.
Cooling requirements will depend on the final computing equipment and facility design.
Direct liquid cooling can transfer heat efficiently from high-density processors into a cooling circuit, but the accumulated heat must still be rejected or transferred to an external customer.
The selected heat-rejection method will influence electricity consumption, mechanical plant, and potential water requirements.
A detailed environmental assessment will be needed to establish those effects under the proposed operating conditions.
Planning and infrastructure questions
CPRE Sussex is calling for stronger consideration of land use and local democratic oversight as demand for large computing campuses increases.
The charity supports an approach that prioritises previously developed sites and establishes clearer planning requirements for assessing environmental and community effects.
These wider policy arguments are separate from the question of whether Meridian One’s particular development can satisfy the applicable rules.
The site is being promoted as a location for long-term infrastructure investment, with the developer identifying potential employment and commercial benefits.
However, the number of permanent roles, construction contracts, and local economic effects remains dependent on the project’s eventual scale and delivery arrangements.
Phased development may allow investment to proceed through separate construction stages, but each phase will require appropriate electricity, cooling, access, and operational infrastructure.
The first buildings cannot be assumed to deliver the entire proposed campus capacity.
The planning process should provide more detailed evidence about land use, traffic, environmental effects, and the technical requirements of the development.
Electricity network arrangements and financing will also determine whether the scheme can progress beyond its initial proposals.
CPRE Sussex’s intervention comes before those decisions have been made. Meridian One remains a substantial development prospect, but its proposed 100MW capacity and investment programme have yet to become approved, financed, and deliverable infrastructure.
