WHILE MSPs voted on a moratorium on data centres in the Scottish Parliament, a heated debate was held between the developers behind the plans for a “hyperscale” AI data centre and a united local community in Falkirk.
MSPs rejected an outright moratorium on AI data centres on Wednesday night but instead backed a pause on planning and consent decisions over the next 12 months until the Scottish Government publishes national planning guidance.
This announcement was met with rippling cheers as one campaigner yelled out the news to a crowd in Larbert High School, just minutes before they faced the developers behind the application for their town.
The proposal
Apatura plans to build a 300MW hyperscale AI data centre, a substation and associated infrastructure on former farmland beside Glenbervie Business Park on Bellsdyke Road.
Locals are furious over the application; their concerns spearheaded by the campaign group Say No to Larbert Data Centre.
The two groups met at a highly guarded pre-determination hearing by Falkirk Council.
The meeting
More than 100 locals shuffled into the school’s plaza, with security checking people’s bags on their way in. They were warned the meeting was a “listening” event, and no disruptions would be tolerated.
Around 10 Apatura representatives attended, and they were instantly met with a tense room. Locals were fuming. The developers knew it.
Apatura's opening remarks by Fraser Blackwood began with them taking responsibility for shortcomings in their engagement over the proposal, with the community stating they had “not invested enough” in listening to them.
They promised to change their approach going forward in communicating and committed to establishing a liaison team.
From there, it went downhill.
What went wrong?
Blackwood said Apatura were “energy specialists” and outlined how the site was essential due to its proximity to the nearby Denny substation and its key transport links.
There was no acknowledgement of the proposal's proximity to Forth Valley Royal Hospital, Glenbervie Care Home, or the hundreds of homes.
This did not go down well with locals.
Instead, the developers claimed the site was on an “urban fringe” and that it would unlock around 500 local jobs throughout the delivery of the project, while acknowledging the recent loss of employment due to the closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery.
They argued they wanted Scotland to be a “world leader” in AI and that without “essential” infrastructure like the proposed Larbert site, the country would fall behind and see the sector move to England and Wales.
Apatura's opening remarks received a frosty reception. It was over to the councillors to field their questions.
The meeting heard that the application received 7284 representations, including 7166 objections and 83 expressions of support.
Councillors raised a variety of concerns from their constituents, ranging from air pollution from the proposed 200 diesel-powered backup generators, noise from the data centres' 24-hour operations, and the destruction of trees and greenery for the project.
The list went on and on.
When one councillor asked if Apatura could inform people what a data centre is and why it was needed, a “specialist” was all too happy to explain.
He said they form the “backbone” for all personal and professional aspects of people’s lives, but didn’t give any further details; his explanation was met with groans and shaking of heads by residents.
When pressed on his poor explanation and asked if Apatura could understand people’s concerns over the proposal, the expert replied he “understood” people’s fears but added they didn’t apply to the application.
From there, the audience heard how there was a “limited number” of sites applicable for this type of project in Scotland, and they didn’t believe the data centre would have any “significant adverse effects” to the local community.
There were loud boos from the crowd. The animosity in the crowd grew.
The meeting was adjourned for an hour amid unrelenting audio problems.
Members in the crowd could be heard jeering the developers; the sense of frustration was palpable.
They were warned, “no clapping, no cheering,” as it was a listening event.
The community speaks up
Shortly after, the community got its chance to speak. Retired technology worker Michael Maciocia led the charge.
He questioned the legality of some of the proposals around the application, mainly around the parallel running of high-voltage cables from the substation to the site next to a high-pressure pipeline run by Scottish Gas.
“There are significant implications to the safety and wellbeing of thousands of people,” he warned the developers.
Councillors heard concerns from a variety of community members, ranging from farmers to health care workers and tech professionals. Larbert’s community was well represented.
They questioned why the local community had no say about the development.
It “feels more like it's happening to us and not with us,” one woman said.
Another asked who would be held accountable if there are any negative effects from the centre and whether Apatura's own developers would live next to it.
Another woman asked why they should accept the developers' promises of “mitigation,” arguing what gives them “the right to create these problems in the first place”.
Graeme Hendry, the director of Glenbervie Care Home, also raised “profound concerns” over the application.
He outlined that the care home has 56 vulnerable residents who have chosen Glenbervie specifically for its “peace and tranquility”.
Eleven of the home's rooms are specially equipped with integrated, piped oxygen and medical suction systems.
Hendry said: “Some of our residents rely on tracheostomies and continuous mechanical ventilation to stay alive.
“For these individuals, environmental stability is not a luxury—it is a matter of critical clinical safety.”
He added: “Yet, despite our immediate proximity to this massive, 300-megawatt industrial proposal, the developer, Apatura, has at no point approached Glenbervie Care Home to discuss how this project will affect our residents.
“We have been excluded from their consultation process, despite being the single most sensitive neighbour to this site.”
The audience then heard probably the most moving statement of the evening from Janet Mayo, a resident at the care home.
She explained that she lives with advanced multiple sclerosis and that her condition is “progressive and deteriorating”, and the care home provides the “support, stability and dignity I need in my daily life”.
The Glenbervie Care Home is immediately adjacent to the proposed data-centre development site.
Mayo explained that she can see the existing tree-line boundary.
“This green outlook matters greatly to me,” she said.
“As my illness has reduced my mobility and ability to get out into the wider community, the view from my room and the garden at the care home have become an important part of my everyday life.
“I spend time in the garden in all kinds of weather. I value the fresh air, the trees, the sounds of wildlife and birdsong, and the periods of peace and quiet. These are not insignificant pleasures.
“They provide comfort, calm and connection with the natural world at a time when so much of my independence has been taken away by illness.”
She added: “I want the final period of my life to be peaceful.
“I want to continue sitting in the garden, breathing fresh air, hearing birdsong and enjoying the natural surroundings that are still available to me.
“I do not want the view from my room to be destroyed, or the sounds of birds and quiet replaced by machinery, traffic, construction activity and plant noise.”
Audience members could be seen wiping tears from their eyes; the developers could barely make eye contact with Mayo.
Over four hours, dozens of residents pleaded with the councillors not to back the proposal.
The rebuttal
The developers were only given 10 minutes to reply to concerns at the end. This was not even close to the amount of time needed to address all the points raised.
They attempted to answer some of the concerns around job numbers, the 200 diesel generators, and air pollution concerns.
For the remaining residents in the hall, the meeting seemed to have left them with more questions than answers.
Time was called. Six security guards formed a wall in front of the developers, and they quickly scampered to the nearest exit. Locals left frustrated and bewildered.
The decision on this high-profile project now lies on the heavy shoulders of just a handful of councillors.
