This application is for a 300MW hyperscale data centre on the outskirts of Larbert. A full planning application has been submitted with a deadline for comments and objections by 2 July. Some of the key documents are highlighted below.
Planning Application:
This Planning application was on 5 June 2026, with a deadline for comments and objections of 25 June. You can make comments on the website here:
The Planning Application Reference is P/26/0237/FUL and you can access the documents and post a comment on this link.
Planning applications are primarily assessed against the Development Plan for the area with other material considerations then account of. For Larbert the development plan is formed by the combination of policies in National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Falkirk Local Development Plan (LDP2) (there is an online interactive map of the LDP).
Scroll down for extracts from the planning documents on these subjects below.
some key points to use in an objection:
Campaigner Kate Wheway has put together a document cross referencing the Local Development Plan (LDP) and National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) to help campaigners.
Kate points out that The Larbert Planning Application is thorough, being for Full Planning Permission and having required to do an EIA. The consultants define ‘green’ based on a sentence in a Parliamentary question in October 2025 (which is, to date, the on;y definition that exists). But even then they’re not able to reflect green credentials against the application, generally coming up as ‘major adverse’ or ‘significant’
Supporting Evidence for Objections
Backup generators, diesel storage and consents
This factsheet sets out the evidence behind the air quality, major-accident hazard and EIA-adequacy to P/26/0237/FUL. It uses the applicant’s (Apatura) own figures and the published manufacturer data for the generator the applicant has specified, and follows them to consequences the application does not address.
Read the APRS objection
The full objection written by the APRS Team can be found in the resource section of our website, or by using the link below.
For more guidance on how the planning system works look at the Planning pages of our website and the Guidance written by Planning Democracy on ‘Responding to a Planning Application’
There is more information about Hyperscale Data Centres and our campaign on this page of our website
Local Campaign
There is a local campaign facebook group and petition which is mobilising against the proposals
Useful Documents uploaded by consultees:
SEPA Holding Objection
Annex to the SEPA comments
NHS Scotland Objection
Environmental Heath Falkirk Response
Scottish Gas Networks Objection
SGN objected on the basis of proximity to a high pressure gas main
News related to this application
We have looked in detail at the Air Pollution Assessment carried out as part of the EIA. We found that routine testing of the diesel generators would make the site a top 10 polluter for NOx (nitrous oxide) emissions. The generators would release a staggering 288 tonnes of NOx (nitrogen oxide) gases a year just from routine testing operations, which would make the development a large-scale industrial polluter and place it firmly above SEPA’s reporting threshold of 100 tonnes for yearly exhaust gas releases.
In the unlikely event of a power outage when 180 generators would switch on, all of the hyperscale data centre’s neighbours could be exposed to high levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution, ranging from 11 to 44 times the healthy hourly limit of 200 micrograms per cubic metre of air in the worst case scenario. At these concentrations, the pollution would be visible as a reddish haze and could irritate or injure airways, especially in sensitive populations like the elderly and children.
An analysis of the diesel emissions from the Larbert data centre under normal testing by journalist Petra Matijevic shows that it would emit more air pollution than the Shell liquefied gas plant in Fife.
APRS Objection for Planning Application P/26/0237/FUL. Apatura DC Project 5 Ltd (Apatura). Full planning permission for a 300 MW –
The Larbert Data Centre Campaign were delighted to welcome Susan Boyle to their ranks when she joined them to protest
Campaigners are encouraging people to contribute their comments and objections to planning applications for two Scottish hyperscale AI data centres before a deadline of 2nd July.
An application for a 300MW hyperscale data centre on the outskirts of Larbert has been lodged by developers Apatura. A full planning application has been submitted with a deadline for comments and objections by 25 June.
Outlander star Sam Heughan spoke to the National newspaper about how he feels about the applications for hyperscale AI data centres in Scotland, showing his support for campaigners. “The rest of the world hears you” he said.
Some extracts from the Planning Application documents
There are 129 Documents associated with this application and many are more than 100 pages long – it is an epic task for anyone to be able to read these, even experts working full time, within the three week consultation period. The Environmental Impact Statement alone is split into 52 separate documents.
We are campaigning with Planning Democracy and ERCS to have a planning system that is more accessible to communities and civil society and for an equal right of appeal. Find out more on Planning Democracy’s website.
The document which is the best to give an overview is this one. Some of the more detailed elements are picked out below.
Back-up diesel generators
Data Centres need 24/7 electricity with no interruptions so they need to have back-up generators onsite which will kick in if there is an interruption. They also need to be tested monthly, quarterly and annually. For hyperscale data centres this becomes a huge amount of generation with attendant greenhouse emissions for when they are running and very serious air pollution impacts.
It seems strange that the amount of generators planned for the site would provide more than twice the power needed by a 300MW data centre – 200 generators of 3.2MW makes a total of 640MW. It is hard to work out why this would be but perhaps they could be preparing for a larger power consumption than initially planned in future.
The design and access statement (p24) which talks about the two storey design may shed some light on this as it says “This vertical arrangement maximises floor space efficiency and allows for the installation of additional rack rows without expanding the site footprint ….This approach also optimises landuse, reduces external building sprawl, and supports future scalability within the masterplan.”
Here are some extracts from the planning documents on the generators and some analysis.
From the Air Quality Assessment
For the Larbert proposal, the risk of impacts to Human Health and Ecological impacts is judged to be ‘major’ under emergency operation of the diesel generators. The report says this is unlikely to occur but we know that in areas where hyperscale data centres are built, the likelyhood of power outages is greater because of the strain that they put on the grid. Data centres may be required to come off the grid at times of high loads so be required to run generators more routinely.
Below are extracts from the Air Quality Assessment report. You can read the whole report here:
At normal testing regime the air quality standards will be exceeded routinely, when the generators are being tested-but the assessment says this will not happen more than a permitted 18 times a year.
“For the assessment of annual mean impacts on ecological and human receptors, the model outputs assuming continuous operation were scaled by the assumed hours of operation, namely:
- Monthly Testing: 12 months with 1 hour testing of each generator: A total of 12 hours annually per source group with a total of 67 source groups tested;
- Quarterly and Annual Testing (either on load bank or building load): 4 months with 4 hours testing of each generator: 16 hours per source group with a total of 67 source groups tested; and
- Emergency Scenario: 72 hours of running of all generators: 72 hours.”
Results- emergency testing scenario
Quote from the Air Quality report
“Based on the generator testing regime for the Proposed Development, exceedance of the 200 μg / m3 AQS for hourly mean NO2 concentration is predicted, in the worst hour of the year (100th percentile). These include residential receptors on Bellsdyke Road, located approximately 40 m south of the Proposed Development, and Stirling Road, located approximately 40 m west of the Proposed Development, as well as commercial receptors at Glenbervie, located close to the eastern boundary of the site, and on Bellsdyke Road, approximately 100 m north of the Proposed Development.
However, at all these receptors, the number of exceedances is below the number of permitted exceedances set out in the AQS objective (i.e. not to be exceeded more than 18 times per year), except at one receptor on Stirling Road. However, based on hypergeometric analysis, the likelihood of exceedance of the objective in reality is considered to be insignificant. There is an insignificant risk of exceedance of the hourly mean AEGLs at all human health receptors. PM10 impacts are insignificant at all receptors during the testing scenarios.”
From the noise assessment
Image taken from EIA fig. 31a general arrangement layout
Greenhouse emissions
Quotes taken from the Greenhouse emissions Assessment read the document here;
“The whole life emissions (accounting for construction and operational phases) represent an overall estimated GHG emissions of 2,367,328 tCO2e from the Proposed Development. The construction phase contributes approximately 13% and the operational phase contributes approximately 87% of the total GHG emissions from the Proposed Development”
“Based on the results presented this section, professional judgement and guidance from ISEP, the Proposed Development is predicted to have a Moderate Adverse effect (Significant) during the construction phase and a Major Adverse effect (Significant) during the operational phase.”
There is a list of mitigations at the end of this report including choice of construction materials, using efficient electrical equipment, using low energy appliances like bulbs – none of the mitigations deals with the main factor which is causing the high green house emissions which is the energy use of the data centre.
Noise
Noise is a serious concern for those living near to hyperscale data centres, the cooling systems, back-up generators and transformers can all make significant noise. This is an extract from the Noise Impact Assessment – you can read the full document here:
Waste Heat
The application refers numerous times to being ‘district heat ready’ but there is no plan to put in place district heating in the application. Saying a facility is ‘district heat ready’ is essentially just saying, we have excess heat (which all data centres have – that is why is takes so much energy to cool them).
Grid Connection and Renewables
They will be connecting via the Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) at Glenside Farm, Plean. Here is the link to the application for the BESS on the Energy Consents Unit website ECU00005047.
Two cases are interesting with respect to this connection with the BESS.
Firstly if the data centre is reliant on the BESS and the private wire connection for its operating then these need to be considered alongside the data centre for EIA purposes. This principle was established by the Raeshaw Farms ruling. Decisions about BESS and renewables applications that had not considered the grid connections element were put on review following this ruling. We believe the same will be necessary in this case as the BESS and the private wire are an essential part of the development because that is where the grid connection will come from.
Secondly in another case the Reporter said that BESS should not be considered renewable energy for the purposes of planning. This is SPEA case PPA-230-2609
The Report in the DPEA appeal writes, on p2 of the decision notice:
“my understanding of the intent of policy 11 is that renewable energy will be encouraged, promoted, and facilitated by the likes of energy storage. Policy 11 does not explicitly say that BESS is to be treated as a renewable energy development (like wind or solar is)”
and
“my understanding of the intent of policy 11 is that renewable energy will be encouraged, promoted, and facilitated by the likes of energy storage. Policy 11 does not explicitly say that BESS is to be treated as a renewable energy development (like wind or solar is)”
Read the full decision notice below.
The Application for the Larbert Development says:
“In lieu of onsite renewable energy generation, the Proposed Development will instead be supported by a connection to the consented, Applicant operated, 400MW BESS at Glenside Farm which is located to the north of the site. This will be connected via a private wire connection which will enable the use of otherwise curtailed renewable energy. The private wire connection will be secured via a separate planning application and the route, which is yet to be determined, will likely follow the existing road network.”
Flood Risk
We need to look into this more but it seems that the site has a high flood risk at present and is quite wet. There could be concerns about how adding a lot of buildings and hard standing to the site could affect surrounding areas.
Read the Flood Risk Assessment Here:
Other
Locals are raising concerns with us that they were not informed of the consultation events and knew nothing of the development until they read it in the paper giving then far less time to respond. Below is the figure from the application documents showing the address for the mail drop.
