There were some amazing speeches from members of the community and other witnesses over 3.5 hours at the pre-determination hearing at Larbert High School on 16th September. Here are a very few of them.
Watch the full video of the proceedigs
Janet Mayo, Resident of Glenbervie Care Home
Watch Janet at time signature 1hour 42 minutes
My name is Janet Mayo. I am 67 years old and live with advanced multiple sclerosis. I have been a resident of Glenbervie Care Home for several years. My condition is progressive and deteriorating, and the care home provides the support, stability and dignity I need in my daily life.
Glenbervie Care Home is immediately adjacent to the proposed data-centre development site. From my bedroom, I can see the existing tree-line boundary. This green outlook matters greatly to me. 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. They contribute directly to my wellbeing, dignity and quality of life.
I am deeply concerned about the effects that a major construction project and a large data-centre development could have on residents of Glenbervie Care Home. I understand that data centres can produce substantial heat, continuous noise and light, and—in some cases—require significant amounts of water for cooling. They may also depend on diesel-powered backup generators. The impact of these matters must be assessed properly for people living directly next to the site, particularly residents who are older, disabled, seriously unwell or otherwise vulnerable.
I ask the applicant and the planning authority to explain clearly where the water needed for cooling would come from; how much water would be used during normal operation and during hot weather; whether it would affect local supply; what chemicals, if any, would be added to the cooling system; and where any cooling water, wastewater or drainage would eventually be discharged. I also ask whether water leaving the site would contain treatment chemicals, altered pH, solids or elevated temperatures, and what safeguards would ensure that it could not harm people, animals, wildlife, watercourses or the wider environment.
I am also concerned about possible effects on air quality, particularly during construction and from the testing or operation of backup generators. I want to know what emissions could be produced, how frequently generators would be tested, how close they would be to residents’ bedrooms and garden areas, and what independent evidence demonstrates that residents would not be exposed to harmful levels of diesel fumes, fine particles, nitrogen oxides, dust, or other pollutants. The same applies to noise, vibration and artificial lighting, including at night.
People living in a care home may have serious neurological conditions, respiratory illness, frailty, reduced mobility, sensory impairment or anxiety. Many cannot simply leave the area to escape construction noise, night-time lighting, disturbance or poor air quality. For us, the care home is not just a building beside the proposed site: it is our home, our place of care and, for some of us, the place where we will spend the final part of our lives.
I am nearing the end of my life. I do not understand why I and the other residents of Glenbervie Care Home should have to endure the prolonged disruption of a large construction site and then live beside a major industrial-scale development. I fear the loss of the trees and green outlook from my room, the intrusion of constant noise and artificial light, the pressure on water resources, and the possibility of diesel fumes and other pollution.
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.
I respectfully ask the planning authority to give full and meaningful weight to the health, wellbeing, dignity and human rights of Glenbervie Care Home residents. If this development is considered further, it must be demonstrated through independent and publicly available evidence that it will not cause unacceptable harm to those of us who are least able to avoid its effects.
Tia lives with her grandparents beside the site
When Tia took the stage and she was told she only had two minutes to speak, when she had been offered five, but she insisted that she was heard and kept reading her speech, speeding up to get through it all. Her act of resistance and insistence to have her voice heard while being told to stop would have been tough with the intimidating circumstances of the vast room with so many listening, and the long table of Councillors down the side of the room and the gaggle of developers and their lawyers, advisors and security guards directly opposite. Watch Tia at time signature 3hours 16 mins
I live in Larbert with my two Grandparents, who are both approaching their mid-90s and we have the unique situation of sharing a property boundary with the proposed site for the AI Data Centre. Despite this, the first I came to know of this proposed development was through a post made on the Larbert Area Woodland Network Facebook group on the evening of the 10th of June 2026. My Grandparents only found out about this from a letter from the council, which they received on the 13th of June 2026. That is to say we received no letter or invitation from Apatura last year when they supposedly sent out over 2000 invitations to people within a 1km radius to attend their consultation meeting. Nobody from Apatura, or anyone working on their behalf to assess or survey the site, has come to speak to us about this proposal. Nobody has come to explain to us what it would mean to have an industrial development, including 200 diesel generators, in the field next to our home.
One of my worries is the health implications that we may be subjected to if this proposal were to go ahead. My Grandparents often use the phrase ‘Old age doesn’t come itself’ and it is something they can attest to given the milestone age they have both reached and the serious medical conditions that they live with, one of them having significant heart and lung problems. Because of their age and health, the majority of their time is spent in our home and garden. I understand that the diesel generators are intended to be used as back-up power should they experience a power cut. My family are no stranger to these, and in recent years have experienced ones that have lasted days. What I fail to comprehend is how our health is being considered when these diesel generators have to undergo regular maintenance testing, or when they are used in the circumstance of a power cut, or anytime they need extra power for the centre. Are we simply disposable and our health and wellbeing overlooked because AI and data centres have been referred to as essential infrastructure? For many people in the wider community, the data centre might be something they see from a distance, drive past, or experience occasionally. For my family, it will be a constant presence in our everyday lives. During construction we will be subjected to increased noise levels, dust, heavy vehicles, as well as disruption and changes to the environment around our home. When the generators are being tested or used, or when the data centre is operating and creating noise, light or other disturbance my family are among those closest to the source of that impact.
When my Grandparents bought our property, the land that surrounded them was woodland. Since then, a motorway has been built on one side of us, and a business park on another. We already experience noise and light pollution from these developments that is somewhat mitigated in the summer months from the trees that surround our property, but just because we are already subjected to these does not justify an additional industrial development next to our home. The home is literally where people are meant to rest, something that will be disrupted in our lives if this development goes ahead given the centre will be operating 24 hours a day. Given my grandparents age and health issues they cannot simply choose to spend their days elsewhere, and I worry about how our peace and enjoyment of our home and garden will be impacted by an AI Data Centre. I would like anyone here to give any benefit my family might obtain from this AI Data Centre being built. If there is any, I would like you to try and justify it against the long list of negatives that we will experience.
Much of the wildlife that resides on the site also visits our garden and I worry about where they will go or if they will even survive if this proposal goes ahead. It is as much their world as it is ours and I stand firm with my belief that nature is not disposable. I also believe the site to be an important green space in our community, and serves as something that actually benefits our health. Scotland is known for its nature and landscapes, not AI Data Centres. For people my age, we are struggling to live and jobs are at threat of being replaced with AI. For us, the future is not something we look forward to. I myself developed a toxic relationship with technology and began using a flip phone instead of a smartphone and try to limit how much I use the internet. My Grandparents also use limited technology, and struggle to use advanced technology, and as such I further wonder how this proposed development will benefit us?
Something I do know is the limited time I have left with my Grandparents, and I can’t help but wish to be selfish in that I want their time left here with our family to be in peace, and their health and wellbeing not be sacrificed. I worry about whether my family will be able to continue to live in our home if this proposal were to go ahead, and so all I can ask is that they be properly considered in this planning decision.
Lynne Salutous, local resident who lives 2 streets away from the proposed site of the Larbert AI data centre.
Councillors, members of the public. My name is Lynne Salutous and I live in Glenbervie Drive, only a stones throw away from site of the proposed data centre. I’m speaking tonight in this capacity.
There’s no denying that the proverbial genie is out the bottle. AI is developing at such a fast rate, even developers in silicone valley don’t fully understand the processes and mechanisms behind AI. Apatura’s response when asked about this by a Cllr at the beginning of the meeting was-the Scottish govt recognises it as national development, so questions must be kept to the planning application. Why can’t we as local residents ask the bigger picture questions? These are legitimate concerns.
Scotland clearly has the renewable energy and space to support AI infrastructure. That’s exactly why they want to build here.
We keep being told Scotland is a great place for digital infrastructure, so can Apatura, a UK developer, tell us who is going to actually occupy and run the data centre campus if planning permission is granted? Will it be a giant American corporation that has zero interest in our community, zero interest in our children, our livelihoods and our environment.
Why should we just accept the proposals so quickly without asking questions because AI data centres are “good for business”
I’m not an expert nor did I have the time as a working class woman, to read the numerous documents, but I do want more time to learn more about the human and environmental impact and what investment will there be back into our community. Why can’t Scotland be in control of its own AI infrastructure rather allowing America to extract our wealth? Are there better sites? Who’s profiting? This feels like it’s been done to us rather than with us. Would the individuals in Apatura live next to a hyper scale data centre? This is capitalism at its finest
How green are the nuclear powered battery energy storage systems that power the data centre? If they are built on nuclear energy then it could potentially render the land unusable for years.
Not to mention the deeply unethical global supply chains involved in the development of big tech. Global communities and indigenous peoples are exploited, have their land stolen and children are used for cheap labour.
Councillors, MSPs and the first minister must listen to the people of Larbert and other communities in Scotland before granting permission. If this went ahead, this would be the biggest betrayal by our elected officials, MSPs and politicians to the people of Scotland.
Hazel McQueen, ‘Human receptor Number 4, as she has been referred to in the EIA Report’ lives right next to the site
My name is Hazel McQueen, and I’m speaking today on behalf of the Larbert community. But I’m also speaking as someone who has lived in Larbert my whole life. I spent my childhood in Old Denny Road, not far from where I presently live 20 meters away from the boundary of this proposed development
When I first looked at the applicants planning documents- all 133 of them-something struck me. In the applicants planning reports, I’m not Hazel McQueen. I’m human receptor number 4. That’s the term the applicant uses when assessing the pollution levels at each property around the site.
However, human receptor number 4 isn’t just a dot on a report. That dot is my home and it represents far more than just me. It represents, my family, friends and everyone who walks through my door. The map counts it as one human receptor but how many people could ultimately be exposed at that one location?
Behind every dot are real people with families, members of the community I’m here to represent. We are the ones who will be left living in the shadow of this development, long after the developers have moved on.
I want to briefly address two serious concerns- pollution and noise which come from the applicants own documents. When I looked at the air quality documents, I was drawn to some of the pollution figures, but to be honest I just couldn’t get my head round what it all meant and I know I wasn’t the only one. Thankfully, a data analyst helped make sense of the figures, showing just how serious potential pollution levels could be.
There are 200 diesel backup generators proposed for this development, and these generators aren’t just for emergencies. The application sets out monthly, quarterly and annual testing. Using that testing schedule, the data analyst calculated that 3 generators could be operating in staggered tests for around 8,5 hours every working day before an emergency use. Using data from the planning reports the data analyst calculated that routine generator testing alone could produce around 288 tonnes of Nitrogen Oxides a year. Potentially making it one of Scotland’s top ten Nitrogen Oxide emitters.
But it’s the modelling of a major power outage that raises the greatest concern. In that worst case scenario the Nitrogen Dioxide levels predicted at my home could be more than 21 times the hourly air quality standard. My neighbours, and others living nearby could face similar high levels.
The application itself says power cuts are one of the risks from climate change, and that would mean relying on emergency generators. Another important issue raised by SEPA is what could happen during a regional power cut. Forth Valley Royal Hospitals backup generators could be running at the same time as the ai data centre generators, and the combined impact should’ve been assessed. But it hasn’t .
And with all the documents figures and assessments we’ve been given, the applicant is still asking for flexibility over the final layout. If that final layout can still change, how can we be sure the air quality figures being presented to us now will still be accurate. Their own air quality report says the final generator design and emissions details are not yet fixed, and that another assessment will be needed once the detailed design is known.
So how can councillors be confident that the impact on air quality has been properly assessed now?
That brings me to noise. This huge industrial development is designed to operate 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, with generators, fans, cooling equipment and a substation, all close to homes, a nearby hospital and a care home. The applicants own assessment predicts that without mitigation, noise could be 15 decibels above the existing backgrounds level. Something they themselves identify as potentially adverse.
NPF4 Policy23 is clear developments likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported. Noise is therefore a very real concern for our community. It won’t just be something people hear during working hours. It could affect them in their own homes even when they’re trying to sleep.
So we’d be relying on that mitigation measures. Who checks they actually work, and who is held accountable if those measures fail.
Once this is built, it will be me, my neighbours and the surrounding community who are left living with the consequences. We only have to look at Newport, Wales, where people living beside a Ai data centre have already spoken publicly about noise and the impact its having on their lives. What’s being proposed for Larbert is on a even greater scale.
We shouldn’t have to accept the noise and the pollution that could come with a development of this size. This development could affect people’s homes their health and their quality of life.
Given everything we know about noise and pollution from this development, I have to ask, how this can possibly comply with NPF4 Policy 23 on Health and Safety. So I ask every member of this council can you say you have enough information to make a decision of this magnitude.
We are being asked to trust their assessments. Trust that the mitigation will work, and to trust that the reality will match what we’ve been promised for a development that will change Larbert for generations.
Just look around the room.
Every person here represents a family, a community that will be affected by this decision. And were only a fraction of the people who have spoken out. Nearly 7,000 objections have been submitted thousands have signed our online petitions.
That level of objection should tell you something. People don’t object in their thousands unless they have serious concerns about what is being proposed. To be honest, most people are angry now. Angry that we’ve being put in this position.
For months, local people have had to work their way through planning reports, noise assessments and air quality reports, just to understand what this development could actually mean for Larbert. That’s why we’re now saying loud and clear, this Ai Data should not be built here in Larbert.
The applicant can dress it up however they like – with glossy images, clever marketing and promises about what it will bring to Larbert. But it doesn’t change the reality of what’s being proposed a massive industrial development operating 24/7, right beside our homes.
It’s the wrong development
It’s the wrong scale and definitely the wrong location.
So I’m going to finish by asking every councillor here to think about us – the people who will have to live with the decision, you make. We are asking every one of you to stand up for the Larbert community that you were elected to represent. Please don’t put the interests of a developer before the people who already call Larbert Home.
They can walk away we can’t.
We are not human receptors in a planning report.
Please listen to all the people here tonight, and to the thousands of people across Larbert who have already made their concerns clear.
And have the courage to Say No to Larbert Ai Data Centre.