If you are concerned about the proposed DataVita DV4 data centre at Chapelhall, you can make your views known by submitting a formal objection to North Lanarkshire Council. You do not need to be a planning expert, and you do not need to write a long or technical response.

What is the application?

The application is for planning permission in principle (PPP) 26/01110/PPP for a 120MW data centre next to homes on Lancaster Avenue, Chapelhall.

The headline figures, all taken from the applicant’s own documents:

• A building envelope of up to 230 metres long and 70 metres deep, with a maximum development height fixed as a level, 26 metres above the flattened site platform, about 20 metres above the ground at Rowantree Row, and about 28 metres above the ground at Lancaster Avenue. The application form gives 40,700 square metres of floorspace, described as Class 6 Storage or Distribution.
• A 120 MVA electrical connection. At full load that is about 1.05 TWh of electricity a year. The applicant expects to run at about 60 per cent, so roughly 0.63 TWh a year.
• Up to 48 standby generators at 3 MW each, which is up to about 144 MW of installed generating plant, each with its own flue between 10 and 28 metres tall, and each fitted with exhaust treatment to cut nitrogen oxides.
• Up to 2,304 cubic metres of stored fuel, enough to run every generator at full load for 72 hours.

Approval of the PPP would establish the principle of a data centre on this site, with much of the detailed design dealt with later. Residents should therefore ask whether the parameters of the development are sufficiently clear now for the Council to make a properly informed decision.

Tips for Writing an Effective Planning Objection.

The key to writing an effective planning objection is to refer to ‘material planning considerations’. These are matters that the planning authority can take into account when deciding whether the development is acceptable which includes elements of National Planning Framework 4 and the Local Development Plan. We lay out a few points to use below. The strongest objections are specific, evidence-based and linked to the applicant’s own documents. A short objection making two or three well-supported points is likely to be more useful than a long letter simply expressing general opposition.

State clearly what you want the Council to do — for example, refuse the application or require further information before making a decision.

Points to Make in an Objection

1. This is not a ‘green data centre’

The applicant refers to this as a ‘green’ data centre. This is because ‘green data centre’ is within National Development 12 of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and means that the developer does not need to justify ‘need’ for the data centre, as that is already established as it is part of one of the National Developments. 

There is no definition of a ‘green data centre’, the Scottish Government has said, in an answer to a Parliamentary Question, that it is up to local authorities to judge. However, it is obvious from the evidence below that this development is not ‘green’. Also the developer’s proposal to have a heat network connected to the data centre, seem very unlikely to be workable. The new hospital is on hold, and proposal is now to heat a greenhouse which is proposed to be funded by the discretionary community fund. Also, with a data centre with the energy demand of this one, only a very small proportion of the energy use could be utilised in a heat network, the most cooling is needed in the summer, when the least heating of homes/businesses/hospital is needed. 

2. Backup generators will not just be for emergencies – they will be used in providing power for times of high load (and this hasn’t been assessed in the application)

The proposal includes 48 generators of 3MW each, giving approximately 144MW of installed generating capacity.

The generators are not intended solely for emergencies. Up to 32 may operate in a daytime load-support mode for up to 80 hours a year, but we are concerned that this means they may also be used for more day-to-day demands.

The applicant’s air-quality assessment expressly says that this operating mode has not been evaluated. The noise assessment also excludes it from its combined assessment.

This is significant because the mode would occur during periods of high computing demand which is likely in warm weather when increased cooling is needed, and when residents may have windows open and spend more time outdoors.

3. Climate impact and greenhouse gas emissions

This is a very large electricity-consuming development and its climate impact should be given significant weight under NPF4 Policy 1, which requires significant weight to be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 2 also requires development to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible. 

The Energy Statement gives an expected electricity consumption of approximately 0.63 TWh per year, rising to about 1.05 TWh at full load. Using the UK Government’s 2025 electricity conversion factor of 0.177 kgCO₂e/kWh, 0.63 TWh represents approximately 112,000 tonnes of CO₂e per year from the electricity consumption alone. This does not include emissions associated with construction, equipment, fuel production or use of the standby generators.

The application says that whole-life carbon modelling will be undertaken later. Residents should ask why the Council should approve the principle of such a major energy-consuming development before its full lifecycle greenhouse-gas impact has been demonstrated.

Ask the Council to require a robust whole-life carbon assessment, including electricity consumption and generator emissions, and to demonstrate clearly how the proposal minimises greenhouse-gas emissions and complies with NPF4 Policies 1 and 2.

4. The proposal is extremely large and would affect the Green Belt

The application covers approximately 9.67 hectares of land, including Green Belt land. The proposed building envelope is approximately 230 metres long and 70 metres deep, with a maximum development height of 28 metres above the ground at Lancaster Avenue.

The Council’s Green Belt policy requires the applicant to demonstrate that development is justified and that its economic benefits outweigh harm to the openness, character and function of the Green Belt.

5. The actual visual impact has not been properly demonstrated

The Council’s earlier screening opinion indicated that a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) would be submitted with the application.

No LVIA has been submitted. There is no viewpoint, no photomontage and no visual assessment anywhere in the 34 documents, so nothing in the application shows what a 26 metre building on a raised platform looks like from Rowantree Row, Lancaster Avenue or the path along the north of the site.

6. Cumulative Impact has not been properly assessed

This is part of developments that are part of the AI Growth Zone which will expand to 500MW. There are a number of data centres proposed in the area, as well as battery storage, solar and grid upgrades which would mean a very large cumulative impact to the community. This includes a data centre proposed by ILI as well as the HFD/Data Vita sites proposed and also HFD/Data Vita ‘energy parks’. You can see an interactive map of all the sites here (click on picture):

The application has only looked at cumulative impact in the air quality assessment and in no other parameters as it should do. Even the air quality assessment only looked at the impact fo DV1 and DV3.

7. Night-time generator noise requires proper mitigation

The applicant’s own noise assessment predicts that, if all 48 generators operate during an emergency, the rating level could be 9 dB above background at Rowantree Row and 7 dB above background at Lancaster Avenue.

The report describes this as likely indicating an adverse impact under the relevant British Standard, but proposes no additional mitigation because a major power failure is considered unlikely. The noise assessment has not covered the operation of generators under times of increased load in warm weather, when windows are more likely to be open.

8. Layout was not changed after the flood consultant recommended it

The applicant’s own flood consultant says the layout should be changed, and it has not been. The Flood Risk Assessment finds that two of the proposed plant buildings sit in high flood risk areas, that a third sits in an overland flow route, and that the raising of ground levels in the north-east “may result in additional water passing across Chapelhall roundabout”. It recommends that the layout be amended to move the plant buildings out of the flood risk areas. The layout submitted with the application is the one it criticises.

9. Fuel Storage and safety

Up to 2,304 cubic metres of hydrotreated vegetable oil would be stored on site, roughly 1,800 tonnes. Nothing in the application says whether that requires hazardous substances consent, or whether the Health and Safety Executive has been consulted. The only mention of major accident hazards anywhere in the application is a database search checking whether anyone else nearby stores hazardous substances.

10. The grid connection has not been included in the EIA screening nor in the application

The proposal is associated with a 120 MVA electricity connection and approximately 0.63 TWh of annual electricity use at the applicant’s expected utilisation level.

The connection to Newarthill Grid Supply Point is identified in the application, but its route, construction method and potential environmental effects are not set out. Given that the data centre cannot operate without the grid connection, this impacts of this should be included in the EIA screening and the application.

11. The claimed economic benefits should be questioned

The applicant forecasts approximately 120 permanent on-site jobs, alongside substantial construction employment and investment.

These benefits are relevant, but the Council must consider them alongside the environmental impacts. The figures are also extremely high compared to other data centres. Our report on jobs and data centres shows that typically data centres employ between 20-50 people. The Stargate Project in Texas is 1.2GW and will employ 100 people. 

The question is not whether the development creates jobs, it plainly expects to, but whether the claimed economic benefits are sufficient to outweigh the identified harm.

NOTE: Lack of Information Provided

This development hasn’t been required to do an EIA and we believe that the screening was insufficient. The local community has challenged the council, and requested a re-screening, and APRS has written to the Public Finance Minister to request a screening direction. Also this application is a Planning Permission in Principle which, by its nature does not submit full information, We believe that hyperscale data centres should have to submit Full Planning applications to ensure that enough information is provided to be abe to consider the application properly.

How to make your  objection count:

• You can Object on the North Lanarkshire Planning Portal here. 
• Put your full name and postal address on it. Anonymous representations are usually disregarded.
• Say what you object to, and why, in your own words. Copied text may be counted once.
• Name the document and paragraph where you can. “The Flood Risk Assessment at paragraph 6.5 recommends the layout be amended” is a sentence the case officer has to deal with. “It will flood” is not.
• Concede what is sound. This application is better prepared than many, and an objection that acknowledges the parts that are properly done is read more carefully than one that objects to everything.
• Ask for something specific. Refusal, or a condition fixing a parameter, or a request that the council obtain further information before determining the application.
• Keep a copy, with the date.

Three arguments to leave alone

Each of these is tempting and each of them weakens everything else in the same letter.

• “They should build it somewhere else.” A planning authority decides the application in front of it. Objecting to the location is fine if the reason is a green belt or amenity reason specific to this site. A general objection to data centres is not a material consideration.

• “It will use all our water and put our bills up.” The cooling system is closed loop. The applicant estimates 25 to 50 cubic metres of top-up a year, with a one-off fill of about 2,000 cubic metres and about 4.8 cubic metres a day of ordinary welfare use. Scottish Water has confirmed it can supply the site. The water argument does not run here, and using it invites the council to discount the rest.

• “Nothing is being done about the fumes.” Something is. Every one of the 48 generators is to be fitted with Selective Catalytic Reduction to cut nitrogen oxides, plus further exhaust scrubbing, and the fuel is a renewable diesel substitute rather than ordinary diesel. Say so, and then ask the harder questions in Part B, which are about whether the abatement is secured by condition and whether it works during short low-load test runs.

Thank you to Kate Wheway who wrote much of the content of this briefing – edited and added to by Kat Jones