Campaigners bid to block consideration of controversial data centre scheme

Martin Shipton

Campaigners against a controversial proposal to build a massive data centre in Cardiff say the city’s council could be breaking the law if it grants planning permission this week.

The planning application to build the data centre on the site of an existing park-and-ride facility in the city’s Llanrumney district is due to be heard by the authority’s planning committee on 12 November. Council officers have recommended its approval.

In a letter to the authority’s monitoring officer, Debbie Marles, members of the campaign group Save Cardiff East list a number of reasons why they believe consideration of the scheme should be halted.

They say objectors have not been given enough time to state their case: “The application is not ordinary. The register now holds 1,569 documents; the technical material runs to many thousands of pages, and the description of the power plant has changed at least five times.

“Our area is among the most deprived in Wales, and we have no budget for technical advice. Paper copies of the ES [Environmental Statement] were offered at £200 to £250 and, in the January ES, an electronic copy at £35.

“Nothing on the register shows that any officer considered what period would be reasonable for this application, or why the minimum [30 days] was thought enough. We complain that the council has failed to make that judgement at all. We ask the council to set, and give reasons for, a period of not less than three months on a consolidated Environmental Statement, beginning only after the consultation bodies’ responses have been published.”

The campaigners’ second point is that the consultation did not comply with environmental regulations in force in Wales because changes to an environmental impact assessment were not properly disclosed to the public.

The letter states: “The consultees’ views are hidden. The responses of Shared Regulatory Services, Natural Resources Wales, Welsh Water, the Health Board, the Fire and Rescue Service and the drainage authority form part of the ‘environmental information’ the council must take into account. None is on the register. We can see only the applicant’s summaries of them. The report to committee now summarises them, but the responses themselves are still not on the register, and the summaries reached the public only a week before the meeting.”

A further objection is that the description of the development omits the power station that would be built as part of it. The letter states: “Every notice describes ‘a data centre and associated buildings, structures, car parking, access roads, bridge …’ None mentions a gas-fired generating station of up to 49.9 MW, 42 diesel generators or battery storage.

“The result is that at no point has the public been offered, in one place and under a proper notice, the project as it is now proposed. We do not accept that a series of short, partial and, in October, informal invitations to comment amounts to the public participation the Regulations require.”

Legal requirements

The campaigners also say the Non-Technical Summary, which forms part of the application, does not meet legal requirements.

The letter states: “The Non-Technical Summary (NTS) is the document through which most residents learn what is proposed. Regulation 17(3)(e) and Schedule 4 paragraph 9 require it to summarise the description of the development, its likely significant effects, the mitigation and the alternatives.

“We complain that the council has publicised, and continues to rely on, an NTS that does not do so.

“It misdescribes the development. Both versions [of the NTS] describe a ‘maximum 47 MW’ energy centre and ‘gas-free buildings’. The applicant’s agent accepted on 1 October 2026 that the plant is 49.9 MW; it is a gas-fired plant of gas turbines. Neither version gives the number of diesel generators or mentions battery storage, noise, major accidents, water use or heat.

“The NTS suggests there are ‘no significant adverse landscape or visual effects’; the summary lists moderate adverse visual effects as significant. It claims ‘major beneficial’ effects from ‘residential expenditure’ for a scheme with no housing. The finding that generators running for more than 30 minutes would breach the hourly nitrogen dioxide objective, with advice that residents stay indoors, is left out of the summary of significant effects.”

The campaigners also say the application is written with graduates as the target audience, contrary to the expectation that it will be readable by members of the community with lower educational qualifications.

The letter states: “Sentences average 25 words against the 10 to 15 recommended by IEMA, the professional body for environmental impact assessment, whose 2023 advice it fails on almost every point.

“The NTS itself records that our area is in the 10% most deprived in Wales, including for education. In the 2021 Census, 27.8% of adults in Llanrumney had no qualifications, against 19.9% across Wales.

“A summary that misdescribes the development and that much of the affected community cannot read cannot support a lawful consultation.”

Tests

A further objection is that the council has either failed to carry out the tests the regulations require or failed to record them.

The letter states: “An ES must be prepared by persons who ‘in the opinion of the relevant planning authority’ have sufficient expertise to ensure its completeness and quality. The applicant’s competency statement cites the English Regulations, names no expert in noise, combustion plant or major accidents, and names different air quality authors from those on the reports.

“The flood consultants’ summary disclaims reliance by anyone other than the applicant.

“The ES contains no assessment of major accidents and disasters and none of noise from the standby generators, and gives no water or heat figures.

“We complain that the council has not used its power and duty … to require that information.

“The report says major accidents and disasters are considered ‘comprehensively’ by the flood chapter and the Flood Consequences Assessment. Those documents deal with flooding; we cannot find in them any assessment of fire, gas or fuel release, battery failure or firewater.”

Furthermore, consultees such as Natural Resources Wales continue to raise concerns because further information is required on energy infrastructure, pollutant storage and firewater. They say it has not been shown that flooding elsewhere would be avoided in an extreme event.

Nitrogen dioxide

In a section headed ‘Why this matters to us’, the campaigners state: “The applicant’s own assessments predict, in a prolonged power cut, nitrogen dioxide at several times the hourly limit near our homes and three primary schools, a high school and a care home.

“Its health addendum records that respiratory emergency admissions in our community are already about 15% above the Welsh rate. The site floods. We are entitled to see the whole project, and the expert advice the council has received about it, and to have enough time to respond.”

A Cardiff Council spokesperson said: “We have received the same letter and we will provide a statement when it has been approved.”