THE CASE AGAINST WESTER HERMISTON AI DATA CENTRE DEVELOPMENT (Ref: 25/05576/SCR)

I. Procedural Impropriety and Apprehension of Bias
The most damning evidence in this case is the documented "regulatory capture" of the Planning Authority. We have established that the applicant, Apatura, via Director Giles Hanglin, has acted as a primary architect of the very national strategy under which this application is being judged. Furthermore, internal briefing notes confirm that Apatura led an official National Planning Hub event to "educate" planning officers.

The Conflict: The developer provided the training materials used by the regulators to determine their own application.

The Harm: Officers were explicitly told that water concerns were "misinformation" and that the "majority" of such sites should bypass an EIA. This creates a clear legal ground for "Apprehension of Bias."

 
II. The "Water Bankruptcy" and Hydrological Insolvency
The defense of "minimal impact" has been thoroughly dismantled by the GDSA report (Aug 2025/April 2026) and the House of Commons Library.

The Deficit: The UK is projected to face a daily water deficit of 5 billion litres by 2050.
The Overdraft: A typical 100MW centre requires 2.5 billion litres annually—equivalent to the needs of 80,000 people.
The Insolvency: At 213MW, Wester Hermiston represents a "hydrological overdraft" that risks pushing the local catchment into "Water Bankruptcy"—a state defined by the UN as insolvency and irreversibility.

III. Material Misrepresentation: The "Diesel Bomb"
The applicant has marketed this project as "Green AI" to the public while concealing its industrial reality in private technical briefings.

The Omission: Apatura’s private briefings admit that 60+ backup diesel generators are the "single biggest on-site cost," with units costing up to £20 million each.

The Emissions: We estimate these generators would produce emissions equivalent to 106,312 idling diesel cars per hour.
Greenwashing: This discrepancy has been formally referred to the CMA as a breach of the Green Claims Code.

IV. Failure of Statutory Consultation
Despite the application being active for four months, the Planning Office has failed to formally consult SEPA on the cumulative impacts on the water table and air quality. Furthermore, the project violates NPF4 Policy 5 by destroying 30.7 hectares of prime agricultural land, threatening national food security in favor of "extractive" digital infrastructure.

The evidence demonstrates that the Planning Authority is not merely considering a data centre; it is facilitating a project where the applicant has marked their own homework.

The combination of procedural bias, the risk of Day Zero water scarcity, and the deliberate mischaracterisation of a diesel-heavy industrial plant as "green" makes a "Negative Screening" (no EIA) not only a failure of duty but an invitation to Judicial Review.

The case for a full Environmental Impact Assessment is now irrefutable.