Still very few people even know about the real threat to our green fields and clean air. Never mind the threat to our local energy and water supplies. 

Read below...

CAMPAIGN FACT SHEET dated 29.5.26

The proposed Wester Hermiston AI data centre would be one of the largest energy-intensive industrial developments ever proposed on Edinburgh’s western edge.

The Council has already issued a screening opinion concluding that a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not required.

Our concern is straightforward:

The Council has reached that conclusion despite acknowledged uncertainty around major environmental impacts and despite clear policy tests under National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Edinburgh Local Development Plan that require robust evidence.

This is not about opposing technology. It is about whether a project of this scale can properly be screened out of full environmental assessment while key impacts remain unresolved.

The Council has made its decision. The community is entitled to challenge whether that decision is evidence-based, policy-compliant and consistent with the scale of the proposal.

1. SCALE: A DEVELOPMENT OF EXCEPTIONAL SIZE

The Council’s own screening opinion confirms the extraordinary scale of the proposal:

• Power demand: approximately 200 megawatts (MW) continuous load
• Annual electricity demand: approximately 1,752 GWh
• Equivalent to the domestic electricity demand of well over 600,000 homes
• Three large data halls covering approximately 54,690 m²
• Site area: 30.5 hectares
• Building height: up to 23 metres

This is not a routine business park development.

It is industrial-scale digital infrastructure proposed on Green Belt land beside homes, farmland and the Union Canal corridor.

That scale alone raises legitimate questions over whether the Council’s screening decision was proportionate.

2. ENERGY & CLIMATE - NPF4 POLICY 1

Council position:

The screening opinion concludes that climate impacts are not significant and relies on broad statements regarding Scotland’s climate and renewable electricity supply.

The Gap

The public documents do not quantify:

• impact on local electricity infrastructure;
• cumulative demand on the wider network;
• displacement of future electrification capacity;
• whether renewable energy is directly secured for the site;
• wider operational carbon impacts.

International standards published by Greenpeace in May 2026 reinforce the need for direct renewable sourcing and transparent lifecycle accountability for major digital infrastructure.

Why it matters:

The Council has already screened the proposal out of EIA.
Our grave concern is that this decision was made without the level of quantified evidence expected under national climate policy.

3. WATER INFRASTRUCTURE - LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Council position:

The Council accepted that water impacts were not significant.

The Gap

The documents do not publicly quantify:

• daily cooling water demand;
• contingency demand;
• drought resilience;
• impact on drinking water  supply;
• drainage and sewer implications;
• cumulative pressure on surrounding infrastructure.

Why it matters

The screening decision was issued before those figures were publicly evidenced.

Residents are entitled to ask how impacts were judged “not significant” without that baseline information. That goes directly against the credibility of the screening opinion.

4. DIESEL BACK-UP, AIR QUALITY & PUBLIC HEALTH - NPF4 POLICY 23

Cummins data centre generators typically range from 1MW to 3.5MW in size. Dimensions vary based on the specific power output and housing (open versus containerised), but a standard 2.5MW to 3.0MW unit measures roughly 12.0m (40 ft) long, 2.4m (8 ft) wide, and 2.9m (9.5 ft) high. These are gigantic.

The proposal includes substantial standby diesel generation. As much as 60 diesel generators at a time when diesel is being demonized throughout the UK due to it’s negative impact on climate and air quality.

The screening opinion concludes impacts are not significant because operation would be infrequent.

But unresolved questions remain:

• generator testing frequency;
• air quality effects;
• nitrogen oxide emissions;
• cumulative noise;
• night-time operation;
• combined impacts with nearby transport corridors.

The issue is not whether impacts may eventually be mitigated. The issue is whether the Council was justified in screening out EIA before that evidence was available.

5. PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND - NPF4 POLICY 5

The Council acknowledges permanent development on 30.5 hectares of Class 2 prime agricultural land.

Prime agricultural land is nationally important and finite.

The unresolved questions remain:

• why this location is necessary;
• whether brownfield alternatives were fully assessed;
• whether lower-grade land exists;
• how permanent land loss aligns with wider national land-use priorities.

The screening opinion concludes impacts are acceptable.

Residents are entitled to question whether that conclusion was reached with sufficient evidence.

6. GREEN BELT & LANDSCAPE

The Council’s own documents acknowledge:

• urbanising impact on Green Belt land;
• visual impact;
• change to the western approach to Edinburgh;
• effect on the Union Canal setting.

The issue is whether the Council was justified in concluding those impacts were not significant enough to require EIA.

Once industrial development begins, landscape change becomes permanent.

That makes the screening decision highly consequential.

7. CONSISTENCY & PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

Planning decisions of this scale must be transparent and evidence-based.

Where the Council has refused a full EIA despite acknowledged uncertainty on energy, water, air quality and land use, residents are entitled to ask whether that approach is consistent with policy and with previous major infrastructure decisions.

This matters beyond Wester Hermiston.

With the Gyle Data Centre application and Wester Hermiston we are currently sitting in the centre of a Scottish Data Centre blackspot. The decision could shape how future data centre applications across West Edinburgh are assessed.

OUR POSITION

The Council has already concluded that a full Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

We respectfully disagree with that conclusion.

Our view is that:

• the scale is exceptional;
• key environmental evidence remains unresolved;
• important policy tests under NPF4 and the Local Development Plan remain insufficiently evidenced; and the screening opinion creates a significant planning precedent for West Edinburgh.

This campaign is calling for: full transparency, full scrutiny, and a planning process based on evidence proportionate to the scale of the development.

West Edinburgh deserves robust planning decisions.

Decisions of this scale should be based on evidence the public can see and test.

The Council has issued its decision.

The community has every right to challenge whether that decision stands up to scrutiny.

West Edinburgh Against Data Centres

Our Petition: www.change.org/data-centre

Our Campaign Website: https://sites.google.com/foot-logic.co.uk/data-centre/home