Leanne Tervit

A proposed 1GW data-centre campus at Chapelcross near Annan has become a major test of planning transparency in Scotland. Communities should not be denied the right to object & people must be convinced that the planning system is hearing them. CX Tech’s application, 26/1649/PIP seeks planning permission in principle for eight data-centre buildings, a training centre, industrial units, a substation and associated infrastructure. The application was validated on 28 September Public comments are due by 29 October The stated scale is extraordinary: • eight buildings of around 120MW • approximately 1GW total capacity • up to 162,000m² of data-centre floorspace • a claimed £16.5bn investment • construction proposed from 2027 to 2035 These are applicant figures, not independently guaranteed A 1GW campus running at 80% utilisation would consume roughly: year 1,000 MW×8,760 hours/year×80%=7,008,000 MWh/year That is 7.008 TWh per year—roughly 7 TWh annually assuming continuous operation at an average 80% load factor. That is a useful scale comparison not a forecast of actual use. Load, phasing, tenants and grid arrangements remain unknown. The developer says the site can pair digital infrastructure with nearby renewables, use closed-loop non-evaporative cooling, and create high-value jobs. Those are propositions to be tested through the Environmental Impact Assessment and planning process not facts the public should simply be asked to accept. Opposition has been substantial and fast. Campaign reports said more than 1,000 objections were lodged in 48 hours; the Scottish Greens later said more than 5,000 people had signed its e-action. Those figures should not be confused with a council-certified live total of formal representations. The council’s planning portal showing “zero comments” does not mean there have been zero objections. Dumfries and Galloway Council says it has received a significant volume of representations. It is changing its normal publication practice because each response requires manual checking and processing. Its decision is that individual representations will not be published online as they arrive. Instead, after the notification period, the council says it will publish: • the number supporting and objecting • a summary of material planning grounds ‼️That is a real transparency problem. It is important to state this accurately. There is no evidence (yet) that objections are being discarded or ignored. But there is also no opportunity, during the consultation, for communities to inspect the representations, see whether key concerns are being captured, or assess the emerging public record. ‼️For a small household extension, delayed publication may be frustrating. For a proposed 1GW campus one that could reshape land use, grid demand, landscape, transport and public infrastructure for decades it is a serious democratic deficit. Public consultation is not merely a mailbox. It should allow residents, community councils, local businesses, elected representatives and civil-society groups to see the issues raised, correct misinformation, develop evidence and make informed submissions before the deadline. The solution does not require abandoning data protection or overburdening officers. The council could publish a rolling, anonymised register containing: • date received • support / objection / neutral • postcode sector • key planning grounds • redacted representation where appropriate It could also publish a weekly dashboard: • total representations received • total valid objections and support • number awaiting processing • main issues raised • how duplicate campaign submissions are recorded That would protect fairness without making public scrutiny impossible. The Council should also extend the consultation period.