15th November 2026
Britain may be approaching another industrial revolution, but this time the factories are not producing cars, steel or textiles. They are producing something less visible but increasingly important: computing power.
The rapid development of artificial intelligence, cloud computing and digital services is creating an enormous demand for data centres. These facilities house the computers and storage systems that allow businesses, governments and individuals to operate in an increasingly digital world.
Scotland is becoming an important location for this investment. Developers are proposing a growing number of large-scale data centres, with Apatura among the companies pursuing several developments at different stages of planning.
The scale of the proposals raises an important question. Is our planning system equipped to deal with this new industry, and can Britain afford to turn away investment because we cannot agree on where and how these facilities should be built?
A rush of applications and proposals
Apatura's Scottish programme illustrates the scale of the emerging industry. Its proposals include developments at Larbert, Ravenscraig, Wester Hermiston, Freeport and Westerhill.
These are not all at the same stage. The Larbert proposal, for a 300MW artificial intelligence data centre at Glenbervie Business Park, has reached the formal planning application stage. Other projects remain at earlier stages of development and consultation.
The Larbert application has attracted considerable attention. By November, thousands of objections had been submitted, illustrating the strength of feeling surrounding these developments.
Nor is Apatura alone. Other developers are pursuing large projects across Scotland, with proposals involving hundreds of megawatts of electricity demand.
The scale of the potential investment is considerable, but it is important to distinguish between projects being discussed, planning applications actually submitted and developments that have secured funding and electricity connections. Not every proposal will necessarily be built.
Nevertheless, the pipeline is large enough to demand a coordinated response from government.
Is the planning system ready?
Our planning system was designed to assess individual developments, taking account of local circumstances, environmental effects and national planning policies.
It was not designed with the prospect of multiple developments each requiring hundreds of megawatts of electricity.
Scotland has already recognised that changes are needed. In August 2026, the Scottish Government introduced a requirement for planning authorities to notify ministers within seven days of receiving applications for data centres exceeding 50MW.
In September, it went further, requiring environmental impact assessments for all new data centre developments above that threshold.
These are sensible steps, but they also demonstrate how quickly the industry has developed and how much work remains to be done.
The Scottish Government has promised further planning guidance before Christmas 2026, covering issues including location, environmental impacts, energy and heat use.
There is also a wider question about resources. Local authorities are already struggling with financial pressures and shortages of specialist staff. Do they have sufficient expertise to assess complex proposals involving electrical engineering, cooling systems, water consumption, backup generation and carbon emissions?
Developers have considerable technical resources at their disposal. Councils need access to independent expertise if they are to challenge proposals effectively and make properly informed decisions.
The problem of cumulative impact
One of the biggest weaknesses of considering applications individually is that it can overlook the combined effect of several developments.
A single data centre might be acceptable in a particular location. But what happens when three or four are proposed in the same area?
The electricity demand could be enormous. New transmission lines, substations and other infrastructure may be required. Water supplies could come under pressure, while cooling systems, backup generators and construction activity could create additional environmental concerns.
The Scottish Government's decision to require environmental assessments is therefore important. However, assessments must also consider the wider consequences of several developments competing for the same resources.
This is not simply a matter for local planning committees. It requires national coordination between planning authorities, energy companies, water authorities and government.
Are the protesters simply NIMBYs?
There is growing opposition to large data centre developments, and it would be wrong to dismiss every objection as resistance to change.
Communities are entitled to ask what a development will mean for their surroundings, how much electricity and water it will consume, whether it will create permanent employment and whether local people will benefit.
There are legitimate concerns about diesel generators, noise, landscape impacts and the environmental consequences of providing the necessary infrastructure.
Developers must answer these questions with evidence rather than simply promising investment and economic growth.
However, there is another side to the argument.
If every major development is opposed, delayed or subjected to years of uncertainty, Britain risks losing investment to countries that are better prepared to accommodate the industry.
There is a difference between challenging an unsuitable development and opposing an entire industry without considering the economic consequences.
The NIMBY argument should not be used to silence reasonable objections, but neither should local opposition automatically become a veto over infrastructure that has wider national importance.
Can Britain afford not to build them?
Data centres are becoming essential to modern economic activity.
They support banking, insurance, online retail, logistics, telecommunications, medical research, government services and artificial intelligence.
Without sufficient computing capacity, businesses may find it increasingly difficult to develop new products and services. Britain could become dependent on facilities located overseas, with the associated investment, employment and economic benefits going elsewhere.
There is also an international competition for investment. The United States and several European countries are attracting major data centre developments.
Britain cannot realistically expect to become a leading player in artificial intelligence while refusing to provide the infrastructure needed to support it.
The potential economic benefits extend beyond the data centres themselves. Construction companies, electrical engineers, maintenance contractors, security providers and specialist technology businesses may all benefit.
However, the employment argument needs careful examination. Data centres can require substantial investment but relatively modest permanent staffing once operational. The number of construction jobs and the number of long-term local jobs are very different things.
Developers should therefore provide realistic employment figures, explain how local businesses can participate and demonstrate what communities will receive in return.
The electricity dilemma
Perhaps the greatest challenge is electricity.
Ofgem reported in July 2026 that applications for new electricity connections had increased from 41GW to 125GW in less than a year, with data centres accounting for at least 80GW of that demand pipeline.
These figures do not represent confirmed developments or electricity that will necessarily be consumed. They do, however, demonstrate the scale of speculative and genuine demand competing for connections.
Ofgem is now seeking to remove unviable projects from the connections queue so that developments capable of proceeding are not held back.
There is an important question here for Scotland. We have considerable renewable electricity resources, but we also face delays in building the transmission infrastructure needed to transport electricity to where it is required.
A developer claiming to use renewable electricity should explain whether its project will support additional renewable generation or simply compete for electricity already needed by households and existing businesses.
There should also be consideration of energy storage, flexible electricity consumption and opportunities to use surplus renewable power when generation exceeds demand.
The cost of strengthening the grid must not simply be passed on to ordinary electricity consumers.
We need a national strategy, not a planning free-for-all
There are five things government should be doing.
First, it needs a national strategy identifying suitable locations, taking account of electricity capacity, water resources, existing infrastructure and environmental sensitivity.
Second, planning authorities need the technical resources to assess applications properly, including their cumulative impact.
Third, developers should make a convincing case for the economic benefits, including permanent employment, apprenticeships, local contracts and contributions to community wealth.
Fourth, the cost of additional electricity infrastructure should be fairly shared with the developers creating the demand.
Finally, once an application has been properly assessed, decisions must be made within reasonable timescales. Endless uncertainty helps nobody.
A new industrial revolution, or another missed opportunity?
The first industrial revolution was built around coal, steam and manufacturing. Later came electricity, oil, mass production and telecommunications.
We are now entering an age in which computing power and artificial intelligence are becoming equally important economic resources.
Britain has an opportunity to attract investment, develop new industries and create economic activity that could support future generations.
But we need to be realistic. Not every proposed data centre will be viable, not every developer will deliver what is promised and not every location will be suitable.
Equally, we cannot expect to enjoy the economic benefits of technological progress while refusing to build the infrastructure that makes it possible.
The challenge for government is to distinguish between good development and bad development, rather than allowing either developers or protesters to dominate the debate.
The question is not whether Britain should have more data centres. It is whether we can develop them intelligently, secure the economic benefits and protect the interests of the communities hosting them.
If we refuse to build the infrastructure needed for the industries of tomorrow, where do we expect the jobs and wealth of tomorrow to come from?