Dale Johnston stands in his tidy suburban garden on the outskirts of Newport, South Wales, where a trampoline and slide adorn the lawn for his grandchildren. Rather than relishing the picturesque autumn sky, his view is overshadowed by a large expanse of prefabricated panels.
The towering, 23-meter-high structure looming over his home is a hyperscale datacentre, championed by local Labour politicians as a creator of jobs. Yet Johnston is left contemplating his losses: “Before, the sun used to come around here, and it was lovely.” The treatment of residents, he believes, is “disgusting.”
Johnston, a former chemical company employee, worries about the impact of the datacentre’s operations once it is activated. The 36 air blast coolers needed to prevent overheating are likely to create a constant hum, while the regular testing of 60 backup diesel generators may emit harmful fumes. He already keeps his bathroom window closed to avoid the noise from another facility on the bustling 46-acre datacentre campus that borders a small enclave of 27 houses. His wife, a night-shift nurse, struggles to sleep as it is. He laments, “We just don’t know what’s going to happen.”
Johnston’s main concern remains unaddressed as he feels local authorities are not listening. He has invited councillors and MPs who support the development to witness firsthand the changes affecting the community, but “they won’t come around here to see what they’ve done.”
The rapidly growing number of datacentres in Britain has raised tensions between local residents and large US tech companies establishing facilities to support the demands of powerful AI models. There are currently 315 hyperscale datacentres vying for connections to the national grid, requiring a staggering 73GW of power—28GW more than the typical peak demand of 45GW on a chilly winter day.
Wales is emerging as a key area for development outside of London, already boasting the highest datacentre capacity beyond the capital with plans for new facilities on repurposed industrial lands. The Labour government under Keir Starmer has framed this technological expansion as crucial for the country, asserting that it must embrace this “inevitable revolution” or risk lagging behind. The administration has initiated five AI growth zones to accelerate datacentre projects through planning processes and enhance connections to the grid.
However, the new prime minister, Andy Burnham, has shown little sign of changing direction, rejecting calls for a moratorium on datacentres while advocating for their economic benefits. This stance sharply contrasts with the growing opposition from community groups across the country who argue that these installations impose a resource-intensive, environmentally damaging industry with minimal advantage for local residents.
Digital storage technologies have evolved significantly over the decades, from floppy disks to extensive cloud services. The emergence of AI applications has led to an unprecedented surge in storage and processing demands, prompting the tech industry to argue that only larger datacentres can meet these needs. This has spurred colossal investments, with global spending on new facilities projected to reach $7 trillion by 2030, more than double the combined costs of the New Deal, the Marshall Plan, and the Apollo program when inflation is factored in.
The United States currently leads this datacentre boom, hosting roughly half of the world’s hyperscale infrastructure. Yet, as the industry expands, it faces mounting backlash. Recent polls indicate that three-quarters of Americans now oppose local datacentre developments due to their perceived contributions to rising energy costs, water resource depletion, and air pollution. Over 500 counties and municipalities have instituted bans or moratoriums on such projects.
Residents of Loudoun County in northern Virginia, known as Data Center Alley, have experienced significant disruptions due to nearby datacentres. One resident, Greg Pirio, has described the transformed atmosphere as a “nightmare” following the opening of a gas-powered datacentre near his home. The incessant noise from gas turbines has caused health issues among neighbors, with Pirio noting, “It has given many of my neighbours headaches. It has kept children up at night.”
Although the UK is not yet experiencing the same level of resistance as the US, discontent is growing. Residents in East London are leading a campaign against a new datacentre project on Brick Lane, even protesting outside the offices of Communities Secretary Angela Rayner, who overruled a local council decision that blocked the scheme.
Community organizer Owen Espley is witnessing a rise in activism against datacentre proposals, emphasizing that a grassroots movement is forming across varied communities, uniting voices from populations eager for better jobs and environmental responsibility.
With considerable alternatives available—ranging from more stringent regulations to advocating for publicly-owned data infrastructure—many believe the approach to datacentres must prioritize community welfare, challenging the narrative that solely large tech firms dictate the future.
In an area of Cardiff known for its socioeconomic challenges, plans to convert a local park-and-ride into a hyperscale datacentre have sparked fierce opposition. The site, which supports hundreds of NHS staff commuting to the largest hospital in Wales, is earmarked for a facility that will require over 150 megawatts of electricity per year—three times the demand of an average city.
With more than 1,200 objections lodged against the proposal, a local group is actively campaigning under the motto “Ditch the datacentre.” Resident Sue Elias is determined to gather signatures to represent the park-and-ride’s usage, feeling that the council is disregarding community input. “What is going to happen to all the people who use the park and ride?” she questions, highlighting a prevalent concern amongst locals.
Residents like Nick Richards find themselves feeling trapped in their new homes, fearing their property values will plummet due to the proximity of the planned gas turbines. These turbines are expected to emit pollutants like nitrogen dioxide, prompting concerns about health repercussions among the nearby population.
The air quality assessments conducted by the developer claim emissions will remain within safe limits; however, residents remain skeptical about these assurances, fearing that regulatory concerns will be underestimated or ignored.
How the proposed datacentre will align with the Welsh government’s goal to become net zero by 2040 remains uncertain. Critics argue that facilitating such large-scale developments contradicts environmental intentions.
As more issues surface, from air pollution to community dissent, the narrative surrounding datacentre constructions is evolving. Moreover, local politicians, like Lee Bridgeman, face increasing pressure from residents while maintaining their position. Bridgeman has wavered in his support for the scheme as community sentiment becomes overwhelmingly clear.
Community meetings are now cluttered with residents expressing their opposition, prompting Bridgeman to reconsider his stance. The overarching sentiment is palpable: many locals feel unheard, ignored by the very representatives who are supposed to advocate for their interests.
The rapid build-out of hyperscale datacentres across the UK indicates a shift away from London as developers explore regions like Wales. While previous administrations have welcomed such developments as economic opportunities, local leaders are beginning to stress that future datacentre expansions must genuinely benefit the communities they inhabit.
This pressure for accountability underscores the need for a balanced approach that considers the consequences of tech-driven expansion on local residents’ quality of life, health, and environment.
Editor’s Take
This ongoing battle between local communities and corporate interests reflects broader tensions in tech-driven landscapes. The outcomes of these disputes could set significant precedents for the AI industry’s infrastructure needs and the extent to which local populations are engaged in decisions that fundamentally affect their environments.
Source: www.theguardian.com
