Summary
- Welsh ministers have received a call-in request concerning Gwelyfenai's former Ferodo site application.
- The proposal includes roughly 3.6 million square feet of buildings, 147 generators and electrical infrastructure.
- No ministerial call-in decision or underlying planning determination has yet been confirmed.
The Welsh Government has confirmed to local planning reporters that it received a request to call in the planning application for a proposed 3.6 million sq ft data centre campus near Caernarfon, creating the possibility that ministers rather than the local planning authority could determine the scheme.
The government confirmed on 15 October that it was considering the request relating to Gwelyfenai’s proposal to redevelop the former Ferodo industrial site beside the Menai Strait. A call-in request is a procedural application for ministerial intervention. It is not a decision to intervene, a planning refusal or a ruling on the merits of the development.
The application, reference C25/0740/20/EIA at Gwynedd Council, involves demolition of existing buildings, regrading and extensive new development across a former industrial property described as covering about 102 acres. The campus is reported to include 3.6 million sq ft of gross external building space, a substation and 147 generators.
Those quantities indicate the scale of proposed supporting infrastructure, but do not establish the site’s final permitted output, operating generator regime or commissioned electricity supply. A large generator count may include equipment intended for redundancy and contingency, and should not be multiplied into a continuous power rating without specifications.
A separate step from the existing objections
DataCentral reported public opposition earlier in October, including a protest and a petition opposing the project. The new call-in request is distinct because it asks the Welsh Government to consider whether the application should be determined at ministerial level rather than through the ordinary local route.
Ministerial consideration can involve the proposal’s scale, wider planning significance and other relevant factors under applicable Welsh procedures. The published report does not establish the identity of the requester, the detailed grounds or the outcome of the government’s assessment. Those points should not be inferred from the number of objections alone.
Local opposition has raised concerns about landscape, wildlife, water resources and other environmental effects. The developer’s planning documents describe mitigation including an ecological corridor, rain gardens, attenuation basins, planting and features intended to support birds and bats. Such proposed measures need to be assessed against the project’s actual effects; their appearance in a design does not establish that the environmental issues are resolved.
Electrical design remains subject to further decisions
As a high-demand industrial development, the proposed campus would require electrical connections and supporting distribution arrangements alongside cooling, standby power, roads and drainage. Previous reporting has described a connection proposal of up to 450MW, but a requested capacity is not evidence of an energised supply or approved network reinforcement programme.
Generator infrastructure introduces further questions about fuel storage, testing frequency, exhaust emissions, noise and the duration of standby operation. The relevant assessments depend on the operating assumptions submitted with the application, not simply the number of machines on the site plan.
Gwelyfenai’s planning statement anticipates about 210 permanent operational jobs. That is a developer projection, not employment already delivered. Construction labour, electrical equipment, property remediation and customer fit-out would follow their own schedules if the project eventually secured consent.
The call-in process should also be distinguished from environmental assessment. Specialist consultee responses, the environmental statement and any further information requests may continue to inform the planning decision regardless of which public authority ultimately determines it. A change in decision-maker does not itself establish that technical objections have been accepted or rejected. The relevant documents remain the basis for evaluating the submitted scheme.
The former industrial use of the Ferodo site may offer a route to regeneration, but its earlier purpose does not establish modern electricity or cooling capacity. Demolition and site regrading can also introduce construction-stage impacts distinct from those expected once a data centre is operating. Both phases need to be addressed in the assessment.
If ministers call in the application, the determination route could change and further information might be required. If they decline, the ordinary decision-making route may continue. Either outcome would leave subsequent electrical connection, construction and commissioning obligations distinct from any planning consent.
The separate 15 October development is the reported receipt of a call-in request on a scheme already facing objections. The authority responsible for its final determination remains unresolved pending an explicit ministerial decision.
