A group of seven families in Saskatchewan is grappling with unanswered questions regarding a planned AI data centre by Bell, located near their homes. For months, these landowners have sought clarity from the Rural Municipality of Sherwood, but their inquiries have largely fallen on deaf ears, leaving them frustrated and anxious about potential impacts on their properties and quality of life.
Landowners Seek Clarity
The families, who have ties to the area dating back generations, have expressed concern not only for their immediate environment but also for the long-term implications the data centre could have on property values. Doug McKell, a representative of the group, has described the process of obtaining information from the RM of Sherwood as excessively challenging. “We have the governance system in place so that these kinds of concerns should be able to be handled through their regular process,” McKell stated. “For them to ignore that and not deal with us in their normal fashion has left everyone in the area quite frustrated.”
Between January and March 2026, the landowners submitted four formal requests to the RM, addressing critical issues such as noise, lighting, drainage, stormwater management, groundwater protection, and road maintenance. However, only the first submission, dated January 29, made it onto the public record. The subsequent requests, submitted on February 8, February 17, and March 4, were never acknowledged on the RM’s website.
Community Frustration Grows
Feeling ignored, the group escalated their concerns by lodging a formal complaint with the Ombudsman on February 25. This move coincided with a council meeting on March 16, where the agenda included discussions about the Ombudsman complaint and the RM’s Code of Ethics. Just two days later, in an unexpected turn of events, four out of seven council members, including both the Reeve and Deputy-Reeve, resigned without explanation.
In the wake of these resignations, the provincial Ministry of Government Relations stepped in, appointing former SARM president Ray Orb as the new Reeve. Mitch Huber, Donna Strudwick, and Judy Harwood were also appointed to fill the vacant council seats, bringing a fresh perspective to the council’s proceedings.
A Glimmer of Hope
On March 25, the landowners submitted another letter to the RM, requesting a formal resolution that would mandate the inclusion of specific binding conditions in the development agreement. They urged the council to respond within a week. In a positive development, on April 2, an executive summary for a development agreement was posted online, appearing to address many of the residents’ concerns.
The summary promises to maintain noise levels consistent with existing ambient conditions and outlines plans for roadway upgrades at the developer’s expense. Furthermore, it specifies that lighting will comply with dark-sky standards. However, McKell and his neighbours remain cautious, emphasising the need for binding commitments rather than mere assurances. “A good faith process is not the same as a binding obligation, and we cannot accept one in place of the other,” they stated in their correspondence to the RM.
Meeting with New Council
On April 14, the residents met with the newly appointed council members to discuss their concerns further. Reports indicate that the meeting was constructive; the residents felt heard, and many expressed optimism about the council’s willingness to engage seriously with their issues. Dan Rink, President of Bell AI Fabric, also presented his views during the meeting, which appeared to resonate positively with those in attendance.
Despite the constructive dialogue, no formal commitments were made, and it remains uncertain whether the binding conditions the residents seek will be included in the development agreement, which is due for review on April 20.
Why it Matters
This situation highlights the delicate balance between technological advancement and community interests. As the demand for data centres surges, it is crucial that local authorities and developers engage transparently with affected residents, ensuring that their concerns are taken seriously. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how similar projects are managed in the future, reflecting the need for responsible development that respects both community needs and environmental considerations.
