A group of seven families in Saskatchewan is seeking answers from local authorities regarding a planned AI data centre by Bell near their properties. Their persistent inquiries over several months have met with minimal responses, leading to growing frustration among the residents who are concerned about the project’s potential impact on their quality of life and property values.
Ongoing Concerns from Local Residents
The families, living adjacent to the proposed site in the Rural Municipality (RM) of Sherwood, have expressed their worries in a formal letter to the council. In it, they lament that their concerns have been repeatedly deferred or overlooked. Doug McKell, whose family has resided in the area for nearly 150 years, articulated the group’s frustrations, stating that engaging with the RM has been akin to “pulling teeth.”
“We have the governance system in place so that these kinds of concerns should be able to be handled through their regular process,” McKell asserted. “And for them to ignore that and not deal with us in their normal fashion, everybody in the area is very frustrated with that.”
Formal Requests and Lack of Response
Between January and March 2026, the residents submitted four formal requests to the RM of Sherwood, seeking binding conditions that would address various issues, including noise, lighting, drainage, storm-water management, and road maintenance. However, only the first submission, made on January 29, was recorded publicly. Subsequent requests, made on February 8, 17, and March 4, were never acknowledged on the RM’s website.
In light of the lack of response, the residents escalated their concerns by filing a formal complaint with the Ombudsman on February 25. This prompted a discussion at the council meeting on March 16 about the Code of Ethics and the complaint itself. Just two days later, an unexpected shake-up occurred when four out of the seven council members, including the Reeve and Deputy-Reeve, resigned without explanation.
Changes in Local Governance
On April 10, the Ministry of Government Relations appointed former SARM president Ray Orb as the new Reeve, alongside Mitch Huber, Donna Strudwick, and Judy Harwood, who filled the other vacant council positions. Following these changes, the residents submitted another letter on March 25, requesting a formal resolution that would ensure their concerns about the data centre were adequately addressed.
A week later, on April 2, the RM posted an executive summary of a development agreement on its website, which appeared to address several of the landowners’ concerns. The document promised to maintain sound levels at property boundaries consistent with existing ambient conditions and stated that roadway upgrades would be funded by the developer. Furthermore, it assured the use of lighting fixtures that comply with dark-sky regulations.
Despite these assurances, McKell and his fellow residents remain sceptical. They emphasised that verbal promises do not equate to binding commitments. “A good faith process is not the same as a binding obligation, and we cannot accept one in place of the other,” they asserted, demanding enforceable conditions in the final development agreement.
A Positive Meeting with New Council Members
On April 14, the residents had a productive meeting with the newly appointed council members, during which they voiced their concerns and advocated for binding conditions. Reports indicate that the discussion was constructive, leaving the residents feeling optimistic about the future. McKell remarked on the positive reception of their issues, stating, “I think moving forward, we’ll be able to work with this… I think they heard our issues and concerns, so that was positive.”
However, as of now, no commitments have been made, and it remains unclear if the requested binding conditions will be included in the development agreement, which is set for review on April 20.
Why it Matters
The situation in Sherwood highlights the critical need for transparency and accountability in local governance, especially when significant developments threaten to alter the landscape and livelihoods of long-standing residents. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how local authorities engage with communities in future projects, underscoring the importance of ensuring that citizen concerns are not only heard but also addressed with tangible actions. As the debate continues, the residents await a resolution that might either safeguard their interests or further complicate their lives amid rapid technological advancement.
