Explore the prototype →
Data-centre site qualification system

Know which data-centre sites deserve diligence.

siting.io turns a site boundary and operational brief into an explainable early qualification. It tests compute load, connection programme, power quality, cooling, water, fibre, resilience, planning and delivery evidence before land, connection and technical diligence costs escalate.

Explore the qualification system → See the full capability model →
01Site + operating envelopeParcel, load, years, cooling, networks and resilience
→
02Fatal gates + trade-offsEvidence quality, constraints, scenario fit and confidence
→
03Cited qualification memoStop, Investigate or Progress with targeted next evidence
43specified capabilities
70datasets inventoried
7decision domains
Evidence-backed product preview

One actual site.
A complete operating envelope.

The map retains the real Manor Farm geography. The controls restore the wider product idea: compute and energy demand, target years, phasing, power stability, cooling and water, network diversity, land readiness and resilience all change the qualification.

Case referenceP/10076/013 · APP/J0350/W/25/3366043
Evidence freeze13 December 2024
Later outcome
Load a scenario
01
Define the operational briefFour linked systems · every control changes a gate, signal or evidence request
01ACompute, energy and timing
01BPower quality and uptime
01CCooling, water and circularity
Scenario WUE0.05 L/kWh ITIllustrative design assumption, not filed evidence
01DDigital network and service
Physically diverse fibre routes
Public evidenceCorridor onlyCarrier, capacity and route separation require supplier evidence
Gross electrical demand147 MW120 MW IT × PUE 1.225
Annual IT energy895 GWhAt 85% operating utilisation
First stage147 MW2027 versus 107 MW documented
Full load147 MW2030 versus 147 MW documented
Process water0.4 ML/yrClosed-loop dry
Gross site density18.0 MW/haDerived from the 8.16 ha public boundary
02Qualification result
Progress

Progress to targeted technical diligence.

The selected operating envelope fits the documented 107 MW by 2027 and 147 MW by 2030 phasing. Planning, fibre, water, title and source-independence checks remain targeted diligence items.

Fatal conflicts0
Material gaps3
ConfidenceMedium–high
Dominant decision drivers
03
Read the seven-domain signalScenario fit and evidence depth, not a claim of engineering performance

Scores change with the brief. Source counts show the current inventory mapped to each domain.

Scenario sensitivity
04
Inspect the operational geographyActual parcel · public basemap · filed scheme · visible evidence boundaries
Interactive layer selected Application boundary and scheme Static schematic preview. The live interactive map (real basemap tiles, pan/zoom) returns in the dynamic build.
Land & planning · active layer Application boundary and scheme Derived
ACTIVE OPERATING ENVELOPE 147 MW gross demand
Service2027 → 2030
CoolingClosed-loop dry
PowerN+1 · 99.982%
Fibre2 diverse routes required
WGS84 51.47479, -0.51944BNG E 505,300 · N 174,700
Public record Derived Incomplete Evidence required
43-feature capability model

The decision is narrow.
The system behind it is not.

The MVP returns one qualification decision, but it draws on a broader specification across seven domains. The labels below distinguish what is interactive now, what is evidenced in the Manor Farm case and what remains specified for the roadmap.

12 FEATURES · 33 DATASETS

Energy & grid

Interactive Case evidence Specified
Data inventory v1

Seventy datasets.
Nine evidence clusters.

The inventory is already substantial, but it is not yet an England-wide production pipeline. Its geographical bias is exposed directly: 34 sources cover South East England, 27 London and 9 the UK excluding Scotland.

70datasets inventoried
36green readiness
32amber readiness
2red readiness
61/70London or South East
CURRENT GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE

Depth exists before national consistency.

This is useful evidence, not a weakness to hide. The production architecture combines the current operator-rich layers with a national geometry and policy core, then adds customer-supplied offers, title and studies.

South East England34
London27
UK excluding Scotland9
09
Dataset clustersSemantic families mapped to siting decisions
DS
Representative evidence feedsExamples from the 70-source inventory
01
National public core

OS and HMLR geometry, UPRNs, Planning Data, transport, flood, ecology, heritage and policy.

Repeatable screening
02
Regional and operator layer

DNO forecasts and power flows, water evidence, local policy, fibre, heat and market signals.

Variable coverage
03
Customer evidence

Connection offers, title, route surveys, power-quality studies, programme and commercial intent.

Decision proof
Qualification method

Rules before weights.
Evidence before confidence.

The map is one evidence surface. The product is the tested relationship between a parcel, an operational envelope, 43 potential capabilities and evidence of unequal quality.

01
147 MW2030Hyperscale

Frame the operating envelope

Combine real geometry with load, years, ramp, cooling, water, power quality, resilience, latency and land assumptions.

Site + operational brief
02

Assemble the evidence fabric

Join national, operator, case and customer evidence while preserving source dates, resolution, coverage and licence.

Facts + lineage + gaps
03
✓
?
✗

Test gates, then trade-offs

Resolve hard programme conflicts first, then compare seven domain signals and run scenario sensitivities.

Rules + MCDA + sensitivity
04
PROGRESSG-04 · phased supply

Issue a decision record

Return a circulable judgement with reason codes, assumptions, confidence, missing evidence and targeted next studies.

Decision + audit trail
Public evidence register

Actual sources.
Different levels of certainty.

Public data can establish geographic and policy context. It cannot, by itself, prove network headroom, title, consent or technical deliverability.

EvidencePrimary sourceSupportsDoes not prove
Base geographyOpenStreetMapRoads, buildings, water and public topologyService capacity or legal accuracy
Site and schemeApplication plansBoundary, area and proposed layoutLegal title or as-built condition
UtilitiesUtility StatementPower phasing, water enquiry and telecoms contextIndependent network verification
Planning constraintsCouncil caseGreen Belt, Strategic Gap, CVRP and flood summaryPlanning outcome at submission
Flood zonesEnvironment AgencyCurrent planning-screening extentsSite-specific flood and drainage design
Outcome layerSecretary of State decisionLater planning result and assessed issuesGrid, construction or commercial delivery

Map boundary and scheme footprints were digitised from the public drawings for this prototype. They are indicative display geometries. OpenStreetMap is used with attribution; a production product would use an appropriately hosted OSM-derived tile service.

Why qualification matters

The queue is large.
Deliverability is not.

NESO's 2026 demand call covered 152 data-centre phases. Only 32% had secured off-takers, while 81% were open to phased, ramped or non-firm routes. Developer intent and deliverability are not the same thing.

NESO demand call for input →
152data-centre phases
32%with off-takers
81%open to flexibility
Current position

Extensive specification.
Honest product stage.

siting.io has a 43-feature specification, a mapped 70-dataset inventory and a 13-area benchmark design. This website demonstrates the operating-envelope logic against one real public case. It does not yet constitute a national data pipeline, verified engineering model, customer pilot or evidence of willingness to pay.

43features specified
70datasets inventoried
13test areas designed
Next test

Review the decision, not just the interface.

The next useful evidence is expert challenge of this memorandum against what was knowable at the time, followed by a design partner and a measured pilot.