“Power secured” sounds like a question has been settled. Before using it to assess a data-centre project, ask a more precise question: secured in what sense, for which phase, on what terms and from when?
A grid application, a connection offer, an accepted agreement, a developer’s description of that agreement and a physically energised connection are different kinds of evidence. A proposed substation is not a supply contract. Nor does an electricity-purchasing arrangement, on its own, establish that a particular site can receive the required power.
The aim is not to dismiss developer disclosures. It is to preserve the distinction between what has been proposed, what a source reports as agreed and what has actually been verified.
Manor Farm: a reported arrangement is not an inspected contract
In its H1 2026 results statement, Tritax describes a joint venture with EDF Renewables using existing grid connection agreements to provide 107 MW in 2027 and a further 40 MW in 2029 at Manor Farm. This is a specific issuer disclosure about the proposed delivery of power, not simply a number attached to a site brochure. [1]
The appellant’s case reproduced in the planning inspector’s report also describes contractually secured transmission connections from Iver and Laleham, to be served by private wire. It identifies separate consenting work for those routes. That is appellant evidence within an official report, not independent inspection of the underlying agreements by this research. [2]
The appropriate conclusion is that the arrangements are reported by the issuer and appellant. We have not independently established all contractual conditions, route consents, outstanding works or the consequences if programme dates change. That limitation is not evidence that the arrangements do not exist.
Private wire describes a physical supply route; it should not be read as an exemption from construction, permissions or contractual dependencies. Likewise, a future supply tranche is not evidence that the same quantity is available at the site today.
The capacity boundary matters too. The inspector’s report describes approximately 72 MW of IT design capacity, a different measure from the issuer’s 107 MW power figure. The difference is not, by itself, a capacity cut or a measure of electrical losses. Neither number establishes operating IT load. [2]
Wapseys Wood: alternative routes are not additive capacity
The SDC M40 Campus material reviewed on 1 October sets out two potential long-term approaches, preceded by a proposed interim supply of approximately 35 MW. One approach uses an approximately 200 MW onsite generating centre, followed by wider-grid supply. The alternative is a direct connection to existing 400 kV transmission lines through new infrastructure. The developer says only one of those two main scenarios would be delivered. [3]
These are proposals, not evidence that both routes have been secured. The 400 kV figure is a voltage, not an MW capacity. And the interim supply is a staging proposal, not proof that the whole campus can operate from the start.
Under the generating-centre scenario, the developer anticipates wider-grid capacity by 2040 and describes the proposed generation as supporting up to two of three data-centre buildings. The 2040 expectation must not be applied to the direct-transmission alternative, which has a different proposed route. [3]
A single “power secured” field would lose the most useful information here: which route is selected, what is interim, which buildings it serves and which dependencies remain unresolved. Adding the alternatives together would make the description worse, not more complete.
Pinewood: the clock starts from an unverified trigger
The applicant’s Energy Centre Report for Pinewood Nurseries anticipates a firm grid connection taking approximately ten years from acceptance. The reviewed evidence does not establish the relevant acceptance date or independently confirm that timetable with the network operator. It therefore does not support converting the statement into a definite calendar year. [4]
The same report says a separate application for a curtailed connection is pending. In the applicant’s proposed arrangement, grid supply could be restricted during network stress, with onsite generation covering the curtailment periods. The outcome and actual restrictions of that application were not independently established in our review.
That is why “gas-only for ten years” would be an overstatement. It would ignore the proposed earlier curtailed supply and turn a conditional pathway into a settled operating plan. Equally, the proposed curtailed route must not be presented as an awarded connection or a guaranteed daily supply window.
The report proposes 49.5 MW of generation, comprising eleven approximately 4.5 MW engines. Those are proposed generating ratings, not verified IT capacity, installed plant or permitted output. The outline application also retained alternative industrial/storage or data-centre uses in the reviewed register; this was not proof that the data-centre alternative had been selected or consented. [4]
An applicant report makes the applicant’s position more traceable. It does not become network-operator confirmation because it is published through a council portal, or because an objection repeats the same figures.
Five questions behind the phrase
- What is the evidence?
- A proposal, application, offer, accepted agreement, attributed disclosure or observed energisation?
- What is the boundary?
- IT load, incoming supply or generation; one building, one phase or the whole site?
- Which route?
- Grid connection, private wire or onsite generation; selected infrastructure or alternative designs?
- What conditions apply?
- Capacity limits, curtailment, reinforcement, consents, construction and other outstanding dependencies?
- Which date and trigger?
- Acceptance, first energisation or a later tranche? A contractual term, an applicant estimate or an observed event?
These questions define the scope of a claim. They are not a readiness score or a universal sequence of project stages.
Even the term “firm” needs its context. Pinewood’s report uses it for an unrestricted connection, distinguishing it from the proposed curtailed arrangement. That distinction should be preserved without turning “firm” into a promise of unlimited capacity or an outage-free facility.
Energisation is a separate milestone
An accepted agreement can be important commercial evidence while physical delivery remains ahead. A proposed supply date can move without changing the existence of the original agreement. Conversely, a connection can be energised for a limited phase without establishing full-campus power availability.
Evidence of energisation should identify what was energised, when and within what capacity boundary. It still does not automatically establish completed customer fit-out, live workloads or operational IT megawatts. Those require different evidence.
The strongest useful statement is often narrower than “power secured”: the issuer reports this arrangement for this phase; these dates are forecasts or stated terms; these conditions and physical outcomes remain unverified. That is not a negative verdict. It is a more precise account of what the evidence permits us to say.
The same discipline applies to consent. Read Planning is not delivery, or the broader introduction to verifying data-centre project status.
Sources and scope
This selective analysis uses evidence retained by 1 October 2026. No fresh external source review or project observation was performed for publication. None of the examples constitutes our independent verification of an energised connection. Unknown contractual or technical details are not evidence of absence.
- Tritax Big Box, H1 2026 results statement (PDF), page17: Manor Farm joint venture and stated 107 MW/40 MW supply tranches. Cover/approval dated 5 August; exact first-publication day not established.
- Manor Farm appeal decision and inspector’s report (PDF), published 10 June 2026: section5.5 for IT design capacity; sections6.51–6.54 for the appellant’s power and programme case. Statements reproduced in that case are not presented here as independent contract verification.
- SDC M40 Campus, Our power strategy, the two scenarios and common-elements sections, as reviewed on 1 October. Also the Stage Two consultation booklet (PDF), PDF page8 / printed pages14–15. Exact publication/revision dates were not established; both describe developer proposals.
- Buckinghamshire planning register, PL/26/06414/OA, proposal and Documents: Energy Centre Report, v1.0, August 2026, by ELD on behalf of ACRE; page2 and sections3.2–3.3. The council list dates the document 10 August; this is not an independently established authorship or utility-acceptance date. The report is applicant-consultant evidence and contains reliance/reuse limitations.
Report files are not reproduced here. Council portals may require their ordinary access acknowledgement. This article is not engineering, legal or investment advice, and is not a substitute for inspecting the relevant agreements and technical evidence.