This fictional project demonstrates the proposed format and questions a scoped engagement could address. No person has reviewed an actual site here. No utility response, design approval, client result or engineering sign-off is represented.
The fictional brief
A developer is considering a small regional data centre and needs to decide what to investigate before committing to land. For this teaching example only, the planning inputs are 5 MW facility demand, dry cooling, 10 Gbps and two planned carrier routes. These are assumptions, not site capabilities.
What a reviewer would examine
| Issue | Review action | Decision remains open until |
|---|---|---|
| Nearby electricity infrastructure | Check source scope and age; distinguish distance from connection rights and allocation; prepare the project load brief. | The utility assesses the project and supplies the relevant connection evidence. |
| Two carrier names in an area | Ask whether access routes share ducts, poles, crossings or upstream facilities; record the questions and responses actually obtained. | Carrier engineering confirms the required service and physical route design. |
| Dry cooling | Review the project assumptions and identify domestic, fire-water and peak electrical design needs. | The appropriate designers and service authorities establish the actual requirements. |
| A parcel beneath the pin | Confirm the intended full development footprint and list title, access and planning checks. | The developer and relevant advisers establish the site and permissible use. |
What private and paid data could add.
In a real paid engagement, authorized private and paid data sources, where available, could be reviewed alongside the public screen, including licensed property or utility data and authorized utility or carrier responses where permitted. A reviewer would check the source, date, site and project scope, reconcile conflicts and document what is confirmed, conditional or unresolved before using the findings in concept work.
This teaching example contains no actual private records or completed private verification. The free automated screen uses public data. Record availability, permissions and any third-party fees would be agreed before a separate paid review begins.
Concepts that make the questions tangible
For a suitably scoped real engagement, concept work might compare two access arrangements or phased development approaches. The example below shows decision topics only; it is not a layout for a real property.
The handoff should be useful.
- A concise decision brief that says what is known, assumed and still open.
- An evidence register linking each material finding to its source and date.
- The agreed concept outputs, with assumptions and limitations visible.
- A prioritised action register naming the responsible party, required evidence and decision dependency.
- A proposed next-stage scope for design or further investigation, with commercial terms agreed separately.
A real engagement would identify the actual preparer and reviewer, record the work performed and distinguish completed checks from outstanding requests. This teaching example does none of those things and is not evidence of completed professional work.
Go beyond the public map.
For your actual project, the $7,500 CAD engagement includes a human-reviewed report plus 25 hours of consultation and concept work, additional to report preparation. We agree the site, profile, milestones, available records, permissions, any third-party fees and terms before work starts.
Discuss a scoped engagement ↗