This file concerns Microsoft evidence at Middenmeer, not Google Middenmeer. The older Wieringermeer reference is mapped to Middenmeer in the catalogue. The AMS-E, Deelgebied B1 notice is locality/operator discovery context, not a verified match to that campus or other phases.
This is a connected project evidence file, not a new physical-facility record. The original catalogue URL and identity remain in place.
What stage does the evidence support?
The existing record has a historical operating observation dated 23 June 2022. The 30 December 2025 notice records MER preparation for a proposed expansion. Neither establishes the expansion as operating, permitted today or physically identical to the older record.
Retained catalogue stage and its date
The existing catalogue label is operating, observed as of 23 June 2022. Its recorded check remains 2 October 2026. Retained historical catalogue label, not a fresh whole-project status check or a delivery-confidence score.
Project stage and evidence quality answer different questions. A reviewed permit can be strong evidence of that permit within its scope while leaving current construction or delivery unresolved. No delivery-confidence score is assigned here.
What needs to be established next?
Resolve the project and address association before comparing stages. Inspect later official case materials to establish whether a subsequent permit decision exists; the MER-intent notice is not that decision.
Physical association between AMS-E/B1 and the historical record
Not established by the evidence inspected
Do not merge buildings, addresses, capacity or phases on a shared place and company name.
Later decisions and current participation status
Not established by the evidence inspected
The historic notice cannot support a present permit or deadline claim.
Local effects, public positions and delivery outcomes
Not researched in this file
This file cannot balance benefits and burdens or speak for people affected.
Whether the two observations contradict each other
Not established by the evidence inspected
Different dates and unresolved identities do not by themselves demonstrate a conflict.
What does this mean for people affected?
The notice provides a route into the official case evidence. It does not establish a current comment window, local support or opposition, impacts or delivered benefits.
Use the community question guide to ask who makes the decision, what evidence is missing, how to participate and how any commitments will be checked. Unknown evidence does not establish no impact or no concern.
What materially changed?
This first connected evidence file assembles existing published observations. It does not establish a newly detected project change or a complete change history. A later source date alone is not evidence that the whole project advanced.
A new evidence page is a site improvement. It is not, by itself, a new project milestone. No material-change detection date or complete historical sequence is claimed.
What should I watch or do next?
Read the official notice and use its document link to inspect the underlying case materials directly, checking for later decisions before relying on current status. Open the official source.
An official project/address match that resolves the physical association.
Later case documents or decisions with their own publication and event dates.
Current participation information, scoped local-impact evidence and evidence of delivery.
If you need compute now, use Find compute to investigate an access route with its own eligibility and service evidence. A project milestone is not an available compute offer.
Inspect the supporting observations
Original evidence dates and recorded checks are retained separately. Assembling this file does not renew them. Unknown source dates stay unknown.
Dutch parliament: data centres in the Netherlands
The Dutch parliament's 23 June 2022 page lists an existing Microsoft hyperscale data centre in Wieringermeer; this record maps it to Middenmeer.
Scope: The parliamentary reference names Wieringermeer; the existing catalogue maps it to Middenmeer. This is historical evidence, not a current operating check.
Evidence basis: historical published record. Reuses the published record. No fresh source retrieval or whole-record revalidation in this edition; an exact independent review timestamp is not stored in this record.
Source conditions and limits
Existing source conditions retained; no new source-content licence. Selected existing attributed fact and ordinary original link only. Third-party source material retains its terms. This evidence file creates no blanket reuse or recurring-monitoring permission.
A Noord-Holland notice published on 30 December 2025 records a MER preparation notification for Microsoft Datacenters Netherlands B.V.'s proposed AMS-E, Deelgebied B1 expansion at Westlanderweg 50, Middenmeer, case OD2025-0043382.
Scope: The proposed AMS-E, Deelgebied B1 expansion at Westlanderweg 50 only. Its physical association with the older record is not established.
Evidence basis: reviewed source supplement. The existing exact-use independent review, not a new check in this edition.
Existing scoped independent review: 2026-10-17T18:36:44Z. This is not a new check of present conditions.
Source conditions and limits
This supplement is locality/operator discovery context beside the older Microsoft Middenmeer record, not a verified physical-campus or phase association. AMS-E, Deelgebied B1 and Westlanderweg 50 are not matched to Westlanderweg 150, AMS13/14, AMS15/40 or Campus West in the separate coordination decision. The underlying case documents, NRD, PDFs, applications and later decisions were not inspected. This historic notice does not establish current permitting, legal finality, a current comment or appeal window, construction, operation, capacity or available compute. Earlier facility facts, stages, planning and source dates remain unchanged; no building or phase is split or merged.
Source copyright retained; exact basic-fact use assessed only. Two minimal attributed basic notice facts and ordinary unframed original link only, not source narrative translation, adaptation or legal advice. No quotations, applicant documents, attachments, maps, drawings, images, contacts, tables or datasets reproduced or adapted. No open licence, public-domain status, endorsement, blanket domain clearance or recurring-monitoring grant. The inspected KOOP CC0 notice is limited to its own website, not this provincial notice or third-party attachments. No express restriction on the bounded basic-fact/link use was visible in the inspected notice HTML; inaccessible Overheid help/reuse conditions remain uninspected, not permission inferred from absence. Reassess newly evidenced applicable conditions without a paraphrase workaround.
The retained fingerprint describes parsed evidence, not raw origin bytes or a complete source-body hash. No source retrieval is performed by this page.
The notice states that the MER procedure does not itself decide the environmental permit; that decision follows completion of the MER and submission of a permit application.
Scope: The notice describes the distinction between the MER procedure and a later permit decision; it is not a current legal-status assessment.
Evidence basis: reviewed source supplement. The existing exact-use independent review, not a new check in this edition.
Existing scoped independent review: 2026-10-17T18:36:44Z. This is not a new check of present conditions.
Source conditions and limits
This supplement is locality/operator discovery context beside the older Microsoft Middenmeer record, not a verified physical-campus or phase association. AMS-E, Deelgebied B1 and Westlanderweg 50 are not matched to Westlanderweg 150, AMS13/14, AMS15/40 or Campus West in the separate coordination decision. The underlying case documents, NRD, PDFs, applications and later decisions were not inspected. This historic notice does not establish current permitting, legal finality, a current comment or appeal window, construction, operation, capacity or available compute. Earlier facility facts, stages, planning and source dates remain unchanged; no building or phase is split or merged.
Source copyright retained; exact basic-fact use assessed only. Two minimal attributed basic notice facts and ordinary unframed original link only, not source narrative translation, adaptation or legal advice. No quotations, applicant documents, attachments, maps, drawings, images, contacts, tables or datasets reproduced or adapted. No open licence, public-domain status, endorsement, blanket domain clearance or recurring-monitoring grant. The inspected KOOP CC0 notice is limited to its own website, not this provincial notice or third-party attachments. No express restriction on the bounded basic-fact/link use was visible in the inspected notice HTML; inaccessible Overheid help/reuse conditions remain uninspected, not permission inferred from absence. Reassess newly evidenced applicable conditions without a paraphrase workaround.
The retained fingerprint describes parsed evidence, not raw origin bytes or a complete source-body hash. No source retrieval is performed by this page.
How these observations are connected
Relationships preserve the cited observation's own date and scope. A shared locality or organisation does not establish a shared physical facility.
shares locality and operator discovery context only. physical association not established. The proposed AMS-E, Deelgebied B1 expansion at Westlanderweg 50 only. Its physical association with the older record is not established. Inspect the supporting observation.
names proposed expansion applicant. supported within stated scope. The proposed AMS-E, Deelgebied B1 expansion at Westlanderweg 50 only. Its physical association with the older record is not established. Inspect the supporting observation.
Help improve this evidence file
Suggest a correction or better public evidence. Name the project or phase, the claim, the original source and its date. Do not include private residents' details or private submissions.