As demand for lab space increasingly outstrips supply, alternatives are being sought to science parks and traditional locations.
Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn Statement may have provided encouragement that the Government is prepared to accompany talk of ensuring the United Kingdom’s role as a life sciences superpower with some serious investment. But even in an age of virtual labs and digital twins, there is a problem around space.
Or rather, the lack of it. Life science’s ‘golden triangle’, defined by the powerhouses of Oxbridge and London, is suffering a seemingly insurmountable deficit in terms of room needed and room available (see page 32). And, as with any crisis, that presents opportunity; for developers and for those university towns and cities seeking to challenge the dominant role of Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and UCL in the rapidly growing university spin-out sector.
Scale, however, remains an issue. The Triangle stands apart as a mature market in terms of its infrastructure, size and favourable south eastern location. But combination at regional level has offered the opportunity to scale up. One of the earliest examples, SETsquared – the Southern England Technology Triangle – dates back to 2002 and now includes the universities of Bath, Bristol, Southampton, Surrey and Exeter.
Just two years ago, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield played a key role in the formation of Northern Gritstone, set up as an investment vehicle “for the commercialisation of science and IP-rich businesses” originating from the trio, and to support relevant businesses in the region. And this year, the eight Midlands Innovation group of institutions set up the £0.25 billion investment company Midlands Mindforge.
Head of Policy and Public Affairs for the BioIndustry Association (BIA) Dr Martin Turner sees strong potential for development.
“The [country] has areas of life science excellence across the UK and we’re seeing significant investment in regional hubs, such as engineering biology in Bristol and bioprocessing in Darlington. This is a great economic opportunity to provide rewarding, well-paid jobs in those areas and increase the levels of innovation,” he says.
This could prove timely: the Autumn Statement created two platforms through the Long-Term Investment for Technology and Science Initiative (LIFTS) open to pension funds, promising major new investment. Meanwhile, the 2021 changes to planning legislation use classes will likely encourage greater interest in laboratory science builds among developers new to the sector.
Two recently published guides, the BIA’s own UK Life Science Occupiers Guide to Laboratory Space and Speed to Market: Life Sciences Buildings by consultants Ramboll with developer Wates Group, have attempted to align better developer interest with industry and market need.
Certain longstanding factors remain a given: size and location; specialist infrastructure; access to academia, the corporate world, relevant SMEs. But others too are assuming greater importance.
Shortfall in available sites… combined with more favourable conditions for would-be competitors, suggests a degree of transformation in the lab space environment might be effected
One is sustainability, driven by a combination of future proofing, ethical underpinning and a recognition that labs are energy intensive spaces. Consequently, warns the BIA, investors will expect to see commitment in the shape of concrete ESG (environmental, social and governance) strategies.
Another factor, highlighted by the Ramboll Wates report is agility. Buildings need to have an in-built capacity to react to rapidly changing circumstances. So, while a research based laboratory maintains a 50:50 ratio of desk to lab space, it may need to reserve 10 to 20 per cent of its overall space to adapt for either purpose as priorities alter. Likewise, collaborative spaces and amenities in “interaction hotspots”. And new equipment and workflows must be accommodated with minimal expense or construction work.
Another consideration is talent retention and development. With so many sectors competing for the same high-level skillsets, staff are inevitably more discriminating about their choice of workplace. That might mean better amenities within the workplace but also a city location rather than the traditional science park. And with many commercial life science R&D firms and start-ups not requiring complex ‘heavy’ tech or manufacturing capability, town and city spaces may be ideal, suggests Ramboll.
The Francis Crick Institute between Euston and King’s Cross in London, enhanced by the Crossrail development, and Manchester's Bruntwood Citylabs campus [above] offer two examples of anurban trend that has the added benefit of putting science in the wider public consciousness.
Crick, maintains the Ramboll Wates report: “illustrates a notable shift from the 20th-century model of science ‘fortresses’ at out-of-town and green field sites and reflects the wider trend of promoting greater public knowledge and engagement with science.
“Almost single-handedly the Institute boosted the return of ‘urban science’ that complements the magnetism that London, Oxford and Cambridge, exert in relation to talent, lifestyle and finance.”
Two changes – one technological, the other legislative – make it possible that the urban trend will continue. MMC, or modern methods of construction, harness the benefits of new materials, automation and even digitalisation to simplify the manufacturing process and enable more offsite construction to reduced timescales and costs.
In addition, reforms to planning use classes assigned most speculative office and lab space within the Class E category (comprising business, R&D and light industrial space), reducing the likely need for change of use permissions.
While the Triangle’s domination of the market will remain unchallenged, the shortfall in available sites within that location, combined with more favourable conditions for would-be competitors, suggests a degree of transformation in the lab space environment might be effected.
