Oxford Properties, Brockton Everlast, Abcam, Kadans Science Partner and Bidwells are among more than a dozen companies calling on the government not to make the Oxford-Cambridge Arc a victim of its levelling-up initiative.
The government is reported to be rowing back on its support for driving new investment in the region, which has long been a hotbed of life sciences and technology expertise. In its recent Levelling Up white paper it said investment into research and development would now be encouraged in regions outside of the Arc and the South East.
At Bidwells, senior partner Nick Pettit said: “Creating a dividing line in access to funding and channelling investment away from global centres of excellence neglects the nationwide benefits that investment in the Arc and its scientific enterprises can generate.
“The Arc is brilliantly placed to forge greater and stronger collaborations and partnerships with, across and in other geographic and sectoral areas of expertise in the UK for the national good.’’
Bidwells has co-ordinated 17 of the largest investors and employers in the region to write to chancellor Rishi Sunak arguing for greater support for the Arc.
Demand outstripping supply
According to Bidwells, there is currently demand across the Arc for office and laboratory space equivalent to “six AstraZenecas”. In the laboratory market alone, there is more than 2m sq ft being sought by businesses ranging from start-ups to global names. With supply of lab space increasingly limited, Bidwells warns that many businesses will not see their future in the UK.
A spokesman for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities said: “The Ox-Cam Arc is a globally renowned hub of innovation, with businesses and universities that are leading the way in life sciences, space and green technologies. In October last year, the government ran a public consultation gathering views to shape the vision for this area. We continue to work through next steps, and will provide more information in due course.”
Industry executives warn that without government support and funding, growth in the Arc will be much more challenging.
CBRE’s head of life sciences for the UK and EMEA, Joanne Henderson, said: “When you look at the best life sciences clusters and ecosystems in the US, you can see the preferential funding that the top ones get, the ones with the world-class reputations, because it’s really important for government to be supporting the growth of these leading clusters.
“Oxford and Cambridge have a global reputation. When you think about levelling up, a lot of the other clusters just simply don’t [have a global reputation]. So if you’re not standing and growing the ones that are world-leading, the risk is they will lose a global brand because the government has not seemed to be supporting them and is relying too much on the private sector to do that.”
Louise Ward, partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, noted that plans to shelve government support for the Arc are likely to be unwelcome to international investors looking at new opportunities. She said: “In terms of any ambition for the Arc to rival centres in the US, the government decision clearly harms that, despite long-term support from successive Conservative cabinets.”
Some have questioned whether government support had ever given enough momentum to the initiative on the ground. Nick Walkley, former chief executive of Homes England, said on social media: “The Arc was a programme that had so much in its favour. HMT support, special civil service unit, high housing demand and of course those world-class universities as economic foundations. But a civil service team is no substitute for robust local governance that gets you through the hard times.”
Walkley added: “Boards and panels are no substitute for robust mechanisms that get local buy-in and allow follow-through. Without that governance (and government aversion) there never really was a spatial plan that prioritised and directed public spending and investors. Instead, we got endless meetings and lots of land speculation – with no one group accountable for the tough decisions.”
Private sector ready to step in
Now, private sector real estate must decide whether to push ahead. Regeneration specialist Jackie Sadek said the sector was ready to “rush in and support” the Arc.
“If the market was ready to go with it and if it was going to be a success story, I don’t know why [government has] abandoned it,” she said. “The spatial strategy that the civil service came up with was actually extremely good and, if it had been me, I would not have thrown the baby out with the bathwater… It erodes trust in whether the government ever means what it says.”
Others have argued the Arc is now well enough established to continue its development journey without public investment. Former British Property Federation chief executive and current chair of the University of Cambridge’s property board Liz Peace said: “Cambridge, frankly, is going to carry on anyway. The government dropping out isn’t going to make any difference. We’re approached by so many people over our University of Cambridge sites. People are queuing up to get into that area.”
Matt Swash, senior director at COREP, also said he expects the news to have little or no impact on the private sector in the short-term amid continued appetite from investors to diversify their portfolios, capitalise on landlord-friendly market conditions, and a seemingly endless supply of new tenants.
“It is the medium-term picture where the major challenge lies.. without government support, particularly from a planning and infrastructure perspective, local authorities simply do not have the money or power to collaborate and deliver a cohesive plan,” said Swash.
To send feedback, e-mail evelina.grecenko@eg.co.uk or tweet @Gre_Eve or @EGPropertyNews
See also: Why deprioritising the Arc should give local authorities more freedom
