Survey reveals UK science firms’ location woes

Property consultancy Ridge and Partners questioned more than 100 firms, whose complaints centred on claims of a lack of understanding of the needs of science-based sectors by central government and dissatisfaction at local level with council authorities, planning and science park availability.

The report, titled Building a Future for Science and Technology, suggests science leaders felt certain Westminster policies contradicted the Government’s stated commitment to fostering economic growth in successful industries such as life science.

More than a quarter of respondents (27%) protested that current limits on employing foreign talent adversely affected their businesses. Also cited was the lack of a Cabinet level science minister in the Government.

At local level, concerns centred on provision of infrastructure and the frequent lack of this. They warned this was impacting in turn on recruitment and consequently growth.

Partner, Science and Tech Lead at Ridge and Partners Liz Sparrow stated: “There’s no lack of ambition or opportunity for growth within the science and tech communities. Indeed, the companies we studied expect to grow by 52% over the next three years.

But they need to be in the right environments to grow in this way – that means places with the right infrastructure, transport links, housing, and premises to attract the partners, suppliers, and talent they need.”

However, the report revealed that of the respondents

• One in five said their premises were not accessible by public transport 
• One in five cited ack of affordable local housing is a problem for over one in five (22%)
• Nearly half doubted their premises will meet their future needs
• Nearly eight out of 10 small companies thought their premises insufficient for the future
• One in five felt their premises insufficiently sustainable or attractive to employees

Recruitment concerns over lab technicians and administration staff affected a third of companies while 48% reported problems filling more senior roles.

The survey also outlined the interest of many science firms in locating in clusters with similar or complementary businesses.

This year science-focused property firms have reported serious problems of demand greatly outstripping supply, in particular in the three key life science clusters of Cambridge, Oxford and London.

The three cities house four of the leading universities for life sciences: Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial and UCL. These institutions have also dominated the university life science spin-out market over the last decade.

Added Sparrow: “Policy makers cannot afford to simply focus on the needs of big players. Diversity in science or tech community clusters - be this in terms of company size or typology – is key if all are to thrive. Every company which exits these diverse eco-systems and relocates overseas, or simply fails to thrive, weakens things for everyone else.

“No single body can do this. Joined-up thinking is needed between the public and private sectors, between the UK’s government, its cities, regions, and science parks. Collaboration is key if we’re to create – and keep – the UK’s tech/science powerhouses.”

NEWS: Liverpool spin-out company chief Paul Colbon has called on Government to 'level up' science provision in the north of England. The Liverpool ChiroChem CEO, who recently relocated his firm to Runcorn's Heath science park, told Laboratory News's sister site LaboratoryTalk there were too few adequate facilities for the chemistry sector.