5-storey R&D building at 440 Cambridge Science Park approved - and will be part of ‘next generation’ on site

A new five-storey laboratory and office building has been approved as part of the “next generation” of buildings on Cambridge Science Park.

Trinity College, which owns the freehold to the site, put forward the proposal for plot 440, an undeveloped site to the west of the Science Park, beside the Royal Society of Chemistry and Astex Pharmaceuticals buildings.

Some concerns were raised about the 27-metre height of the building, with planning officers acknowledging it would be “significantly taller” than the existing building near where it will be built. But they said it “maximised” the use of the site.

Councillors on Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council heard the exterior will feature fabric ‘fins’ designed to prevent the building from overheating.

Designed by Allies and Morrison, the building features Passivhaus principles and the aim is for a net zero carbon footprint. The facade was inspired by the epidermis of a leaf, with the fins acting as shading devices to “control solar gains and minimise glare”, while the roof enclosure will feature solar panels. A terrace on the fourth floor will give views of central Cambridge.

There will be 154 cycle spaces, the majority of which would be provided in two-tier stands, as well as 50 car parking spaces beside the building, with a further 60 car parking spaces allocated from underused existing car parks elsewhere on the park.

Emma Woods, a representative of Trinity College, told the joint development control committee on 21 August it would “deliver much-needed flexible research and development space within this highly successful employment allocation”.

She added: “Trinity owns the freehold of the science park and controls a significant number of the buildings and plots as well as the communal estate areas.

“The Cambridge Science Park is a very significant long-term investment for the college. The college has owned this land for almost 500 years and considers itself to be a steward of the estate.

“Its strategy is to continue investing in sustainable growth on the park for the benefit of future generations.”

Using ‘biobased and biophilic’ opportunities, the architects intend to achieve BREEAM Excellent standard for environmental credentials, with a minimum 20 per ent biodiversity net gain.

District councillor Peter Fane (Lib Dem, Shelford) said the appearance of the building was dependent on the fabric fins being maintained.

Officers confirmed there was a condition requiring that.

City councillor Katie Porrer (Lib Dem, Market) liked the design of the building and welcomed the maintenance condition.

Fellow city councillor Dave Baigent (Lab, Romsey) “looked forward” to the day when there would be no car parking other than disabled spaces at new developments.

He suggested the plan of providing some spaces in under-used existing car parks was a “real move forward”.

But he expressed disappointment at the amount of two-tier cycle stands proposed.

He said: “If you have any sort of disability, or pains in your back, the double height cycle parking is very difficult to use and it does not encourage people to cycle.

“People should be able to pull up and park their bike and lock it up and not have to go through all that rigmarole.”

Cllr Anna Bradnam (Lib Dem, Milton and Waterbeach) was also concerned by this and would have preferred to have seen more single-level cycle parking but officers said the proposals complied with the policy requirements.

Cllr Martin Smart (Lab, King’s Hedges) raised concerns about the height of the building.

He said: “In principle I am not against big buildings. Tall buildings, I think, are a good thing for the city as we need development and jobs, but the important thing about architecture is context.

“This building does stick out. It does not fit well in the context. It may well be that the context is developed in the future, but at the moment it is quite a bit bigger than what is around it.”

Cllr Smart suggested it would be “at least a storey lower” than what was proposed.

He raised concerns that if the committee approved the application it would give the “green light” to have more developments of around the same height around it.

Cllr Smart said he was “not impressed” by the building, but added that he did not think that was reason enough to refuse the application.

Council officers said it would be part of the “next generation of the park”.

Councillors voted unanimously to approve the application.