Why application of science is way forward

Parish, borough and county councillors have joined Sittingbourne and Sheppey MP in voicing their concerns over what could be one of the biggest developments seen in the borough.

The park, built and occupied until 1996 by Shell and formerly know as the Sittingbourne Research Centre, sits in 125 acres of parkland just to the south of the town. About 1,000 people are employed by 80 companies at present.

If it were to go ahead, the expansion would possibly see thousands of new homes built to the south of the town and a new link road between the M2 and A2 in Bapchild, though no actual applications have yet been lodged.

Several villages, including Tunstall, Rodmersham, Bordon and Bedgar, would be affected directly by the development, though the impact on the whole of Swale would be huge.

The park, owned by the Mars pension fund, is run by Lasalle Investment Management. Gazette and Times reporter Richard Jones talked to three of their key players to try and find out what their intensions are.

He spoke to European director Andrew Bull (AB), site director Nick Sharp (NS) and project director Simon Reynolds (SR).

Why expand this science park?

NS: Here, we have something unique in this country. A private company, Shell, has already invested £200 million in the site and it is one of the few science parks in the country actually making money.

AB: We have to go forward, or we will start to go backwards. We have to manage our current success and, in the long term, this means asking for the ability to expand upon what we have already got. To attract highly-skilled people from across Europe, we have to be able to offer a place to live and better facilities than there are at present. We must not miss this opportunity as there are potential competitors all over the continent.

There is no future for low level manufacturing in the country. This is the way forward.

NS: As a relatively deprived area, people have  to consider whether they could look themselves in the eye and say “thank goodness” if this development did not go ahead. This could potentially bring very substantial investment to Sittingbourne and would have enormous benefits for the area as a whole.

AB: Change unnerves a lot of people. It is our job to show them the benefits.

NS: The children of Sittingbourne would never forgive us if this didn’t happen. It is a one-off opportunity. The vast majority would benefit and it needs to be remembered that the number of local protesters is actually quite small.

SR: East Kent has been economically deprived for a long time. This could provide a new economic driver, like Pfizer has done in Sandwich.

Billions of dollars have been invested there and you do not get many opportunities like that. It won’t happen in Canterbury, Ashford or Folkestone – this is a way to realise that kind of investment right here.

NS: We are already turning companies away. They want to be here and demand is increasing year on year.

SR: Sittingbourne can’t afford to get a reputation for turning away good-quality jobs.

What’s the next step?

AB: At the moment, we are just setting out our aspirations and trying to make them known to people. So far, I think we have been guilty of not letting local people know what is going on.

SR: As soon as we have the information available, we will decide how best to continue. If we are invited to present our proposals, we would have to go through a consultation excise before an “examination in public”. Hopefully, that will be later this year.

What plans are there for the science park site?

NS: We are looking to build exactly what potential new occupants might want. These types of business tend to change very fast. An optics company has already expressed a firm interest in taking 30,000sq ft. In reality, we couldn’t fit that on to the land we have now. If we had to keep saying goodbye to these companies, it would be bad for the area, so we need to expand. It is difficult to say that we need this or that much new space. Bio companies can expand very quickly, but we want to be able to give companies the chance to grow here, rather than having to uproot.

AB: In terms of employment, I have said we would like to double the size of the site: Physical expansion would probably be something similar.

Will there be just science-based companies? Will there be any links with higher education?

AB: There is a common misperception about science parks. Being a science park does not mean that we should be limited exclusively to scientific companies. It is more of an aspirational statement. It is very rare for there to be a formal academic link. We intend to build eight bio-incubators, costing £10 million to £20 million for 20,000sq ft and we will meet representatives from Imperial College (London) who are short of research space.

NS: We would also like to increase our links with the University of Kent, but we don’t have to be on top of each other to do that.

It is very expensive to set up research units and this is an opportunity to do things efficiently. Few players are big enough to do everything by themselves.

Our goal is to set up an information pipeline that can really benefit the whole area. The setting up of a training facility on site is key and we could get a grant from South East England Development Agency for equipment.

AB: The way things are done is changing. If there is no university link, the main loss to us would be lustre, as a link is appealing to venture capitalists. We can link up in other ways, through training, seminars and conferences. If we just wanted a business park here, there would be many better places we could go.

NS: We want to put people with good ideas in touch with people who have funding. Often, the “ideas” men live in the academic world and don’t get to meet the “money” men.

One of the aspects of the science park that worries people in the community is the proposed new road link to the site. What is being done about this?

AB: Our basic belief is that the site needs better communications. At present, it does take a while to reach the motorway. In the Thames Gateway area, investment in infrastructure is very high on the agenda of local government and politicians. In the past, there has been under-investment and the area has lost jobs and employers as a result.

We are conducting a traffic survey. Until we have that information, it is impossible to have meaningful dialogue.

NS: We are looking at the technical feasibility of building the road. At the moment, it looks hopeful. If it was necessary, the Highways Agency, which has said that a road would go against its policy, could be told what to do by the Deputy Prime Minister’s office. We are looking at a single carriageway linking the M2 to the A2.

SR: The impact of any road would be kept to a minimum.

It’s likely that the proposed new link with the M2 would involve a housing development near the park. How many houses would it require?

AB: It’s hard to say how many thousands of homes might be built close to the site. It will come down to what Swale, the county and the nation wants. To get a new motorway junction, however, we must offer something significant. The road could be funded in a number of different ways, not just through housing. The question of whether we could get a junction for the science park alone is something we must put to the office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

It is likely that an element of housing will be needed. We are looking to attract international companies and have to be able to offer local housing for their people to live in when they get here. At the moment, where they could live is an issue.

NS: Swale Council cannot be expected to agree housing numbers when they have not been given an allocation by the Deputy Prime Minister’s office.

They are reliant on Government directives.

SR: Sustainable communities have to be developed. This means employment, housing, recreation, community facilities and provision for education.

The Thames Gateway.

This article and photographs are used with the kind permission of The Gazette & Times