So what is a Science Park anyway?

This might seem like an odd question but the five parishes of Bapchild, Bredgar, Milstead, Rodmersham and Tunstall who are acting jointly to protest against the current owners' proposed expansion plans for the Kent Science Park feel that it's one that most people would not be able to answer correctly.

The recent publicity headlining these proposals as 'Science based opportunities' to lift Swale - and more directly Sittingbourne -  into an economic super league is intended to disguise the straight forward commercial intentions of those landowners involved with the proposals.

In the recent East Kent Gazette article Andrew Bull, European director for the Kent Science Park stated that there was a common misperception about science parks and that they should not be exclusively limited to scientific companies. In reality that is entirely correct and the misperception is of thinking that a science park is some kind of hi-Tech wonderland, the truth being somewhat more dull and ordinary. The term ‘Science Park’ is a very generic term that can mean many different things.

In fact the industry definition is that a science park is simply a business park with no retail outlets.

Currently it is IT / Telecomms companies which are the dominant sector using Science Parks, not bio-technology, pharmaceutical or scientific research enterprises.

In planning terms such ‘parks’ are regulated by a Planning Use Class B1, which does not specially identify ‘science’ as a planning use and can include Research & Development (any industry), Offices and Light Industrial users.

Andrew Bull also stated “It is very rare for there to be a formal academic link”. Whilst we are sure he wishes this was true as the park is unlikely to ever obtain such a link, it is clearly not the case. The UK Science Park Association states that ‘A Science Park is a business support and technology transfer initiative that has formal and operational links with centres of knowledge creation such as universities, higher education institutes and research organisations.’

It is a fact no new science park has been built since 2000 without a university attachment.

The Economic Development Office for Swale Borough Council appears to be out of touch on this issue stating at the Economy Scrutiny Panel meeting of the 29th April 2004, “that whilst the provision of higher education on the site was an aspiration, it was not a prerequisite to the development of the "Science Park”

Nick Sharp the newly appointed site director for the Park has stated “We would 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”.  Clearly this leads to the conclusion that the location of a science park is not critical and that the claim that the old Shell site is unique is quite misleading - for the current land owners it simply represents a development opportunity in the middle of the countryside.

Andrew Bull’s comment on the plans for the Science Park, where he stated “In terms of employment, I have said we would like to double the size of the site. Physical expansion would probably be something similar”  This appears to be an attempt to disguise the true intentions for development.  The Science Park owners in their recent objections to the Kent & Medway Structure Plan stated  “ (We)…… envisage enlargement of Sittingbourne Research Centre from its current 16ha (40 acres) to 72ha (177 acres)”.  This represents a 450% increase in its physical size - rather more significant than doubling the size.

We assume that the owners of the Park purchased the site in the knowledge that their investment would be limited by the criteria set out in the current Swale Local Plan – Policy B36 - which states;

‘The Borough Council will grant planning permission for the reuse/redevelopment of land within the security fence, for employment-related development at the Sittingbourne Research Centre. Preference will be given to a single high quality user, especially for research and development, and/or higher or further education.’

Nick Sharp said “ We are already turning companies away. They want to be here and demand is increasing year on year.” 

Well in the last eight years they have only ever managed 80% occupancy and that is due in a large part to allowing a substantial portion of the park to be occupied by general business enterprises who you might find on any typical business park. In fact only 60% have any connection what-so-ever with the type of companies you might find on other science parks and some of those connections are very tenuous.

The Park owners have also stated in public that companies are leaving because they have outgrown the facilities. However research shows that 75% of science based  companies on science parks have less than 15 staff and 40% less than five, so most companies will only ever require incubator type facilities which can be developed readily within the existing buildings or land.

 Andrew Bull stated “ At the moment, where they could live is an issue” suggesting that the current provision of 7,500 new dwellings already identified in the Swale Local Plan(s) won’t be sufficient to house the potential employees derived from the expansion and has to date asked via their objection to the Plan “amend Policy HP1 by including a Thames Gateway housing component of up to 10,000 extra dwellings for the Swale area.”

Interestingly enough in a letter to Derek Wyatt MP date 19th May 2004, from Rt Hon Keith Hill MP the Minister for Housing and Planning, he states “I understand the 5000 figure for houses that you mention is part of a proposal from the Kent Science Park to support the cost of a new junction off the M2. This proposal has been put to both the Kent Structure Plan and the Swale Local Plan.”

The initial research undertaken by the Five Parishes Group underlines the problems associated with health and education provision if development on the scale envisaged of a Park five times its current size with up to 10,000 houses which will be in addition to the 7,500 houses proposed in the Local Plan.

Kent County Council are undertaking a traffic impact study which is based on - to use the expression of a County traffic engineer - The Worst Possible Case scenario.

This expansion is being sold to us by both the Kent Science Park and Swale Borough Council as a solution for the future economic prosperity of Swale. We are told that our economy has suffered since Shell closed its doors, but now eight years on, with the park 80% full, we have seen little evidence of a recovery from that position. We might conclude from this, that a park containing many individual enterprises does not bring with it the same economic benefits as one single enterprise and that any expansion of the park and creation of huge numbers of additional houses will be to the benefit of the land owners and not the local economy. 

It will simply establish a commercial estate in the Countryside south of Sittingbourne in a location which is a historical mis-chance (it was a farm when Shell first moved there)  well away from the highway infrastructure which has been created to the north of the Town with direct links to the M2 and M20 and soon a direct link to Sheppey which has a very real need for economic revival

If the expansion of the Park is of such importance to the local economy we ask why Swale Borough Council has never undertaken any consultation directly with the five parishes potentially affected by such an expansion and by the concept proposals for future housing development, new motorway junction or relief road, despite it being part of their flagship ‘Swale Forward’ project.

We also wonder why it is that public funds are being invested for the benefit of a private sector development, when this is shortly to be prevented under new European legislation.

The Five Parishes recognise that the Centre is an asset for Swale which has to be carefully used for the benefit of the local economy.  We consider that this can be done with strategic redevelopment of existing buildings and new building on brownfield areas within the boundary of the existing security fence.  This support is in line with the Borough Council's thinking as expressed in the current Local Plan [Policy B36] and which will protect the five parishes and a much wider area of Swale.

We quote Sir Winston Churchill when he spoke about the 'ravishing English Countryside' for which he would give his life.  We will see a ravished English Countryside if these proposals by the landowners, aided and abetted it would seem by the Borough Council, are allowed to proceed.