Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6358

Wednesday 1 October 2014

Vol cxlv No 2

pp. 23–34


Second-stage Report of the Council on the replacement and rationalization of facilities covered by the University’s Home Office Establishment Licence

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. A First-stage Report on the commencement of a planned strategy to replace and rationalize facilities covered by the University’s Home Office Establishment Licence was submitted to the Regent House on 24 April 2014 (Reporter, 6344, 2013–14, p. 469) and approved by Grace 2 of 4 June 2014. This Second-stage Report is to update the Regent House on further development of the scheme and to seek approval for the construction of two of the three planned facilities. A Second-stage Report concerning the third facility will be published in due course.

2. As stated in the First-stage Report, the new facilities will enhance provision of state-of-the-art levels of animal welfare allowing more opportunities for refinement, reduction, and replacement (known as the 3Rs). There is a strong scientific, financial, and ethical case for rationalizing the existing facilities into a smaller number of units. The work that will be undertaken in these facilities underpins much of the research activity of the Schools of the Biological Sciences and Clinical Medicine, and contributes to more than half of the University’s strategic research initiatives.

3. The Council now proposes that construction of the first two facilities should proceed. The cost of the facilities is estimated at £17m and £32m respectively. These costs are based on the assumption that construction will take place from early 2015 with all works completed on the first facility in mid 2016 and the second in December 2017. The costs are consistent with the intention to expend no more than £150 million on the programme as a whole.

4. All of the works have been designed to reduce carbon utilization to a minimum. Renewable sources of energy will account for at least 10% of the energy used in the facility, and this will be achieved via methods such as the use of photo-voltaics and combined heat and power systems. These measures, together with the operational efficiencies which can be achieved in modern facilities, mean that the recurrent costs of these facilities are expected to be lower than those of the facilities which they are replacing. Recurrent costs will be met in full by the bodies which fund the research in the facility.

5. A concept paper for the two facilities was approved by the Planning and Resources Committee on 4 December 2013. The full case for the first facility was approved by the Planning and Resources Committee at its meeting on 25 June 2014. The full case for the second facility was approved by Chair’s action on 30 September 2014.

6. The first planning applications were submitted in August 2014.

7. The facilities will be constructed on sites which are currently in use for similar activities by the two Schools concerned. Drawings of the proposed scheme are displayed for the information of the University in the Schools Arcade.

8. The Council recommends:

I. That approval is confirmed for the construction of the two facilities proposed in this Report.

II. That the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Planning and Resources) be authorized to accept a tender for the works, within the available funding, in due course.

1 October 2014

L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor

Andy Hopper

Susan Oosthuizen

N. Bampos

Richard Jones

Rachael Padman

Jeremy Caddick

Fiona Karet

Shirley Pearce

Stephen J. Cowley

F. P. Kelly

John Shakeshaft

I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay

Mark Lewisohn

Jean Thomas

David Good

Rebecca Lingwood

I. H. White

Helen Hoogewerf-McComb

Mavis McDonald

A. D. Yates