Report of Discussion: 16 July 2024

Tuesday, 16 July 2024

A Discussion was convened by videoconference. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Ms Sonita Alleyne, JE, was presiding, with the Registrary’s deputy, the Senior Pro‑Proctor, the Junior Pro‑Proctor and sixteen other persons present.

Due to time limitations, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor ruled that the seven sets of remarks received by the Proctors ahead of the Discussion be included in the formal record without being read out. Contributions to the Discussion were made as follows:

First-stage Report of the Council, dated 2 July 2024, on the alteration and refurbishment of the Stirling Building on the Sidgwick site

(Reporter, 6748, 2023–24, p. 729).

Dr J. P. Gardner (University Librarian and Selwyn College), received by the Proctors:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, as University Librarian, I am one of the Sponsors of the project to refurbish the Stirling Building, along with Professor Tim Harper (Head of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences). I am also Chair of the Stirling Building Programme Board. My remarks reflect my commitments as Sponsor and Chair.

The Stirling Building refurbishment project has been in development since June 2022, and the business case for investment has been meticulously built up and scrutinised at each stage through the University’s governance, including the Programme Board, Estates Investment Advisory Sub‑Committee, Estates Technical Sub‑Committee, Estates Committee, as well as the General Board and the Planning and Resources Committee.

Those who know the site well will be acutely aware that intensive intervention is essential to make the building safe and fit for future use for its core academic purpose as a learning and research space, popular Seeley Library, and History Faculty home. The project has taken every opportunity to ensure its redesign provides benefit back to as many staff and students on the Sidgwick Site as possible, as well as making the building function as it must for future generations of historians.

Completed in 1968, the Grade II* listed building was designed by the pre‑eminent British architect James Stirling – the annual RIBA Stirling Prize for Architecture is named in his honour. It is one of three Red Trilogy buildings along with the Engineering Building at the University of Leicester and the Florey Building at Queen’s College, Oxford. The Project Team fully acknowledges that some people intensively dislike the Stirling Building, but it is also true that generations of students and staff hold it in great affection. Like it or dislike it, Grade II* is equivalent in all essential aspects to Grade I status and this brings considerable responsibility for the University.

While the building is an architectural icon and inseparable from the identity of the History Faculty and Seeley Library, there are growing usability and safety issues that increasingly diminish the building’s ability to provide an environment where our academics and students can thrive. As well as safety issues and regular water ingress, the top floor is completely unusable in warm months due to the thermal gain.

The building is failing, and significant renovation is required. The costs will be continually scrutinised, and the team will explore value for money opportunities as the project develops through RIBA Stage 4, along with market testing with the contractor. The Estates Technical Sub‑Committee will aid this process, and robustly challenge and test the technical solutions and design.

The building requires complete replacement of the glazed façade and building services systems, as well as decarbonisation. This is required to ensure a comfortable and sustainable internal environment and to meet the University decarbonisation and zero gas policies.

The approval to move to RIBA Stage 4 project is predicated on the understanding that this represents a once in a generation opportunity to provide a new range of enhanced learning and working environments at the centre of the University’s Sidgwick site, while improving the building’s accessibility, safety and comfort, and provide a new range of learning and working environments at the heart of the University’s Sidgwick site.

The comprehensive refurbishment will safeguard the use and enjoyment of the building; repairing and upgrading building fabric, replacing services to improve thermal comfort, and introducing a range of carbon saving and climate resilient measures.

The project has followed a meticulous conservation‑led approach that embraces the value, significance and distinctive character of the building while recognising the need for change to meet contemporary requirements. After considering the multiple adaptations to the building, careful judgements have been made about the recovery and reinstatement of materials and details. In conjunction with an approach to new and repaired fabric, this project will breathe new life into the building, making its architectural value more tangible.

A key driver for the project is to meet access and inclusion goals. Critically, the project will significantly improve step‑free access throughout the building, including external terraces, to ensure equitable entry and circulation for all users. Internal treatments will also provide a more comfortable range of environments, recognising the different learning, working, and research needs of those who will use it.

Environmental sustainability is another major focus, with innovative technologies and materials being employed to enhance the building’s performance. ‘Fabric‑first’ and passive upgrades, in conjunction with renewable energy sources and efficient systems and controls, will reduce energy consumption. The project targets BREEAM Excellent certification and a zero‑gas approach will be employed to help the University reach its own absolute zero targets. Incorporation of the WELL Standard ensures wellbeing of occupants is addressed from the outset and a pre‑refurbishment audit has been undertaken to identify potential reuse or recycle opportunities and minimise waste.

Extending the building also forms part of the proposals, with two new pavilions proposed to provide additional library and reading spaces while supporting improved accessibility. These new elements clearly express their function and respond to the original building scale, form, and materials; deployed in a simple, abstract way to differentiate them.

The long-standing dysfunction of the building and its Grade II* listing combine to mean that the University must act. This is the conclusion reached through a series of forensic academic, technical, and financial gateways over two years as required by the University’s established governance process, including the General Board and the Planning and Resources Committee. There is no disguising the high cost given the building challenges, but the project has thoroughly investigated and presented all the alternatives. Critical scrutiny will continue through the programme ahead, so the refurbished Stirling Building will be an asset to the whole Sidgwick site, offering shared spaces for teaching, learning and research, and will be of benefit to the thousands of students and staff who rely on it every year.

Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History), received by the Proctors:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor,

The environmental performance of the building is poor, particularly in extremely hot or cold conditions, and many spaces within the building are problematic from the point of view of accessibility and basic efficiency.

I can testify to that, having worked and lectured in the building for many years. The design never provided enough office space for teaching and there was no Common Room. One entered the building only to give lectures and empty one’s pigeon-hole. The Seeley Library seemed rarely to be busy with readers in my time. They tended to prefer the nearby University Library.

The Stirling Building is an example of the University’s regrettable tendency to allow an architect to design for appearance rather than practicality. The adjacent ‘Foster’ Law Faculty, opened in 1995, was a further instance. Its generous spaces subsequently had to be reshaped internally so as to provide rooms for its Faculty members, and Criminology had to be provided with an additional building in 2005.

Detailed arrangements for ‘decanting the Faculty of History and the Seeley Library for the duration of the building works’ are to be ‘finalised as part of the Full Business Case’ says the Report, but the projected cost is likely to rise during what is bound to be a considerable length of time for design, getting planning permission and even beginning on those ‘works’, let alone putting up a suggested extra ‘interim’ building on the Sidgwick site.

Approval is sought at this preliminary stage and before the promised Second-stage Report, both for ‘the works outlined in this Report’ and to allow the Director of Estates ‘to apply for detailed planning approval in due course’. This is usual enough but one hopes that the second Report will focus on the need to ensure that a new building can avoid the failings of the present one and better meet the needs of the Faculty.

First-stage Report of the Council, dated 2 July 2024, on a new temporary facility for the Molecular Imaging Chemistry Laboratory at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus

(Reporter, 6748, 2023–24, p. 731).

CBCCambridge Biomedical Campus

EFBEast Forvie Building

MICLMolecular Imaging Chemistry Laboratory

PETPositron emission tomography

WFBWest Forvie Building

Professor F. I. Aigbirhio (Department of Clinical Neurosciences and Magdalene College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I speak as the Director of the Molecular Imaging Chemistry Laboratory.1 The MICL was established in 2007 to address the need for a dedicated facility within the School of Clinical Medicine (SCM) for undertaking research in radiochemistry and the development of radiopharmaceuticals, specifically for the biomedical molecular imaging technology of positron emission tomography. In addition to my own research group being permanently based at the facility, we manage the facility on behalf of other researchers and students to perform radiochemistry and related research. These include researchers and students (Part III, M.Phil., Ph.D. and postdoctoral) from Departments and institutions within SCM – such as the Departments of Clinical Neurosciences, Radiology and Medicine – and from Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute and the wider University, such as the Department of Chemistry.

With other units on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, which includes the Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre (WBIC),2 Cambridge University Hospitals PET/CT unit and the preclinical imaging unit at the Anne McLaren Building, the MICL is part of an integrated PET infrastructure on the campus that has enabled Cambridge to become one of the very few comprehensive PET and radiochemistry centres in the UK. This consists of an international leading research pipeline ranging from novel radiopharmaceutical development, through to small animal translational studies and human experimental medicine, to delivery of new PET scanning methods into clinical practice. As a result, PET is a core technology of many biomedical research programmes across the SCM and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. As part of this, MICL’s capability for the development of novel PET radiopharmaceuticals is therefore central to

(i)sustaining and building on Cambridge’s competitive position in this fast-growing field of molecular imaging;

(ii)its strategy for widening access to PET for new clinical research programmes in cancer, neuroscience, mental health, immunology, inflammation, cardiology, metabolism and stem cell biology; and

(iii)scaling up the clinical impact of PET towards more precise diagnosis and more innovative treatments for a wide spectrum of disorders. A recent example of PET for this use is for the development of highly promising new drugs treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.3

However, the relocation of other groups from the West Forvie Building on the Forvie site in 2018 (with MICL remaining as the last facility in the building, due to its specific radiochemistry infrastructure requirements) has resulted in its capability degrading over time. The various building and maintenance issues with WFB and their impact on MICL are well outlined in the First‑stage Report, so I will not go over them again.

However, I do think it is important to highlight the impact on the wellbeing of my group in being based in this building during this time. In addition to the immense stress and frustrations on them arising from a continuous range of building problems – some of which could result in immediate closure of the facility and hence their research – and recently compounded with the identification and remedial work for the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, a major issue has been the isolation of being the only group in the building. Therefore, isolated with regards academic, collaborative and social interactions from other researchers and students within the Department of Clinical Neurosciences and SCM. In all, this is simply not the type of environment for any person to experience working at the University of Cambridge, especially for postgraduate students and early career researchers.

To address this dire situation and finally move MICL out of the WFB, even though my preference is for relocation into a permanent long-term ‘MICL2’ facility within a proposed new building on the Forvie site, which to note the project team has already spent significant time on its design, I do welcome this proposal by University Estates, which is supported by the SCM to temporarily house MICL within a modular building, even though it will then entail double relocation.

This has virtues it can be built in a reasonable short time and by siting it on the Forvie site achieves a core requirement for MICL research of close proximity to the cyclotron at the WBIC for accessing short-lived radionuclides. To minimise the cost, it has been designed as described by the project team as a minimum viable product – therefore it will be based on the minimum requirements regards laboratory space and equipment for continuation of most of MICL research. In addition, the project team are making significant efforts with the building placement and design to minimise as much as possible any impact on other buildings and users on the Forvie site and I am aware they are now consulting further on the matter with these groups.

In summary I do support this temporary solution for relocating the MICL and so addressing this unsustainable situation. However, it is important there remains a focus and momentum for the permanent MICL accommodation in the new building and it does get built in approximately five years. This will then finally address this situation with MICL and also fully align with the SCM strategic plan to create an internationally leading centre for molecular imaging on the CBC.

Professor S. J. Griffin (Department of Public Health and Primary Care and Wolfson College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I make these remarks as Professor of General Practice in the Department of Public Health and Primary Care. The working environment of the Molecular Imaging Chemistry Laboratory staff is unacceptable and has been for some considerable time. There is no doubt that a new site needs to be found for the important work undertaken in the MICL as quickly as possible although, with the benefit of hindsight, if work had been done on the West Forvie Site some time ago, the University might have avoided the current situation and the associated sense of urgency and incurred lower long-term costs.

My concerns are as follows:

With respect to the process that has been followed, it seems that this major project has advanced to an Outline Business Case and RIBA Stage 2 without a Strategic Business Case, a ‘Representative User’ to gather all relevant user views, and any meaningful consultation. I am particularly concerned about the lack of transparent equality and impact assessments, which should have been carried out on behalf of all East Forvie Building users, including our large student population. It is not clear how decisions regarding this project have been made, who made them and why this site was selected ahead of other potential locations on the Forvie site in closer proximity to scientists who actively collaborate with the MICL. I believe that this may have led to a bad decision, which also undermines staff trust.

I appreciate the scientific and logistical arguments for locating the MICL somewhere on the Forvie site. However, the pros and cons of the different options for the location of a temporary building have (as far as I am aware) not been published and seem to be driven by the impact on the protected trees, which is understandable. There does not appear to have been an assessment of the impact on the East Forvie staff and the 75 fee-paying M.Phil. students per year (the majority of whom are foreign nationals) who contribute a sizeable income stream for the University. A transparent demonstration that the suggested site represents the least worst option, after due consideration of impacts on all stakeholders of the range of potentially feasible options, has not been forthcoming.

Around a third of the proposed footprint appears to be designated as office space. The decision to include this amount of office space seems to have been made without reference to the recent survey of office occupancy on the Forvie site. I wonder if MICL staff could be located somewhere on the Forvie site/Addenbrooke’s campus rather than in new modular offices in the car park, thereby reducing the size and adverse impact of the ‘temporary’ building.

In summary, the case of need for temporary accommodation for the MICL is clear, the evidence underpinning the proposed choice of the location for the temporary building rather less so.

Professor S. Morris (Department of Public Health and Primary Care and Murray Edwards College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I make these remarks in my capacity as Head of the Primary Care Unit, a large teaching and research unit, which is part of the Department of Public Health and Primary Care in the School of Clinical Medicine, located mostly in the East Forvie Building. My colleagues and I are extremely concerned about the proposal to locate a large new modular building immediately adjacent to the East Forvie Building to accommodate the Molecular Imaging Chemistry Laboratory. We understand that this structure is proposed to house power generators, labs with radioactive material, offices, and, on its roof, multiple machines. The structure would be placed a few metres from the East Forvie Building, and will operate for at least five years.

Our concerns arise for three main reasons. First, because of the impact that locating this structure so near to the East Forvie Building will have on the staff and students using the East Forvie Building. The East Forvie Building houses over 100 staff from the Department of Public Health and Primary Care, the MRC Biostatistics Unit and the UK Health Security Agency, plus it accommodates at least 75 students each year as part of the M.Phil. programme in Population Health Sciences. The proposed plans will have a detrimental effect on everyone located in the East Forvie Building, affecting their quality of life, and work and education experiences, for example, because of the noise emanating from the new structure, its impact on the quality of light, and possible impact on air quality.

Our second concern is that the appropriate assessments have not been carried out. A full impact assessment of the plan to locate the MICL next to the East Forvie Building has not been conducted, neither has a full options appraisal to consider all possible locations of the MICL. We are aware of other locations on the Forvie site that could be considered. These assessments should be conducted as a matter of priority and should include the impact on students, staff and other occupants of the East Forvie Building, and be conducted with transparent processes and findings.

Third, until about three weeks ago, we were completely unaware of this proposal. We are concerned about the apparent deviations that have occurred so far from the University’s normal planning and governance processes, for example, the omission of the stage of drafting a ‘strategic business case’, and the omission of the appointment of a ‘responsible user’. These deviations are especially concerning given the expected cost of the proposed building, which has been reported to be in excess of £9 million.

We do appreciate the MICL requirements. However, there are many negative implications to locating the structure adjacent to the East Forvie Building. Much more scrutiny and consultation is needed before any final decisions can be made about a proposed site.

Dr K. A. Winston (Department of Public Health and Primary Care and Institute of Continuing Education):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I make these remarks as Academic Director of the M.Phil. in Population Health Sciences, and as an occupant of the East Forvie Building.

I was surprised and concerned to so recently learn about the proposal to locate a large temporary building immediately adjacent to the East Forvie Building and am particularly worried about the impact the development will have on staff and student experience and wellbeing.

Importantly, it seems there has not yet been any meaningful consultation with affected stakeholders, and there seems to be a lack of transparent risk and impact assessments, which surely need to be carried out on behalf of all East Forvie Building users, including our large student population, before we can approve this plan.

The M.Phil. in Population Health Sciences, the largest Masters course of the School of Clinical Medicine, with over 75 students per year generating substantial income and reputational value, is based in the East Forvie Building.

Given the large student numbers, and the need for proper ventilation in the post‑Covid era, for all teaching sessions, ground floor and first floor classroom windows need to be open. We are extremely concerned about the potential air and noise pollution impact of construction work and subsequent ongoing generator and extraction fan use. Noise is likely to disrupt lectures and sessions in teaching facilities, and create additional challenges for students trying to grapple with new ideas and complex ways of thinking. Many of our students carry Student Support Documents that explicitly state the need for quiet spaces to work in, and a number of staff and students have conditions that can be severely impacted by air quality.

The large structure will be oppressive and is likely to diminish the quality of natural light for students studying full days in these classrooms. A degraded learning environment would adversely impact student experience, learning and wellbeing. As far as I know, this risk to the viability of the M.Phil. has not been considered in the planning process. Certainly no consultation has been done to evaluate this, and it is highly likely that a proper consultation could yield solutions that would benefit all stakeholders.

I believe the importance of the MICL to the University is not in doubt, nor is the need for relocation. This discussion is about finding the most suitable location for the Lab. I respectfully request, therefore, the following are considered before any final decisions are made about the site of this structure:

(1)a full impact assessment be conducted which must include impact on students, staff and paying occupants of the East Forvie Building;

(2)a full options appraisal (with transparent processes and findings) be conducted to identify a more suitable location.

Professor S. I. G. Barclay (Department of Public Health and Primary Care and Emmanuel College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I make these remarks as Professor of Palliative Care and Co‑Director of the University Palliative and End of Life Care research and teaching group that comprises over twenty members. We are all accommodated in the East Forvie Building and are part of the Primary Care Unit within the Department of Public Health and Primary Care.

It is clear that the MICL group need to move out of their current unacceptable accommodation: the question is where they are relocated to.

Other speakers have clearly articulated some of the many concerns of the community of colleagues and students based in the East Forvie Building. I concur entirely with their comments and will therefore focus my speech on the human impact on staff and students based in the EFB.

Should the new building be based on the Forvie site, we can accept the loss of parking spaces. A new build so close to office windows of the EFB, even if only single storey in that part, will have a major impact in terms of loss of daylight, noise from plant on the roof and concerns over toxic fumes and radioactivity. Several offices accommodating senior academics will be among those most immediately impacted, with their windows facing directly onto the new build just 4.5 metres away.

We are told that the new building will be temporary, pending the demolition and rebuild of the West Forvie Building that currently houses the MICL group. At a cost of over £9 million I am concerned that it will become permanent, potentially housing another group in the future. Careful consideration of alternatives off and on the Forvie site, genuine consultation with the Forvie site community of staff and students and following of University due process are all needed. Rushed decisions are being made that are likely to have a permanent adverse impact on the Forvie site.

Until two weeks ago, the people who will be most impacted by the current proposal, the staff and students who work in EFB, had not been informed of the plan. The town hall meeting of 1 July presented information that was new to us all and was widely perceived to be a fait accompli.

To date there has been no consultation with the sizeable and flourishing community of the EFB, on whose behalf I wish to report that there are grave concerns over the current plan.

Consideration has been given to the trees on the Forvie site, but no consideration to the people who work in the EFB. I urge the University to pause, consider all the options in greater detail, and to consult with the Forvie site community in a meaningful way.

The remarks sent to the Proctors in advance of the Discussion follow below in order of receipt.

Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, this is another proposal involving a new temporary building and asking for approval at the ‘in principle’ level, to allow the Director of Estates to apply for planning permission. Like the proposals for the History Faculty building this will involve a double relocation but with the difference that in this case the existing building has been partly vacated ahead of its intended demolition. I wonder about the relevance of the discovery of the one building outside central Cambridge found to contain the Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) which is found to be given to collapse?1

This seems to have been put forward in quite a hurry. The Report tells us nothing about the consultation which has taken place in the framing of this proposal. Which Committees has it passed through and where are their Minutes? The Council asks for the approval of the Regent House, though the Estates Committee is yet to give its consent. This stage is to take place before ‘issues with the longer-term plans’ are resolved or ‘a strategy for the University’s landholdings across the Cambridge Biomedical Campus’ are ‘developed’. Delay and expense are inevitable and surely need at least a nod by way of quantifying them. Perhaps a Notice in reply will give more information?

Dr S. S. Villar (MRC Biostatistics Unit):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am a Principal Research Associate (Programme Leader) at the MRC Biostatistics Unit. I would like to express my concerns around the University’s proposal to build a temporary building for the MICL adjacent to the East Forvie Building (where my Department currently has all their staff’s offices). I would like to express the general sense of frustration from colleagues around the poor communication and the lack of early enough consultation around these plans with those most directly affected. There is a shared distress about what impact this proposal (if it goes ahead) could have on the EFB occupants, particularly thinking of the M.Phil. participants, which is perhaps exacerbated by the lack of information available to show that careful consideration of alternative sites has occurred.

This comes at a time in which there are many additional concerns already to our staff, not the least related to the change of funding model for MRC-funded Units. These changes combined are having wide-reaching effects at all levels, from students through to support staff and established Principal Investigators, therefore I urge the General Board and Council to carefully consider the University proposal and its possible effects to EFB occupants and University staff.

Dr W. J. Astle (MRC Biostatistics Unit):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, in this Report the Council asks the University to approve the submission of a planning application for the construction of a building to accommodate the Molecular Imaging Chemistry Laboratory on the Forvie site of the Addenbrooke’s Campus.1

Presently, there are four University buildings on the Forvie site: the Herchel Smith Building, the E. D. Adrian Building (mistakenly labelled the ‘Van Geest Building’ on the plan submitted with the Report), the West Forvie Building and the East Forvie Building.2 The West Forvie Building, which contains Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) and is described as ‘falling into disrepair’ has been evacuated – except for the MICL – in preparation for its demolition.3

The new building for the MICL – if constructed as proposed – would sit 4.5 metres north of the East Forvie Building,4 a two‑story building which accommodates the MRC Biostatistics Unit and part of the Department of Public Health and Primary Care. In addition, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) leases part of the ground floor. Although congested, it is a quiet building without laboratories, consisting mostly of offices, communal kitchens, meeting rooms and seminar rooms. It is used for the lectures and classes of the M.Phil. in Population Health Sciences, which admits about 75 graduate students per year.

If constructed, the proposed building, including its plant service-deck, will be two stories high. There will be a fume flue, the height of which is yet to be determined, because it will require ‘detailed modelling and calculations ... by a specialist consultant’.5 The outlook from the East Forvie Building, which at present consists of a view of a landscaped car park surrounded by woodland, will be severely diminished. It seems inevitable that most of the offices and much of the communal space on the north side of the building will be obscured from natural light.

The Estates Division has ‘conducted a background noise survey which sets a baseline for the design to work to’, but it does ‘not yet know the external noise level that will be produced’.5 Although the building ‘will have to conform to [the local authority environmental health] requirements for operational noise’, ‘further work will be required by the design [sic]’.5 The School acknowledges that noise ‘is of great concern to current occupiers including UKHSA and [points out that it is] fully aware of the importance of the M.Phil. course’.5

The Report explains that the proposed building, which will cost £9.2 million, is to be temporary. Although no date is given for its deconstruction, ‘the requirements for the facility are based on the minimum viable product for the [MICL] team to continue to operate over approximately a five-year period’. Given the financial pressures on the University, is it plausible for such an expensive building to be planned, expecting that it will only be needed for five years? In the long term the School intends to demolish the West Forvie Building and construct in its place a new permanent building to house the MICL. What is the chance that this will happen within the next five years? How advanced are the plans for the redevelopment of the Forvie site? Has the University raised the necessary funds? Has anyone been consulted?

Although the proposal for the new building is said to have been ‘registered with the Planning and Resources Committee (PRC) in February’, the minutes of the PRC’s January meeting record that it approved the expenditure of £100,000 from the Investment Fund ‘to enable the project team to review feasibility of temporary accommodation for MICL’ by Chair’s action on 24 December 2023.6 The Estate’s Committee had recommended the expenditure at its meeting of 15 December 2023.

Notwithstanding that planning for the new MICL building began before the end of last year, the staff and Departments occupying the East Forvie Building were told nothing about it until 19 June, when they were invited to a briefing meeting by the Secretary of the School of Clinical Medicine, a Development Manager from the Estates Division and an architect from the firm Saunders Boston, to be held on 1 July.

Professor Aigbirhio (see p. 846), the leader of the MICL research group, explained to the meeting convincingly that the present building was wholly inadequate, that it had been inadequate for many years and that there was an urgent need for a replacement laboratory. The Secretary explained that the half‑lives of the radiochemicals used by the MICL placed a limit on the distance between any replacement laboratory and the cyclotron in the Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre, which is close to the Forvie site.

The meeting was told that an Outline Business Case for a new building had already been submitted for consideration by the Estates Committee; the proposed location adjacent to the East Forvie Building was therefore a fait accompli. Consultation with those adversely affected was to be limited to ‘things that concern you’ for example, noise and vehicular access, ‘so that we can see if we’re able to sort of factor them into the design process’.

It may be that when the interests of all those affected are weighed in the balance the proposed location is optimal. However, it is difficult to know whether alternative possibilities – either on the Forvie site or on nearby NHS owned land – were properly investigated before they were discounted. The failure to consult the affected staff until after the Outline Business Case was submitted to the Estates Committee and the failure to hold a briefing meeting for staff until two days before this First‑stage Report on the proposal appeared in the Reporter at least suggest an administrative desire to evade rational discussion about alternatives.

Statute F II 3 requires that the erection of a new University building be approved by Grace of the Regent House.7 Paragraph 11 of the Report proposes that in this case, because of ‘the urgent need for a replacement facility’, a Grace should be submitted before the Outline Business Case has been reviewed by the Estates Committee and before it has been approved by the Planning and Resources Committee, as required by the Sites and Building Regulations.8 All this haste might be benevolent, but six months of planning veiled from those who work on the Forvie site creates suspicion about the imposition of administrative will without academic accountability.

Will the Council please delay submitting a Grace to the Regent House for the approval of this Report until there is a consensus amongst those affected by its proposal that there is no better location for the building? A delay may have unfortunate adverse consequences for the MICL, but a delay might have been avoided if there had been proper consultation by the School in the first place.

Mr M. R. Andrews (MRC Biostatistics Unit):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the indicative location plan for the temporary MICL building published on page 732 of the Reporter appears to be misleading. On 1 July, in an open meeting held in the East Forvie Building, the architect for the scheme presented a different location plan indicating a footprint for the temporary building approximately double the size of that published in the Reporter.1 The larger building design spans across much more of the frontage of the East Forvie Building. It would remove additional car parking space and impact more occupants of the building.

Professor J. Whittaker (MRC Biostatistics Unit and Murray Edwards College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I make these remarks as Director of the MRC Biostatistics Unit, a group of around a hundred staff and research students based in the East Forvie Building. As such I was surprised and concerned to learn about the proposal to locate a large temporary building immediately adjacent to the East Forvie Building to accommodate the Molecular Imaging Chemistry Laboratory. My concerns are with respect to both the process by which this proposal has advanced and the impact the development will have on staff and student experience and wellbeing.

With respect to the process, it seems this major project has advanced to an Outline Business Case and RIBA Stage 2 without a Strategic Business Case, a ‘Representative User’ to gather all relevant user views, and any meaningful consultation. I am particularly concerned about the lack of transparent equality assessments, which should have been carried out on behalf of all East Forvie Building users, including our large student population. It is not clear how decisions regarding this project have been made, who made them and why this site was selected. I believe this has led to a bad decision, which also undermines staff trust in the University broadly and the School of Clinical Medicine in particular.

With respect to the impact of the development, there are several site-specific issues that make the East Forvie Building a particularly problematic site for this proposed development.

Firstly, the M.Phil. in Population Health Sciences, which is the largest M.Phil. course of the School of Clinical Medicine, is based in the East Forvie Building. Educating over 75 students per year (70% international; 30% UK), the course is forecast to accrue over £11 million in income for the University over the next five years. However, in the event of the MICL re‑location, there are serious concerns about the viability of continuing the M.Phil. course in its current location. Noise is likely to disrupt lectures and sessions in teaching facilities, located only a few metres from the proposed structure. A degraded learning environment would adversely impact student wellbeing, and is unlikely to be a tenable one for attracting M.Phil. students, given a highly competitive global market. As far as I know, this risk to the viability of the M.Phil. has not been considered in the planning process. Certainly, no consultation has been done to evaluate this.

Secondly, part of the EFB is occupied by the UK Health Security Agency, who are paying tenants of the University and have not been consulted on this proposal. They have now expressed serious concern, noting the impact on their staff and the absence of an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA), and have requested that a comprehensive impact assessment, including an EIA, is conducted to address these critical issues before proceeding with the development. Has the University considered the damage to our relationship with UKHSA, and indeed whether there is a risk of legal challenge by UKHSA, in planning to date?

I respectfully request, therefore, the following before any final decisions are made about the site of this structure:

(1)that a full impact assessment be conducted which must include impact on students, staff and paying occupants of the East Forvie Building, an Equality Impact Assessment, and financial impact (including opportunity costs);

(2)that a full options appraisal (with transparent processes and findings) be conducted to identify a more suitable location.

In identifying an alternative location, it seems that options on the Forvie site are available and should be further considered. For example, it appears that the site behind the Van Geest Building could accommodate a multi-level modular structure adequate for the MICL’s needs, and there is space to the rear of the Herchel Smith Building with low density parking and a lack of established trees. Such co‑location of MICL with scientifically cognate groups of the Department of Clinical Neurosciences is more academically coherent than placing it next to the East Forvie Building, which accommodates population health science groups.