How projects are providing diverse homes in Cambridgeshire
Innovation centres
Looking at future campus masterplanning and the latest in lab design in the region
Cambridge Architecture
4-5 News
Anniversary celebrations; council success for architect; listed status for college buildings; events
7 ‘Our role must change’ CAA chair Patrick Usborne reflects on collaboration
8-9 Active landscapes
A new focus on active urbanism
10-11 Responding to housing needs
The first in our two-part study of the almshouse typology – More’s Meadow in Great Shelford
12-13 Homes bringing joy
Later living with charity almshouses in Girton
14-17 Cambridge innovation
5th Studio’s Tom Holbrook looks at the city’s urban planning
18 Retail opportunity
A Grafton conversion could ease lab space shortage
19-21 A decarbonisation case study
Spotlight on award-winning St John’s buttery
22-23 ‘Ship in a bottle’
River Wing at Clare College is a welcoming hub
24-25 Discovering the DISC
A rare tour inside AstraZeneca’s Cambridge centre
27 Change is coming
Latest on the National Planning Policy framework
28-29 Work in progress
A spotlight on projects by Chartered Practices
30 Grenfell inquiry
Digesting recommendations from Phase-2 report
The CAA thanks the following sponsors
AC Architects Cambridge Ltd
BCR Infinity Architects
Borough Architects
Caroe Architecture Ltd
CDC Studio
Cocoon Architects
Cowper Griffith Architects
DaltonMuscat Architects LLP
Dr Richard Goy
Easyhouse
EIKON Architecture and Design
Emma Adams Architect
Feilden + Mawson
Frank Shaw Associates
Freeland Rees Roberts
George Davidson
George Evennett Ltd
Graham Handley Architects
Haysom Ward Miller
Ingleton Wood
Lanpro
Mart Barrass Architect Ltd
MCW Architects
Cambridge Architecture is a review produced by the Cambridge Association of Architects, the local branch of the Royal Institute of British Architects. The views in this magazine are those of individual contributors (named and unnamed), and not of the Association. ISSN 1361-3375
Any comments or for a copy of the magazine, contact editors@cambridgearchitects.org
EDITORS Adam Griffiths, Susie Lober, Susie Newman and Hannah Snow
ADVERTISEMENT SALES Marie Luise Critchley-Waring (advertising@cambridgearchitects.org)
Published by CPL One www.cplone.co.uk
Mole Architects
N J Twitchett
NP Architects
Olivier Design Studio
Peter Rawlings Architects Ltd
Purcell Architects
R H Partnership Architects
Ltd
Roger France
Saunders Boston
Studio 24 Architects
Tereyn Architects
CA88 was made possible by generous grants from the Cambridge Forum for the Construction Industry and the RIBA Local Initiative Fund
Cover photo:
News Welcome
Cambridge Architecture 88 takes a look at how we integrate sustainable growth into our city. We focus on the longevity of our communities, including how we can build for a sustainable future.
We look at some of the fantastic retrofit projects being carried out across the city, and how they are being monitored to better deliver healthier and long-lasting places for the future. We ponder on how Cambridge can integrate the UK’s scientific ‘silicon valley’ into the fabric of the city in a successful and sensitive manner – and also how we can facilitate wellbeing in our workspaces. We share recent studies on creating inclusive, active landscapes and social value in our developments.
This issue also considers how we design for later living; housing for an ageing population, with a focus on the typology of almshouses that provide fantastically ambitious homes for families and older residents – with an emphasis on community cohesion.
CA88 takes a wide-ranging look at all these issues, alongside our regular features, covering changes and challenges in planning and reviewing the latest in legal matters and the drawing boards of architects across the region.
Anniversary celebration – an opportunity to say ‘thank you’
R H Partnership Architects (RHP) celebrated 50 years of practice in September with a party at one of its recently completed, award-winning buildings, Lucy Cavendish College. More than 150 friends and colleagues joined in the celebrations at an evening reception hosted in the college’s new cafe, which was completed in 2022. Established in 1974, RHP has become one of the top 100 architecture practices in the UK and currently works from studios in Cambridge and Brighton on an array of projects.
‘It’s a huge credit to more than 300 RHP team members since 1974 that we still have a thriving practice today,’ said director David Hills. ‘We are very proud of our many successes over the years – and the public awards and private thanks we’ve received for them.
‘Of course we – the RHP team – can’t do any of this alone. All our projects are collaborations. Our clients, end users, consultants and more are all part of our story. The party was an opportunity to say thank you. We want to continue showing the mix of creativity, practicality and integrity we believe are behind our longevity for another 50 years.’
Director Tom Foggin said it was fitting to hold the celebrations at Lucy Cavendish College, a building that closely echoes the company’s own values of quality, inclusivity and low carbon design. ‘When we completed the building in 2022, it was the first fully certified mixed-use Passive House building in Cambridge,’ he said. ‘Working collaboratively within the design team led to several innovations on this project, which are now being adopted in other designs.’
RHP celebrates at Lucy Cavendish
Newly elected councillor admits there is a lot of
learning to do ‘quite quickly’
The
editors
James Rixon, who runs newly established Within Planetary Boundaries Studio, has been elected as a South Cambridgeshire district councillor for Histon and Impington, for the Liberal Democrat party. The newly elected councillor said he was ‘very pleased’ with the by-election win, but that he had ‘a lot of learning to do quite quickly’. He intends to carry on with the hard work currently being done for the area and hopes his architectural and retrofit-coordinator background will be a valuable asset.
On the advice of Historic England, the Central Hall Building, New Court and Chapel at Fitzwilliam College have all been listed at Grade II by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
The Central Hall Building was designed by renowned post-war architect Sir Denys Lasdun as part of his 1960s masterplan for the college. As part of a revised masterplan, architects MacCormac, Jamieson and Prichard (MJP) created New Court in the 1980s, and the Chapel in the early 1990s, with the aim of complementing Lasdun’s original designs.
These striking designs include a flamboyant gravity-defying lantern in the Central Hall, a worship space that resembles a floating ship in the Chapel and a distinctive stepped design in New Court, where each floor has a different appearance inside and out.
‘These three fantastic buildings form a reinterpretation of the traditional Cambridge college,’ Historic England’s chief executive Duncan Wilson said. ‘They were designed for an optimistic, forward-looking, post-war England, when university access was rapidly expanding, and new democratic ideals were finding architectural expression.’
He added that each building is highly individual, with thoughtful detailing and an imaginative approach. ‘Each is a testament to the exceptional creativity of Lasdun and MJP in partnership with Fitzwilliam’s academic community,’ he said.
Church provides the perfect anniversary venue
Coulson Building Group celebrated its 140year anniversary with colleagues, clients and industry professionals at Downing Place United Reformed Church in Cambridge. As one of the many buildings the group has worked on during its long history, the church was a fitting venue. Over the years, Coulson’s work has embraced almost every aspect of the region’s infrastructure, including war defence installations, education, ecclesiastical works and major public housing projects
Events
CAA Christmas party
Date and time: 11 December
Location: Novi, 12 Regent St, Cambridge, CB2 1DB
See www.cambridgearchitects.org to get your tickets
CFCI Lego competition
Date and time: 10 December, 6-9pm
Location: Sibilla Room, Jesus College
Jesus College exhibition Pop Art pioneer, Sir Eduardo Paolozzi
Date and time: Throughout December, Monday-Sunday all day.
Location: Jesus College West Court Gallery
Cambridge Carbon Footprint (CCF) Winter Social
Date and time: Tues 3 December, 7:30pm-9:30pm
Location: The Old School Hall, St Barnabas’, Mill Road, Cambridge CB1 2BD
Coulson celebrates 140 years
Fitzwilliam College Chapel (MJP Architects)
The Central Hall in Fitzwilliam College, designed by Denys Lasdun
I’ve often heard the phrase ‘the architect knows nothing about everything, and the engineer knows everything about nothing’. In an increasingly complex world, it’s no wonder that architects have siphoned off many of their duties to others. Whether that be project management, quantity surveying or, turning the clock back further still, the master builder – the role of the architect has continuously evolved and will continue to do so.
The issue is that the world around us is changing at a pace far greater than we’re able to evolve as a profession. Cracks in our economy and society are deepening because of a system that puts profits above people and planet. Cambridge is no different and represents one of the most socioeconomically diverse cities in the country. We know we need to change the system to bring people and planet on an even keel, but it takes time to change an oil tanker’s course.
As the CAA nears its 100th year (2027), Cambridge and the region is facing incredible change. The new government continues to recognise Cambridge as an incubator for innovation, along with its need for new housing and supporting infrastructure at an unprecedented scale. Architects and other consultants will play an invaluable role in shaping the city’s future, while protecting its rich heritage
As Westminster imposes rapid change, however, we need to understand how this change can be positive for the people of Cambridge and the planet at large.
In the spring, the CAA hosted our Council-led Housing Seminar, a brilliant example of councilled housing and community participatory design. The examples provided by the London Borough of Hackney were well received, and emphasised the need to collaborate and learn from others. At the end of the year, we hosted our annual CAA Sustainability Conference, focusing on The Good, The Bad, & The Data of materials and their embodied carbon in the built environment, and introducing the new Net Zero Carbon Buildings Framework.
Both events were valuable examples of how we can work collaboratively to impact systemic change.
“What we build with, how we build it, and who we build it for must take priority over patching up a leaking ship”
History has taught us that change is inevitable. It is clear as day that we face a climate emergency and social inequality. Where we need clarity is in our response. To meet the challenge, the role of the architect must change. We need to get out of the stagnation of the status quo and tackle the root issues. What we build with, how we build it, and who we build for must take priority over patching up a leaking ship.
Soon, the Cambridge Room will be launched –the new urban room for Cambridge and the region, of which I’m very honoured to be a trustee. The Cambridge Room will create a forum where
architects and consultants can come together with the community and their clients to help put people and the planet at the heart of meaningful and lasting change.
If you’ve made it to the end of this piece, either you’re my mother, or you tend to agree and want to be part of this change. If it’s the latter, we must consider this vital question: how can we work collaboratively within a new system where human and environmental value rises above profit, where we enhance the heritage and culture of Cambridge, while also growing the city? You never know, the profiteers might be happy with this change, too.
Rapt attention at the Council-led Housing Seminar, April 2024
Simon Sturgis presenting at this year's CAA Sustainability conference in November
How can designers make public spaces better?
A new focus on active urbanism
WORDS ANNA BOLDINA
How can spatial and landscape design improve the quality of life for users of public space? Designers often increase biodiversity, create desirable sitting areas for people to dwell within, and use various shapes, colours and textures to stimulate their eyes and minds. However, there is a new parameter –identified through research by the University of Cambridge – that adds to the ability of a landscape to improve the quality of life for its users. That parameter is how much the space can encourage playful and healthy physical activity.
Landscape design can improve the health of people by providing opportunities for them to balance, jump down or climb, for example, by challenging them to get through a complex stepping-stone pattern. Recent studies conducted by an international research group led by myself and Koen Steemers, at the University of Cambridge, show how to optimise landscape challenges for the whole population, and demonstrate how it can be achieved through careful landscape design.
Historically, our urban environments have been designed to be predictable and to minimise personal energy expenditure. From power-assisted doors to smooth pavements, the goal has been to make daily life effortless for the occupants of spaces. Ironically, at the same time, we observe a trend of people seeking additional opportunities to exercise. Often, limiting factors – such as cost or time – prevent people from finding engaging ways to stay active. Active landscapes designed into public spaces could serve that purpose by providing exciting and playful routes to work, breaking the daily routine while encouraging more active lifestyles.
We’ve explored how landscape design can be adapted to encourage physical activity in everyday settings within our built environment, such as our streets, parks and plazas. Imagine the option of a city walk where your steps are not just functional, but also physically and mentally engaging – a journey that may incorporate stepping stones, bridges, balance beams, and other elements. These ‘active routes’ offer more than just a path from A to B; by engaging the body and mind, they turn a walk into a playful and invigorating experience.
The importance of active design
Inactivity is a major contributor to poor health globally and is on the rise. In developed economies, such as the UK, there is a pressing need to design environments that encourage movement. With time given as a main reason for people not exercising, placing fun opportunities on their daily routes could offer an effective solution to overcoming this barrier to activity. According to the outcome of the research, simple and cost-effective landscape features – such as stepping stones or balance beams – create small, but effective, challenges along walking routes, requiring the coordination of the legs, torso and arms, while simultaneously improving balancing and cognition in a way that has measurable health benefits.
Designing for better health
In a series of laboratory and field experiments, we measured the potential health benefit of the active
QR Code 1: Encouraging use of challenging city routes for health and fitness
QR Code 2: Pedestrians choose healthy obstacles over boring pavements, study finds
QR Code 3: The potential effect of urban design on bone health
QR Code 4: Active urbanism impact on heart rate and oxygen consumption
Scan the QR codes for further reading
Anna’s graphical impression of what active urbanism could look like outside the David Attenborough Building, Cambridge
landscapes. For example, in one of our experiments, we compared heart rate and oxygen consumption as participants walked on imitation stepping stones after a plain surface. The results showed a 17.2 per cent increase in heart rate, with the effect most pronounced in adults aged 30-60. This kind of low-impact, incidental exercise could help many people meet the World Health Organization's recommendation of 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week protecting from cardiovascular diseases.
We also explored the potential impact of landscape design on bone density. Our research on stepping down from a height of 400mm – common in many playful landscape features – revealed that such high-impact exercises can increase bone density over time, in both children and older adults. These seemingly modest interventions could reduce the risk of osteoporosis and fractures later in life, with the potential to delay bone-related issues by up to 10 years for adults and 15 years for children.
In the experiment, which observed the effects on the upper body, all types of challenges – including stepping up and down, walking up and down a slope, and balancing on a kerb – triggered involuntary movement of the arms, neck and torso, muscle groups not normally activated when walking on a flat even surface or conventional stairs. The resulting benefits include muscle loading and stretching, practising proprioception, neurological training, and mindfulness. This means that, in addition to physical benefits, active urbanism fosters mental wellbeing
Engaging the whole body and mind
Features such as balance beams, slopes, and cobblestones encourage upper-body flexing and co-activation of core muscles, which is particularly beneficial for those with sedentary jobs. The
“Even small adjustments within urban and landscape design can nudge people towards healthier behaviours”
challenges presented by these features also require focus and mindfulness, helping people engage more fully with their surroundings and reducing stress.
Our studies showed that 80 per cent of adult walkers and almost 100 per cent of children would choose a more challenging route in at least one scenario. When a challenging option was shorter, or incorporated additional safety features such as handrails, the likelihood of adults choosing it increased further. This demonstrates that even small adjustments within urban and landscape design can nudge people towards healthier behaviours.
Overcoming barriers
Needless to say, active routes can only be an alternative option to other, more accessible routes. However, there are landscape features – such as landscape waves – that can be formed for use by active and willing wheelchair users, to help maintain a healthy heart, making the active landscapes accessible to a wider range of users.
The question often put forward is ‘what if someone falls?’ I believe the active route should be viewed in the same way as football pitches, skating parks and cycling lanes – as spaces for physical activity, where there is a small chance that people might fall. But they are aware of that and the health benefits outweigh the minimal risk.
Providing an active landscape within a new
development is a great way to give something to the community with relatively minimal cost, as well as offering an opportunity for the community to come together. These are both aspects that can aid with the planning process.
Looking forward
The findings from our research are already gaining traction, with Cambridge Council and organisations such as Sport England expressing interest in applying our principles to real-world settings. In Cambridge, cycling paths and green spaces active routes are being integrated into Devonshire Gardens, a new mixed-use development by Railpen and Socius, R H Partnership and LDA-Design, near Cambridge railway station. We hope this work can inspire a broader adoption of the active-landscape approach across Cambridgeshire, creating healthier, more connected and engaged communities, and making Cambridge a pioneering healthy city of active urbanism. The plan is to consult more designers on the scientifically backed active landscapes.
Urban design can play a critical role in tackling the inactivity pandemic. By making public spaces more playful and physically engaging, we can help people move more, stay healthier, meet neighbours, and reconnect with a sense of joy and adventure in their daily lives.
Bremner (Tel: 07711 412583) Tim Harwood (Tel: 07749 250953)
Examples of what active urbanism can look like
Responding to housing need
Almshouses are emerging as a popular typology for community-based housing solutions. Traditionally used for later living, the structure and financing models can also be adopted to serve other groups within the community. Over the next four pages, Rowan Haysom from Haysom Ward Miller Architects, and Ian Bramwell, from Mole, discuss two of their almshouse projects around Cambridge
The Great Shelford Village Charity, established in 1890, is a not-for-profit charitable company with directors giving their time and expertise as unpaid volunteers. More’s Meadow is a street of 32 almshouses owned by the charity, with rents at half the local market rental rate.
Beyond the original houses, the charity owned adjoining allotments and a six-acre field, located in the greenbelt that encircles the village of Great Shelford. In response to local housing need, it sought consent to develop part of this site.
As a greenbelt development, the charity had to fulfil the policy requirements for a rural exception site: to show that no other site in the village was better suited, evidence the housing need, produce a design sympathetic to the rural edge, and importantly, establish the support from the local community.
Community engagement
Working with the parish council, the charity and design team led community engagement events, focus groups and kept the local community up to date via the village newspaper. An independent housing survey established that there was a need for
a further 97 new affordable homes in the village. Some 95% of residents supported this need, while 75% agreed that this would best be achieved by building on the greenbelt.
This lengthy process culminated in a public meeting in the village hall where the proposals were presented to a crowded audience. The charity demonstrated to the village residents how this proposal was truly community led; that the intention was to help the village become more socially and economically sustainable, and that, although built on the greenbelt, the proposal would provide greater connectivity with the countryside.
Context
The purpose of the greenbelt in the National Planning Policy Framework is to prevent sprawl, optimise development density and keep the countryside ‘open’, inferring visually open (not necessarily accessible). This has resulted in many recent developments around Cambridge forming a hard urban edge, often bulky and cut off from the surrounding rural landscape.
But being located within the greenbelt, this particular site called for a different response: not a hard edge but soft boundaries, accessible and integrated within the landscape, where the relationship between village and countryside can be one of emergence and overlaps. It is a permeable edge condition, where in ecological terms biodiversity can be most dynamic, and where human and natural worlds can intertwine.
The site looks across Hobson’s Brook towards the rolling chalk undulations of the Gog Magog hills. The 21 new almshouses tuck into the corner field nearest the existing housing, arranged in three compact terraces of one-, two- and three- bedroom homes around a central green. The sedum roofs curve around the green in plan and slope down towards the surrounding hedgerows. New hedgerows form the rear garden boundaries, providing permeable edges where the gardens meet the landscape.
The remaining six acres of charityowned land includes the relocated allotments and a grassland meadow dotted with small clearings, benches and picnic tables, with 250 new native trees. A new accessible footpath weaves a sinuous line through these spaces to a community garden.
From the greenbelt, the view of the buildings is one of undulating green roofs and curved black-boarded facades that nestle the almshouses into the surrounding rural setting. Two brick gable ends announce the entrance into the small internal triangular green, which feels more built-up and residential, defined by solid brick terraced houses, each with its own front door, front garden, enclosing and overlooking the green.
The decision to keep the central green car-free (except for emergency and disabled access) has defined the character of the place. The subtle placement of natural play features invite interaction and play. The central green feels like a live-in play park, alive with activity. Children leave their bicycles and toys out and treat the space as their own. Chairs and tables are emerging into the front gardens, with bench seating in the green often occupied by the older residents chatting, watching the constant flow of the younger ones in, out, and through each other’s homes.
The housing is for all ages, with twostory family terraces sloping down to single storey one-bed end units. The front gardens can be adapted for a disabled car space and the bicycle sheds have been fitted with power points for electric bicycles and sized to fit mobility scooters.
Each house is separated from the green by a small front garden, framed by the brick bicycle sheds, creating an intermediary space between the front door and public green. The kitchen windows look
out, providing beneficial overlooking. Any visitor into the green has a sense of being seen. The public space feels semi-private.
This shared public realm is the principal feature of this development. Although distinctive in appearance, the buildings themselves are the picture frame to the artwork, the backdrop to the place and the community it contains and defines. This is housing as impetus for community building.
Sustainability
Homes include mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, air source heat pumps with underfloor heating throughout, triple glazing and high levels of insulation. Measured energy use after one year of occupation is equivalent to Passivhaus standard.
Concluding thoughts
Strong relationships are important for our long-term happiness and wellbeing, and interaction with nature contributes to our physical and mental wellbeing. Every building we construct is an imposition upon the earth and an intervention into the social fabric of our community, with the potential to degrade or enhance the quality of these relationships. We should build sensitively, carefully, aware that we are creating new communities of people whose happiness and wellbeing will be reliant on the quality of these relationships that our buildings inform.
The almshouses in Great Shelford show how this can be achieved through genuine engagement with the local community and with a sensitive approach to the surrounding context.
“Every building we construct is an imposition upon the earth and an intervention into the social fabric of our community”
Landscape Plan
More’s Meadow almshouses nestled in the community and rural context
Individual houses are separated from the green by a small front garden, framed by the brick bicycle sheds
Studying the almshouse typology: Mole’s Girton Town Charity development for later living
With the addition of 15 new homes at Dovehouse Court, Girton Town Charity now provides 28 almshouses for Girton families and active retirees who can live independently. The charity, which was established in 1521, has also built and funded the local community centre and offers a range of grants and schemes to support individuals and groups in the village. The charity is run by the community (via the trustees) for the community. The Dovehouse Court Almshouses are not rented; licences to live in them are assigned to over 55-year-olds, on the basis of financial need, and to those who have a close connection with the village – people who have lived or worked in Girton or have family there.
Almshouse charities, although achieving similar goals to registered housing providers, are not normally recognised as social housing, and therefore cannot access Section 106 funding. But they are exempt from the ‘right to buy’ programming, ensuring the houses remain in the community in perpetuity.
In 2017, the charity – with funds from the sale of farmland around Girton – took the decision to redevelop its high street site. This area, bordered by mature trees and hedging, consisted of the charity’s office and six almshouses, all built between the 1930s and 1960s. The small and poorly insulated homes were unsuitable for modern occupation. Some had structural issues, and all were impossible for residents who use a wheelchair to live in. The site’s layout made reusing the existing buildings and increasing the number of homes unviable.
prior to an invited competition being held, arranged a series of between 14-18 homes around a central parking court, giving prominence to cars and hard landscape, with small pocket gardens for each home around the perimeter.
The final design for Dovehouse Court drew on the lessons learned from Marmalade Lane, as well as the traditional almshouse features of sociability and people-focused spaces. The car parking is relegated to the periphery and the homes
Shared communal garden with routes between apartments to encourage sociability and interaction
WORDS IAN BRAMWELL
Uplifting and eclectic material pallet to reflect the local buildings and Woodlands Park, while coloured front doors are unique within each ‘house’ to aid identification of residents’ homes
face into the central garden, fulfilling the charity’s brief for a space that offers peace, serenity and safety. The parking area is located to the north of the site, with the entrance from the high street framed by a new electricity sub-station and the charity’s new office. The parking area is overlooked by the bungalows’ kitchen windows, which ensures site-wide passive surveillance.
The charity wanted residents to feel part of the village rather than closed off from it. So, while the access into the courtyard is discreetly hidden from view, the development is not gated and does without security features. A narrow pathway leads from the parking area to a garden, with entrances to each home facing inwards.
The courtyard is laid out with lawns and generous planting beds and includes raised growing beds for residents to adopt. A small orchard of local apple trees is planted towards the rear of the site and, at the very rear, a wild meadow garden completes the variety of spaces designed by landscape architect Jamie Buchanan.
Each house has a small front garden, to provide a threshold between the private and public spaces. On the ground floor, the terraces are bound by low walls, seats and planting beds, providing a space for residents to make their own and allowing a strong visual connection between the internal living spaces and the gardens. On upper floors, the façade creates nooks for personalisation, and a buffer to keep passers by from walking too close to windows. All the front doors face into the courtyard, and living spaces or kitchens overlook the garden. Residents are gently encouraged to interact, fostering the community spirit.
Dovehouse Court’s material palette reflects the eclectic mix of local buildings and Woodlands Park, the adjacent interwar housing development. White or off-white brick rendered finish and concrete or
clay roof tiles are ubiquitous among the mix of buildings in the surrounding area.
The brief called for the houses to be ‘uplifting’ and the off-white render and brightly coloured front doors respond to this, lending an air of joy to the homes. The coloured front doors are unique within each ‘house’ to help with the identification of residents’ homes.
The development is split into three ‘houses’, the scale and mass of each one respecting the local context. They vary in
Typical apartment plan annotated 1.50_Mole
“The charity’s intention was that the residents should feel part of the village rather than closed off from it”
Thresholds blur the distinction between private and shared spaces
height, stepping with the contours of the site – there is a 3m level change from east to west. The house fronting the High Street is staggered in plan to reflect the scale of neighbouring semi-detached houses.
Internally, the houses have been designed with a flexibility in mind and to be light, spacious and homely. Every home is dual-aspect and includes a bedroom, kitchen/living/dining room, study and bathroom. Limited internal circulation space allows the houses to feel generous; they are all between 61 and 63sqm – larger than space standards require.
An additional study space was designed to be a multi-purpose room and is used by residents as an occasional bedroom for grandchildren, a place to work from home, a painting studio or gym. The space could also be used for a carer to stay temporarily, with the view to extending residents’ ability to live independently for as long as possible.
Unlike many almshouse developments, the charity did not require internal communal spaces or facilities. The charity already provides these elsewhere for the benefit of the entire village.
Girton Town Charity is committed to reducing the financial hardship of its residents and the brief called for a low-energy design. During the design process, it was decided the houses should aim to be passivhaus certified. In spite of the site constraints and the poor form factor of bungalows as a building type, the development achieved certification early in 2024. Post occupancy monitoring has revealed that energy use is exactly as expected.
The real measure of success has been the community that has emerged within Dovehouse Close and the joy that living in the houses has brought to its residents. One has described how moving into Dovehouse Court – after living in a one-room bedsit for nearly 30 years – has changed his life.
5th Studio director Tom Holbrook reviews the history and future of the knowledge intensive industry and urban planning in Cambridge
WORDS TOM HOLBROOK, 5TH STUDIO DIRECTOR
Isaac Newton built his alchemical laboratory between the buttresses of Trinity College’s chapel, and the Cavendish Laboratory has hosted a series of discoveries that revolutionised physics. Yet, despite this history of innovation, Cambridge has long resisted the ‘corruption’ of industry. Cambridge was the only city undamaged by war to be the subject of a major post-war planning study. Holford and Wright’s 1950 planning proposals set out a vision of a city preserved in aspic; the quintessential English university city. In William Holford’s view, Oxford had already been spoilt by the industrialised desecrations of the Morris Motor factory.
In the 1960s, this squeamishness about industry led the city council to refuse development certificates to American tech giant IBM for its European research base, and the company went elsewhere. Holford’s preservationist approach had many other unintended consequences.
Before the 1964 election, Harold Wilson insisted that a ‘new Britain’ would need to be forged in the ‘white heat’ of technology; the university responded by setting up the Mott Committee, which recommended that ‘science-based industry’ should be developed and encouraged to locate close to Cambridge as a centre of excellence. This shifted planning policy, and allowed the creation of the UK’s first science park near Trinity College, in 1971.
The resulting ecosystem of technology transfer, research and innovation has been described as the ‘Cambridge Phenomenon’, and is comprised of several thousand firms with attendant patent agents, lawyers, investors, recruitment agencies etc.
Channelling an entrepreneurial spirit, the development of the edge lands, suburbs and outer villages of Cambridge inevitably looked to American models – the science park was based on examples from Palo Alto and Northern California and is further conjured by the moniker ‘Silicon Fen’. In many ways, these spaces were purposefully unplanned and allowed to develop organically. In recent years, development has particularly focused on life sciences and the transition of what was familiarly known to residents as
Inside the Eagle pub where, in 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson celebrated the discovery of the structure of DNA
Addenbrooke’s Hospital into the ‘Biomedical Campus’, where AstraZeneca’s palace of research is the first building in the UK to break a £1bn budget.
While often successful in attracting companies, the car-based business parks from 1960s California are now encountering strain, as expectations shift from the 9 to 5 ‘father goes off to work’ model to contemporary expectations of work-life balance and productive working environments.
At the heart of the Cambridge phenomenon lies the notion of serendipity –the chance encounter with others working in different fields that provides disruptive new insights and discoveries. There are many apocryphal tales told about such encounters, which draw on the idea of the Cambridge
college as a site of convivial creative exchange: picture Francis Crick and James Watson – and perhaps Rosalind Franklin, if they bothered to invite her – in The Eagle, drawing up a list of the 20 canonical amino acids that cracked the genetic code.
The reality is that the environments created for innovation in the city are notoriously poor at creating spaces for interaction. While many buildings are themselves highly sophisticated, with attractive interior facilities for their employees, the spaces between buildings are often brutal and uninviting. Innovators can be seen queuing at a sandwich van or eating in their cars.
On the Biomedical Campus, researchers leaving their rarified laboratories share tarmac alongside patients with drip stands. As we find in nature, monocultures are unproductive, and our technology and biomedical campuses need retrofitting with a rich mix of uses, as envisaged by the model of the 15-minute city.
The bland, car-based business park model is a physical manifestation of a more pernicious issue, with innovation districts also, perhaps, imported from across the Atlantic. While profoundly contributing to the national economy, too often, knowledgeintensive activity increases economic inequality and creates profound externalities in the host urban environment.
Joe Biden has pronounced the failure of the trickle-down economic model, promoting instead the idea of public and private partnerships to build the economy ‘from the middle out and the bottom up’; encouraging collaboration rather than protectionism.
Cambridge’s namesake in Massachusetts, often cited as the poster child of innovation, ranked 7th out of 25 innovation cities in terms of income gap in 2021, with households in the top quintile earning on average $343,000 a year versus $13,000 a year in the lowest income group. Cambridge Massachusetts also has the highest cost of housing among innovation cities, with a large proportion of residents in the lowest two quintiles spending more than 50 per cent of their income on housing. In 2020, the think-tank Centre for Cities named Cambridge the UK’s most unequal city, with the top six per cent of earners taking home 19 per cent of the city’s total income, while the 20 per cent of lowest earners earned just two per cent of that total.
Traditional divisions of town and gown in Cambridge are giving way to divisions between the prosperous and the poor. AstraZeneca’s Discovery Centre (also
Map of Cambridge showing locations of main knowledge intensive industries
Etching of Newton’s quarters – Trinity College
see pages 24-25) exists cheek-by-jowl with a public hospital that staggers from crisis to crisis. At its Autumn Strategy and Resources Committee meeting, Cambridge City Council reported a £11.5m hole in its budget over the next five years, leading it to consider marketing parts of its civic estate. With state-funded research investment in the city’s two public universities – and the teaching hospital – lying at the heart of the city’s economic attractiveness, issues of equality and social justice must be addressed head-on. The prosperity of Cambridge must generate investment into the shared physical fabric of the city as a whole, including its public realm, civic landscapes and transport infrastructure. A socially just city would also prioritise investment in learning and upskilling, ensuring that its citizens could share in the local economy, however much it plays to global talent.
A more recent phenomenon has been the shift in focus from land beyond the city to the densification of more central spaces. Apart from industry, the other debate in
the planning of 1970s Cambridge revolved around the question of ‘where will we shop?’; leading to the demolition of a city quarter known as The Kite to build the Grafton Centre in 1984. Just 40 years on, shopping is no longer a burgeoning driver of urban change: all but 15 per cent of the Grafton is to be converted to laboratories, potentially followed by areas of town that are currently ‘big box’ stores, such as the Beehive Centre. This replacement of recently built fabric is happening in the breach of a long-term planning strategy for the city’s central spaces; the creation of unadaptable deepplan buildings, which will be swept away in another 40 years, is to be avoided.
There is a saying that goes something like ‘too many meatballs, not enough spaghetti’. A generation of austerity economics has depleted and damaged the fabric that holds Cambridge together, while ‘meatballs’ have proliferated. The models that the city emulates are not themselves successful in attending to the foundational ingredients that establish the dish – the ‘spaghetti’.
Other models are available: Barcelona’s 22@ innovation quarter is built on a progressive municipalist platform, reminiscent of Joseph Chamberlain’s Birmingham reforms in the nineteenth century. The city council is finding ways to spread the benefits of innovation prosperity: through housing reform, public transport investment and urban innovations, including the creation of ‘superillas’ (superblocks) – a radical approach to creating new public space that adapts to the climate crisis. In response to the environmental blandness discussed above, 22@ is an urban quarter with a commitment to the constant adjustment of the mix of uses to ensure vitality and a true urban, inclusive culture.
Large-scale planning is back. As Cambridge considers and plans its future shape, it is critical that it drops its austerity mindset and builds a strong vision of a renewed city founded on social justice.
“The reality is that the environments created for innovation in the city are notoriously poor at creating spaces for interaction”
Public space, Superilla @22 Barcelona
The neighbouring outdoor seating for the Food Court at Addenbrooke’s
The UK life sciences sector continues to be on a path of exponential development, driven by a few major hotspots, such as the OxfordCambridge corridor. The demand for laboratory space currently exceeds available supply, with new science parks being announced almost monthly. However, the time required to bring these developments to market has prompted developers and life sciences companies to consider converting existing buildings, and even entire business parks, into laboratory facilities. See Tom Holbrook’s article on page 15 on Cambridge Innovation. This approach not only addresses immediate space needs but can align with sustainability goals, which are increasingly important to science-based organisations.
What are the characteristics of laboratory buildings?
Laboratory layouts can vary widely depending on the type of use, from biology to chemistry and electronic research. Generally, approximately 60 per cent of the floorplan is dedicated to laboratory space that operates under controlled visual, textural and spatial characteristics to uphold safety measures and enable advanced research. The remaining 40 per cent is committed to write-up space, where efforts to elevate comfort, natural daylight and exposure to greenery can be concentrated.
What are the challenges of converting existing buildings to science?
When evaluating the suitability of an existing building, there are a number of important considerations. Size and flexibility of rooms is a key factor. Large open spaces are preferred because laboratory operations often require room for cyclical changes in equipment, and these provide necessary visibility for safety. Floor-to-floor heights must also be adequate for the extensive MEP ducts needed, along with airflow treatment and control. Additionally, a robust structural framework is vital, as laboratory equipment and experiments can be sensitive to vibrations. Considering that laboratories consume hazardous materials and generate substantial waste, adequate loading and transport areas – including external gas storage – are necessary. Multi-storey buildings will also require designated goods lifts to move materials, waste and equipment.
Why large format retail is ideal for conversion
In 2021, Fairhurst Architects undertook a feasibility study for the partial conversion of The Grafton to laboratories. The existing building proved to be ideal; expansive open-plan layouts with rigid concrete
“While there are some financial advantages to suburban retail parks, the conversion of city centre malls like The Grafton present unique advantages”
structures, optimal ceiling heights and an efficient separation of personnel and goods through both horizontal and vertical circulation. The presence of large goods lifts and ample loading bays typical to the retail sector also makes it more feasible when compared to transforming office buildings.
The social and economic benefits of city centre science
The UK’s large format retail landscape can be broadly categorised into city centre shopping malls and out-of-town retail parks. While there are some financial advantages to suburban retail parks, the
conversion of city centre malls present unique advantages. These locations offer local amenities and attractions that draw and retain employees who are invested in the office environment and contribute to a broader atmosphere of engagement, as well as providing the proximity needed to tap into multiindustry communication networks.
The Grafton proposals will not convert the entire centre to laboratory space, but will retain retail units that are closer to the footfall of Fitzroy and Burleigh Streets. The decision to diversify rather than entirely convert will serve as both a financial and cultural investment for the business and the public.
The Oxford-Cambridge corridor is a hotspot for creating new laboratory space. King’s Hedges Road is one of many schemes granted planning permission earlier this year
Decarbonising our historic fabric
A decarbonisation case study: The St John’s College buttery dining room, bar and café. Winner of the David Mackay Award for Engineering and Sustainability
The decarbonisation of our existing building stock is at the centre of our collective path toward a Net Zero Carbon future.
For many institutions, ‘heavy re-engineering’ provides a possible way of achieving Net Zero Carbon. However, most Cambridge colleges have a very high proportion of significant historic fabric, where ‘gentle’ refurbishment and upgrading is often the only option, given a demanding conservation culture. This makes the challenge of achieving carbon reduction targets even more acute.
For the St John’s College buttery, bar and café project, which was begun in August 2021 and finished early in 2023, MCW Architects and team have addressed sustainability issues holistically – dealing with the social, environmental and functional sustainability of buildings that are almost half a millennium old.
The brief, set out in the college masterplan, called for spaces where people could meet, eat and work together in a supportive and relaxed atmosphere with excellent acoustic and environmental comfort. Sustainability was high on the agenda and the students and fellows pressed the team to demonstrate the project’s green credentials throughout. A new buttery dining room and bar have been created alongside a café – the first time the college has had a café space in 800 years. What makes this project special is that these facilities are provided within and around the
existing Grade I listed fabric and setting of Second Court, which was built in 1599.
A future decarbonised grid depends on all of us collectively reducing the overall energy requirements of our buildings. The initial approach from the design team was to create a highly insulated and low-energy new dining room and to provide renewable energy sources for the entire project. This would then also significantly reduce the building's operational energy.
It soon became apparent that upgrading the historic fabric was vital to achieving the required environmental performance, comfort requirements and energy usage reduction. This resulted in an intensive period of investigation, including in situ U-value, air permeability, thermographic and condition surveys, which provided data for a base energy model of the space. In addition to the passive conditions of the existing building being analysed, Purcell set out the
WORDS PAULA MEJIA-WRIGHT, MCW ARCHITECTS
Upgraded existing building café area
“The results show that, through careful dialogue and a structured methodology, a building that is more than four centuries old can be adapted to perform effectively well into the future”
heritage significance of each element in the building. KJ Tait built an energy model of the existing building, to use as a baseline and help quantify the impact of the proposed upgrades. Tobit Curteis, a specialist in historic fabric and long-term collaborator of Historic England, was brought into the team to review and validate the proposals. The college subsequently commissioned fabric monitoring for one year before and after construction.
The team explored several options for upgrading the building fabric. Five different models were simulated using IES VE software to compare the impact of various upgrades on energy consumption and carbon emissions.
The selected model resulted in a 39 per cent reduction in primary energy consumption over the existing baseline model. The results from energy modelling, calculated using the Part L2A methodology, indicated that the carbon emissions from the new build will reduce from 79.3kg/CO2/m² per year to 44.2kg/ CO2/m² per year, representing a circ. 44 per cent reduction in carbon emissions, with the existing building reducing from the 57.8 kg/CO2/m² per year to 47.1 kg/CO2/ m² per year, representing a circ. 19 per cent reduction in carbon emissions.
The final proposals for the listed building included replacing the existing concrete
floors with limecrete slabs over recycled foam glass insulation to allow breathability to the base of the 16th-century walls. The initial u-value was calculated at 0.4 W/m²K. This was upgraded to 0.25 W/m²K.
External walls were insulated with wood fibre insulation and finished with lime plaster and mineral paint to maintain moisture evaporation. The initial u-values were measured between 2.38 W/ m²K and 0.35 W/m²K across different locations in the building. With new insulation, this was upgraded to an average u-value of 0.3 W/m²K.
Ceilings were insulated to thermally separate the new bar and café from the rest of the building. The new u-value was designed to 0.18 W/m²K. Acoustic absorptive insulated render was also applied to ceilings.
CIBSE’s TM54 predicted operational energy calculations show regulated and unregulated energy of 257.7 kWh/m2/year. The space was not metered separately prior to the development, so the team does not have previous data to assess the improvement. The Building Regulations UK Part L (BRUKL) document shows a total energy consumption (regulated) of 87.21 kWh/m2/year.
A ducted mechanical ventilation system was installed to replace the historic ventilation provided by open windows and
RiverCam
leakage. Air source heat pumps were located in Kitchen Lane and fully dimmable, LED lighting was used throughout to lower energy demands on the building.
The design of the ventilation system was demanding. The team had to find space for plant and suitable routes for ductwork without harming historic features or original fabric. In addition, the character of the building meant that exposed services and ductwork were not appropriate.
Peripheral pre-cast concrete trenches below the limecrete slabs were used to distribute the ventilation ductwork. Tempered fresh air is distributed through bespoke floor grilles around the perimeter of each room. MCW designed the flush stainlesssteel floor diffuser, which the manufacturer had developed, and produced a prototype specifically for the project.
Vertical duct runs were required to link the underfloor ducts with the MVHR units located in the building loft space. All the equipment had to be modular, with component sizes small enough to be carried into the loft spaces. Riser locations were identified following opening up works and careful consideration was given to historic fabric and fire protection requirements. Three riser locations were identified, with one being
fresh tempered air in (+ cooled air to bar store) stale air extracted under floor heating + radiators
ASHP
mechanical ventilation plant chiller unit
an existing chimney flue. This was surveyed and required unblocking. For the main riser, it was not possible to achieve a fire-rated riser structure all through the building without affecting the listed features. Therefore, firerated ductwork was used instead.
Intake and exhaust grilles for the MVHR systems were carefully designed and detailed to blend with the existing roof. The result is an ‘invisible’ ventilation system that serves the increased demand of the spaces while respecting the historic building character.
The enormous success of this new 612m2 facility is evident in its popularity with the students, fellows and staff. It is proving to be a valuable social focus for the college community.
The works to the building fabric and the resultant environmental conditions contribute greatly to this success, as the spaces are now comfortable, warm and healthy.
The embodied carbon of the refurbishment area, excluding the new build, was calculated by Purcell to be 112 tonnes of CO2e, with 21 tonnes of CO2e sequestered through the specification of biobased materials, such as timber and woodwool insulation. This equates to 178kgCO2e/m2 of upfront embodied carbon (life-cycle modules A1-A5 exc. sequestration) achieving a LETI rating of A+.
When the whole life cycle of the project is taken into account, the embodied carbon equals 275kgCO2e/m2, achieving an A rating on the LETI benchmarking scale.
Both results are considerably higher than the LETI 2030 Design target, and the RIBA 2030 Built target. Benchmarking was difficult because of the unique nature of the project, and the team concentrated on modelling and predicting performance.
In this highly sensitive context, the results show that, through careful dialogue and a structured methodology, a building that is more than four centuries old can be adapted to perform effectively well into the future, reflecting the needs of the low carbon agenda.
The end of 2024 will be the first opportunity for the design and client team to assess comprehensive data and understand actual performance vs prediction. This project will act as a prototypical basis for the college to implement ongoing improvements to its building stock and should act as an exemplar for other highly sensitive historic building projects with similar challenges.
PROJECT DATA
Client:
St John’s College, Cambridge
Architect:
MCW Architects
Project manager:
Turner and Townsend
Cost consultant:
Faithful and Gould
Conservation architect: Purcell
Heritage consultant: Purcell
Structural engineer: Smith and Wallwork
M&E: KJ Tait engineers
Acoustic: Ramboll
Fire engineering:
Affinity Fire Engineering
Principal designer:
MCW Architects
Approved inspector:
3C Shared Services
Planning consultant: Turley
Fabric consultant:
Tobit Curteis
Catering consultant:
SCD Design/ David Bentley Design
Interior design: Nissen Richards Studio
Lighting designer:
Studio ZNA
Loose furniture supplier: Portsdown
Main contractor:
Barnes Construction
Form of contract:
Traditional – JCT Standard Building
Contract 2016 (without quantities)
Breeam certificate: Excellent
NEW BUILD ELEMENT UVALUES
Roof: average u-value is 0.15 W/ m²K (glass mineral wool insulation)
Floor: 0.09 W/m²K (Kingspan under slab+ over slab)
Glazed doors: 1.1 W/m²K (triple glazed)
Rooflights: 1.2 W/m²K (double glazed)
Trinity boundary wall: 0.24 W/m²K upgraded with stone wool slabs
Woodfibre lime plaster window reveal site sample
Cafe ventilation trench
Services strategy and upgrade to existing building
The ‘ship in a bottle’
The River Wing café extension at Clare College Old Court beautifully integrates modern accessibility and social spaces within the historic setting, providing a welcoming hub for the college community
WORDS SUSIE NEWMAN
Earlier this year, members of the CAA committee were lucky enough to be invited on a tour of the River Room Café extension at Clare College Old Court. With the growth in numbers of all members, the college recognised that Old Court needed more flexible space for the entire community if it was to remain at the heart of collective life. This required new catering and social spaces and fully accessible shared facilities, as well as significant improvements in access to fire escapes from the historic rooms.
Our tour with director Stephen Witherford, of Witherford Watson Mann, began – surprisingly – in the garden of Trinity Hall, as it gives the best view of the expressive timber-framed addition. The architect warmly refers to the project as a 'ship in a bottle', given the incredibly tight constraints of the site. The new extension begins at Trinity Lane at less than one metre wide and expands, slowly, into the free gap between Trinity Hall’s medieval wall and the outer wall of Clare College Court – some 120 metres long – to provide a generoussized café at the Cam river’s side.
Our journey continued into Clare College grounds. Before entering the Old Court, we congregated around a seemingly everyday set of stone steps that lead to the main door of the dining wing – only to discover, at the press of a button, the steps slowly recede to give way to a platform lift hidden underneath.
This extraordinary reveal now provides a dignified entrance for wheelchair users. Before this lift was installed, there was no front-facing access for wheelchair users to get into the building.
The addition provides new connections in the existing building, with the introduction of fire escape stairs serving the top floor, and a lift core that means all levels are now wheelchair accessible. The addition cleverly steps alongside the existing building’s north external wall, where the haphazard nature of the old brick courses can be admired as one walks along a new corridor full of kinks and corners navigating to the River Room café. The café is a fantastic space, full of natural light, and views to the river and gardens beyond. An exposed green oak frame, wall linings and built in oak furniture stepping alongside the medieval wall of Trinity Hall, bring a warmth and softness to the space. A Purbeck stone floor runs from the café space back into the main entrance, tying old and new parts of the college together.
It’s clear from our visit that it is a convivial café; there are large groups of students as well as maintenance staff catching up over their break. It is a nonhierarchal space for all the staff, students and fellows to enjoy, uniquely tying different strands of the college community together.
Nestled between the café and the Cam is a small external seating area. Before the creation of this new café, there was a small workshop space overlooking the river. The architects chose to keep the wall fronting the river and disguised the single storey café
behind it. This protects the character of the riverside, which was a planning requirement. Putting a contemporary timber frame building between the remnants of old brick walls shows a sensitivity and playfulness. It is a joyful contrast of old and new.
Like many aspects of the design, the structure is an ingenious fusion of modernity and tradition. Structural intervention to the existing building is largely hidden, including a new one-metre deep service trench underpinning the building, allowing the building services to be upgraded. Early in the design process, it was decided to meld the architecture and structure in the new addition by revealing the entire timber frame structure and to let this define the new addition.
“Like many aspects of the design, the structure is an ingenious fusion of modernity and tradition”
The laminated green oak frame structure is remarkably slender and feels like fine pieces of joinery, rather than a superstructure. This was achieved by having the timber frame CNC cut in a factory off-site. Early collaboration and design workshops with the subcontractor, Constructional Timber, included a 3D model and allowed engineers Smith and Wallwork to refine the frame design, keeping it slim by avoiding the use of steel in the main
River Room café interior
timber-to-timber connections. Avoiding steel meant avoiding any compromise to the fire resistance and integrity of the timber, with no need for additional charring layers that would otherwise make the timber frame bulky.
Traditional carpentry joints such as mortise and tenon and dovetail detailing
were combined with this modern way of fabricating timber, all fully predrilled before heading to site. The commitment of the team on the project meant some 300 connection details were drawn by the engineer Freya Williams and signed off with the architects ahead of fabrication.
The precision in the factory-cut timber frame and the preformed fixings meant there was very little site tolerance. The timber was erected on site by a family of framers; mother, son and father attended to the frame every day, piecing it together on top of a concrete bund substructure. Through careful attention to detail, it all fitted together on the first go.
Another challenge was how to tie this beautifully precise frame back to the undulating 1780 flanking brick wall of the existing Old Court building. To solve this problem, many point cloud surveys were meticulously carried out by the engineers before the frame was constructed. Specialised connector plates were then made that allowed a tolerance of just 20mm for attaching new beams back to the existing north wall.
The craftsmanship of the timber frame is staggering. The pinnacle of this is the CLT fire escape staircase. The exposed CLT treads sit into a notch in a glulam structural column that they wind around and cantilever over the corridor below, acting as steps to the rooftop floor but also as part of the structure. The panellised timber walls were craned onto site and a bespoke timber handrail wraps up the staircase, all beautifully coordinated. However, it does feel like a missed opportunity that this staircase cannot be accessed or enjoyed for day-to-day use.
The attention to detail and craft is fully on show throughout the renovation and addition, making this a wonderful and accessible space for all college members to enjoy.
Clare College River Room extension as seen from Trinity Hall gardens
The Architects and Head of School of Architecture + Cities at University of Westminster, gets a rare tour inside AstraZeneca’s Cambridge Discovery Centre
Discovering the DISC
Reviewing large buildings in under an hour means making quick decisions and relying on architectural instinct. This approach is not ideal, as architects know that the best architecture is often understood over long periods of time — slowly revealing how it changes and responds to the needs of all users over a period of a day, a week, a season – or many, many years. However, an hour was all a couple of us had for our visit to AstraZeneca’s new Discovery Centre, DISC – it’s always important to have a good acronym for a new flagship building – that is cited as part of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC). Fortunately, we were guided by both the project architect from Herzog & De Meuron and an executive director of AstraZeneca (AZ), who both highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the project from their own perspectives.
This Cambridge hub is for biomedical research and development for education, healthcare, science, research institutions and companies. This new life sciences community includes the University of Cambridge, the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK and AZ. DISC is the new global research and development facility within this campus and has been designed by Herzog & De Meuron, a prestigious choice for this landmark project.
The purpose of the building was to create a place to research and develop new key drugs to improve healthcare across the world. AZ was clear that how scientists work is changing, and this means the relationship between the lab and desktop is evolving. Experiments are often set up and left to run, concurrent with computer-generated experiments and write-ups. The scientists may need to quickly return to the lab to check or change the lab experiment. These processes are no longer linear. Additionally,
the size, shape and make-up of any given team, which is critical to the success of developing new drugs, is expanding and in fluctuation. This means the space needed to be designed and organised to support, nurture and facilitate the new and dynamic ways teams now work and communicate. Clearly, the building needed to be a fantastic environment that could support the changing way scientists work.
The primary, and unanimous, takeaway from our hour-long visit was that we would have been happy to work in this building. The substantial investment in the facility is evident, to the point that we all had to set aside political considerations regarding funding models in global healthcare systems. The centre has great cafes, canteens, break-out spaces, lecture theatre, state-of-the-art labs, plush conference facilities, bike parking, showers, courtyards, light and acoustics. Indeed, working or visiting there would be a real pleasure.
WORDS KATE CHEYNE
Open plan office workspaces between labs
Spatially, it’s a building that needs to be understood in plan more than section, and threshold rather than façade. The glass labs are placed centrally so everyone, at any given point, can see the experiments taking place. After all, if you don’t see the scientists in their white coats, can you truly grasp the essence of pharmaceutical innovation? The open plan desk areas surround them, having been given most of the natural light, as have the café areas and break-out spaces. The private meeting rooms, often empty, rely the most on artificial light. The lighting works effectively, as do the acoustics for so much open plan. However, the lighting works because of the extensive, 100 per cent glazed façade, and the acoustics work because of the density of the concrete building structure and the additional absorbency of the fit out.
The approach to sustainability is a complex issue; all large healthcare projects take a very long time from inception to hand over, and the sustainable agenda in our sector has seismically changed since the inception of this project approximately 10 years ago. Even using the word ‘sustainability’ is now, rightly, understood to be inadequate. The building does have BREEAM 77 per cent excellence, but it also has only a 60-year lifespan, with no design for deconstruction. This approach seems to disregard principles of the circular economy. I believe that assessment is not entirely accurate – the building will not fall apart in 60 years. However, the glazing will need replacing, and the architect has acknowledged this. H&DM would not fully glaze the building if it were designing it today, nor use the same amount of concrete. Both the client and architect recognised that the regenerative design credentials were challenging for 2024 and that their next Cambridge building which is currently in the pipeline has learned, and is still learning, from this flagship project.
The weakness of the plan emerges when the interior ‘landscape’ becomes uniform rather than variable. We were told of the importance of different identities between teams. Changing the colour of the furniture, however, did not suffice; we all lost our bearings within the continuous triangular plan at some point during the tour. There could have been much more spatial variety if the vision of the building was not so fixated on the equilateral triangle. It looks impressive from a drone shot, but it limits the potential for spatial diversity.
Interestingly, the success of the project in providing working transparency, complementary spaces for collaborative
“The purpose of the building is to create a place to research and develop new key drugs to improve healthcare across the world”
practice and dynamic workflows, and a naturally lit deep plan, makes the architects’ emphasis on the typology of the Cambridge college courtyard somewhat incongruous.
It seems that they were so focused on presenting a contextualised architectural vision for clients and planners that they overlooked the real strength and success of the building. AZ is so pleased with the new relationship of lab to desk to meeting room, and the fluidity and distinction within and between team ‘neighbourhoods’, that it considers it a new typology for scientific discovery. The scientists, however, are reported to still be learning to adapt to the idea of relinquishing their own desk space or office. The design emphasises hot-desking and minimises personal storage space – intentionally so. The ongoing spatial and behavioural conundrum of balancing an economic model and the need for collaboration and inter-disciplinarity versus an individual’s desire to nest is a challenge that all architects must grapple with.
To conclude, after a fast and furious hour-long visit, do I think that the building supports AZ’s strategy to build exchange and collaboration for internal and external partners in the life sciences community? I believe it does, to a significant extent.
However, a comprehensive postoccupancy study is necessary in order to establish evidence of that – alongside the analysis of the physics and environmental realities of the building. Even after this critical analysis, I maintain that DISC would be an exceptional workplace.
Smith and Wallwork Ltd
50 St Andrews Street, Cambridge, CB2 3AH
www.smithandwallwork.com
01223 750 249
contact@smithandwallwork.com
Transparent lab spaces seen from the central stairs
The Architect’s one-stop-shop for all projects requiring renewable energy solutions.
We are a leading energy retrofitting company committed to creating sustainable, energy-efficient solutions for homes of all types. We work with you and your client using our unique technology to take care of everything from project inception, surveys, specification and quotes - all the way through to final installation and completion. By partnering closely with architects, we bring a unique blend of technical expertise and innovative design to every project, ensuring that your vision for high-performance buildings becomes a reality.
Find out more at
Change is coming
How the National Planning Policy Framework amendments could impact developments in Cambridge
Since coming to power, the Labour government has sought to reform the planning system through consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Some proposed amendments seek to reverse changes made to the NPPF in December 2023, while others support increased housebuilding and aim to deliver economic growth. Strategic planning has been identified as key in bringing about sustainable change.
Alongside this consultation, the government has also signalled its intention to promote the growth of the Cambridge sub-region. While these proposals are unlikely to be as ambitious as those of the previous government, they do highlight further opportunities for housing and employment. Change is coming, but how will any changes to the NPPF relate to developments in which CAA members may be involved?
Housing targets were watered down by the previous government. To achieve the ambition of building 1.5m new homes over the next five years, it is critical that the amended NPPF removes complexity around determining housing needs – and that housing targets again become mandatory. The government has also announced a taskforce to lead on a new generation of new towns. These will inevitably build upon the experiences of Northstowe, Waterbeach and Cambourne.
If housing numbers derived from the proposed reintroduction of the standard methodology are used, housing needs would reduce in some urban areas in the south. This would mean increased housing needs in more rural areas, where there is infrastructure to support growth, and some urban areas in the north and Midlands. Locally, this would see only a modest increase in housing numbers for South Cambridgeshire, with a greater increase for Cambridge city. In recognition of our changing housing needs, there would be a greater emphasis on delivering older persons’ housing and different types of affordable housing, which will be welcomed in the Cambridge sub-region where affordability remains a chronic issue.
The amended NPPF aims to place more emphasis on building economic resilience linked to economic growth, with planning policies identifying appropriate locations for commercial developments that meet the needs of a modern economy. This would, in part, be through recognising and
“Strategic planning has been identified as key in bringing about sustainable change”
addressing specific locational requirements for uses such as laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics. Given the increasing spatial needs of the technology and pharmaceutical industries in the Cambridge area, this could result in opportunities for more sites to come forward if proposals to relax planning in the green belt also come to fruition.
When looking for housing and employment sites, brownfield land would remain a priority. However, more opportunities for development could come forward if councils have to review green belt boundaries to meet their housing, commercial or other needs. Such reviews would be based on a sequential approach that prioritises ‘previously developed land’ in sustainable locations and ‘grey belt’ land that only makes a limited contribution to the purposes of land being designated as green belt.
Good design is still high on the agenda and would be given increased weight in decision making, especially for sites that are not plan led. The ambiguous reference to ‘beauty’ would be replaced by a greater emphasis on the balance of design quality and technical requirements.
Councils would have to give significant weight to the need to support energy efficiency and low carbon heating improvements to existing buildings, both domestic and non-domestic. Similarly, significant weight would be attached to proposals that contribute to renewable energy generation and a net zero future.
The consultation, now closed, has generated a significant number of responses. The amended NPPF is expected later this year when it will become a material planning consideration for all planning applications.
There is still likely to be weight attached to relevant Local Plan policies, with the amended NPPF being less relevant for smaller scale residential developments and extensions, which often result in decisions based on planning judgements around character and appearance. However, greater weight should be attached to the principle of new developments that meet the objectives of increasing housing supply and economic growth.
What is clear is that change is coming to the planning system, which makes it an exciting time to be involved in shaping the future of Cambridge and the places in which we live and work.
Work in progress
WORDS SUSIE LOBER
House for a beekeeper
Ashworth Parkes Architects
Architects from Ashworth Parkes have been working on plans for a very low-energy house for a beekeeper, set in a permaculture environment on the Norfolk coast.
The proposed house will be piled and have minimal contact with the ground. There will be no concrete used in the build.
A lightweight superstructure, clad in reclaimed timber and built from ‘Larsen trusses’ will allow for a continuous 350mm envelope of insulation to wrap around the entire building.
The roof, which will be clad in zinc shingles, will also have deep overhanging eaves, providing shade and minimising any solar heat gain.
The Church of the Good Shepherd
Archangel Architects
Archangel Architects is partnering with the Church of the Good Shepherd in Mansel Way to update its facilities, thanks to local fundraising. The 1970s-built community hall, which is separate from the church, currently reflects an outdated divide between sacred and secular activities. This separation is now seen as limiting to ministry and outreach. The project will physically link the church and hall, creating a welcoming hospitality space and provide office space for the church, Red Hen, and Turtle Dove projects.
Engineer’s House outdoor bar
NEUBAU
Following a successful planning application, NEUBAU is currently working on documentation for construction of a new outdoor bar at the Engineer’s House on Riverside. The new bar will replace the existing facilities and have an improved and consolidated design that will physically and visually reunite the Engineer’s House grounds with the Old Pumping Station. The project is commissioned by the Cambridge Museum of Technology. The bar will be operated by Calverley’s Brewery, and will serve ales and beer brewed less than a mile away. Al Forno will prepare artisan pizza in the dedicated outdoor wood fired oven.
Castle Ashby Wellbeing Centre
Freeland Rees Roberts
Freeland Rees Roberts’ work to create a new Wellbeing Centre at Castle Ashby is progressing at pace. The converted former farm complex will provide a café and activity spaces for retreats and support groups. It is part of a multi-phase regeneration programme for the Compton Estates, to upgrade and bring into better use an eclectic mix of properties around the village of Castle Ashby and in the surrounding parkland. The new centre will have close links with the Falcon Hotel and the recently completed new facilities at Little Park Barn, to support open water swimming in the grounds of Castle Ashby House.
Education Centre on Thompson’s Lane
Graham Handley Architects
Graham Handley Architects is completing the technical design for an educational building in the centre of Cambridge. The former evangelist church on Thompson’s Lane will be internally stripped out, while the core of its 1960s character will be retained. The central space features a plywood hollow rib structural roof, and narrow, characterful Critall windows on the front elevation. The GHA design reconfigures the main entrance, upgrades the building fabric and includes new joinery and finishes. The design team includes Hive Group (building services), Andrew Firebrace Partnership (structures), Max Fordham (specialist lighting) and Popplewell Acoustics.
Two brothers, two houses
CDC Studio
CDC Studio architects are about to start on site with two new build dwellings in south Cambridge, designed for two brothers. The houses have material and style similarities but keep distinct characters. Both houses are flat roofed, to keep the mass of the houses low lying and offer the opportunity to accommodate biosolar roofs. Views across the open countryside are enjoyed from balconies, and generous overhangs to south façades will prevent overheating. The houses will incorporate ASHP, rainwater capture and MVHR to minimise running costs.
Former Two Tees Boatyard
NP Architects
A project to build three houses at the former Two Tees Boatyard is nearing completion. The site, between Water Street and the river Cam, was previously occupied by single-storey sheds, which were used for the repair of boats. The wet dock on the river has been retained, with the development located towards Water Street beyond the main floodplain.
The new buildings have been conceived as a set of gable-ended forms to reflect the character of former sheds and other boathouses. The long, narrow footprints also echo those of the previous sheds. The principal outlook is towards the river, where an external raised deck area adjoins the living rooms. The patio doors have been recessed in the gables for privacy. The houses are clad in black corrugated zinc that, again, echoes the boathouse aesthetic. The buildings were constructed using SIP panels to achieve a high standard of thermal insulation and are heated by ASHPs.
Still more to be done, says Grenfell inquiry
Digesting recommendations from damning Phase-2 report
WORDS COLIN JONES, HCR LAW
Ongoing building safety reform
The government inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire has published its long-awaited Phase 2 report into the 2017 tragedy, in which 72 residents lost their lives.
In addition to the damning conclusion that the fire resulted from ‘systematic failures and dishonesty’ within the development sector – as well as an endemic institutional failure to address building safety risks at government, regulatory and industry level – the report’s recommendations are a clear message that there is a lot more to come in terms of addressing the management of building safety in the UK.
Along with tributes to those Grenfell Tower residents who lost their lives, the Phase 1 report, which was published in October 2019, recommended that those responsible for highrise buildings with similar cladding systems to those installed at Grenfell should immediately review the respective fire and safety risks –and that cladding panels with polyethylene cores on the exterior of high-rise buildings should be replaced.
Following the Phase 1 report, new statutes were enacted, including the significant Building Safety Act (BSA) 2022. The BSA introduced direct new laws and regulations and revised the existing building safety laws.
The BSA applies to tall residential buildings of the Grenfell Tower kind. However, the act also perforates much more widely into the industry. It has instigated new legal expectations on ‘duty holders’ – clients, designers and contractors –undertaking any form of construction to which the building regulations apply.
Beyond that, the act has provided new civil law remedies to those who have been affected by building safety failures, and extended regulatory law requirements and sanctions for those who fail to meet expectations.
While all major legal reforms take time to implement and to have effect – and in spite of all that has passed since the fire in June 2017 – the
Phase 2 report makes it clear there is much more that needs to be done.
Along with the indictment of the product manufacturers, professionals, contractors and the local authority involved in the fateful refurbishment project at Grenfell Tower, the Phase 2 report has made a long list of recommendations:
● None of the Grenfell construction parties properly understood their contractual and statutory fire safety obligations, so clients, in particular, need to better understand their duties as provided for under the building regulations.
● There should be the appointment of a government chief construction adviser to ‘provide advice on all matters affecting the construction industry’, including monitoring work, in addition to the creation of a new construction regulator, a single body responsible for regulating the construction industry. Will this replace the Building Safety Regulator body, only recently introduced under the BSA 2022?
● Contractors need to be more technically competent and take a more active role in ensuring fire safety requirements are met. The Grenfell Tower contractor was found to have assumed that ‘someone else was responsible for matters affecting fire safety’.
● The current definition of a ‘higher-risk building’ – at least 18m in height or seven storeys and including a minimum of two residential units –needs to be reformed. Criteria based on height alone was regarded as illogical. We can expect a revised definition to focus more on how a building of any kind and height is used.
● The architects involved in the Grenfell refurbishment were found to have fallen below the required standard of care in the selection of insulation and rainscreen panels. They also failed properly to check subcontractor designs or confirm the fire strategy was completed. A statement from a senior manager from the principal designer, confirming that reasonable steps have been taken to ensure safe building designs, was called for.
● Fire engineers should be a recognised profession. Better training was called for to
develop their technical expertise to determine whether fire safety has been achieved.
● There should be an urgent review of approved documents with ‘fresh minds’, including from those of the academic community, along with a review of the building regulations, with a focus on safety considerations.
● The current product testing regime is not fit for purpose and, in any event, is not a proper substitute for a robust fire engineered analysis.
● Product marketing material was heavily criticised for insinuating compliance, where there was no evidence the relevant requirements had been met, while those who sold the panels ‘engaged in [a] deliberate and sustained [strategy] to manipulate the testing process, misrepresent test data and mislead the market’. On top of this, accreditation bodies were found wanting, with the inquiry concluding that the Building Research Establishment had been ‘complicit’ in these misrepresentations for certain products and that the dishonest strategies of those selling the panels had succeeded in large measure due to the ‘incompetence’ of the British Board of Agrément.
The government said it would respond to the recommendations within six months, and immediately blocked the Grenfell contractors from being awarded government contracts.
The government has also said that steps will be taken to speed up the remediation process of those buildings with unsafe cladding, and that action will be taken against those building owners that are not remediating. However, with the inquiry recommending better educated and technically competent construction professionals – and with a shortage of competent fire engineers – it is unclear at the moment whether the industry has the capacity to achieve this.
For those who lived in Grenfell Tower, and those who were impacted by the fire, the pursuit of reform of building practices – and for accountability for the loss of life – has been frustratingly slow. That frustration will be heightened further, given the damning conclusion of the inquiry, that the 72 deaths at Grenfell were ‘avoidable’.
