Introduction
I was chief
executive of the University of Southampton Science Park between October 1996
and March 2007, though I had become a director of the company in September
1995. However, this science park can
trace back its origins to the late 1970s.
The University of Southampton Science Park Ltd was valued at £50.395m in
the latest annual accounts (31 July 2025) and the immediate owner is, in turn,
the University of Southampton. It has
been a remarkable achievement to build an asset of this magnitude and for the
University of Southampton to retain 100% ownership of the equity in the
company.
During my
time serving as chief executive of The University of Southampton Science Park
Ltd I developed a curiosity about the origins of the Chilworth development and
I was able to discover many of the details by which its genesis was brought
about, but the construction of a fuller version had to await my
retirement. I am now publishing my
findings in the hope of preserving an accurate history of the early steps in
this science park’s origin and evolution.
However, its beginnings cannot be effectively explained without first
detailing how and why the Chilworth Manor Estate came into the ownership of the
University of Southampton.
After
retailing the brief history of the parent higher education institution and the
acquisition of the Chilworth Manor Estate in 1964, the present account covers
the period from 1979, when the first proposal was made to create a science park
on the Chilworth Manor Estate, through the acquisition of additional land at
Hazel Copse to the leasing of land at Kennels Farm and the Biology Paddock, ie
the land which housed the science park in 2007, which is essentially the same
as its extent in 2026.
The history of Chilworth
Chilworth is
a settlement which is located about five miles north of the modern city of
Southampton, lying predominantly north of the western link between the M3 and
the M27 motorways. It has a long history
of human settlement, disappearing into the thickets of past time. Stone Age tools, including an axe, have been
uncovered there, as have bronze-age implements associated with early
agriculture. Chilworth Ring is a small iron-age
hill fort located south of the M3 – M27 link which was desecrated in the 1960s
by the construction of a circle of modern houses within the raised earth
bank. This historical artefact is known
to have been occupied as late as 686AD but is likely to have been a site of
human habitation since about 700BC.
The
successful Roman invasion of the British Isles, which started in 43AD, led to
occupation of the Chilworth area by about 150AD, and a significant reminder of
the Romans’ presence in South Hampshire consists of the remains of two roads
which cross each other on land now part of the Chilworth estate, one road running
between Winchester and Nursling on the River Test, and the other travelling
from Bitterne on the River Itchen in a north-westerly direction to Old Sarum.
About 800AD,
the name Choelertha appeared in a Saxon document. Its meaning was either “cold farm” or “Cella’s
curtilage”. Two hundred years later, a
moated farmhouse had been built at Chilworth.
The moat survives to this day just outside the university’s land holding
and adjacent to Manor Farm. This long-gone
dwelling may have been the original manor house of Chilworth. The Domesday Book, which was published in
1086, records the presence of a settlement at Chilworth, referred to as “Celeworda”.
By the 15th century the name had been transformed (via Celeworth) to
Chylworth and it finally achieved the modern spelling during the 17th
century.
The lands at
Chilworth contain the highest point for some distance around. It is called “The Clump” and in the late 16th
Century it housed a beacon station, part of the early warning chain linking the
south coast with London. At the time of
the approach of the Spanish Armada in 1588, 6,000 men were summoned to arms by
this beacon system. Because of its
historical significance, this name had been commemorated in the title of the
local pub (early 20th Century building), though there was a “Clump
Inn” on the same site since before 1867.
This appelation was changed, against much local opposition, to the
“Chilworth Arms” in 2007, a name lacking historical authenticity.
The origin of Chilworth Manor
At the time
of Domesday, Chilworth was in the ownership of Bernard Pauncefoot and had been
transferred to him by Godwin, the Anglo-Saxon Earl of Wessex. Over the following five centuries, the estate
passed through the hands of various families until, in the early 1700s, it was
conveyed to one Gilbert Searle and the Manor of Chilworth remained in the
ownership of the Searle family for about 100 years. Peter Searle, a man of philanthropic bent and
grandson of Gilbert, succeeded to the property in 1782.
There has
probably been a church at Chilworth, on the site of the present building, which
is dedicated to St Denys, for about a millennium, on the evidence of a pair of
very old bells, the oldest in Hampshire, in the tower and two ancient
gravestones in the churchyard. One of
Peter Searle’s enduring actions was to rebuild the church in 1812, the first
stone being laid on 16 September. He was
buried in the chancel. Only the font, in
Purbeck marble, survives from the preceding ecclesiastical building. At that time, Peter Searle’s seat was
described as having “beautiful gardens, shrubberies, etc”.
The Willis Fleming family
The Fleming
family estate existed between 1599 and 1950.
It extended to about 15,000 acres and was spread across south Hampshire
and parts of the Isle of Wight. After
1766 this land holding passed into the hands of the Willis family of Bletchley
who then assumed the additional family name of Fleming, becoming Willis
Fleming. South Stoneham House, now in a
suburb of Southampton, had been built in 1708 and was acquired by John Willis
Fleming in 1809. The Willis Flemings
already owned the manor at North Stoneham, where JWF commissioned the
construction of a grand new house, flitting to South Stoneham House until the
new dwelling had been completed, after which he returned to North
Stoneham. There was a major fire at
North Stoneham House in 1831 and John Willis Fleming moved back to South Stoneham
during North Stoneham House’s reconstruction.
The Willis Fleming family was very influential in the county. South Stoneham House with surrounding land
was put up for sale in 1878 and was eventually acquired by Southampton
University College (predecessor institution to the University of Southampton)
in 1920, following the move to its new Highfield campus the previous year. The house was then used for student
accommodation, being located about a mile from Highfield. North Stoneham House was demolished during
the 1920s.
South Stoneham House.
In 1825, Peter Searle, who had no sons, conveyed the Manor of Chilworth to John Willis Flemming, the transfer taking place on Searle’s death, which happened two years later, subject to the payment of a jointure of £600 to one of his relatives. Thus the manorial lands of Chilworth were added to the Willis-Fleming holdings.
The Chilworth Estate
Although
today there is a substantial house on the Chilworth Estate, maps from the 16th
and 17th centuries do not show the presence of a significant
residence. The first evidence for a
major dwelling, with an adjacent garden, comes from an estate map of 1755 in
the time of ownership by the Searle family.
It is located in the same place as the present Chilworth Manor. After the acquisition of the Chilworth estate
by the Willis Flemings the Chilworth estate was let out. A conveyance, dated 1863, of 35.5 acres,
including the house and other buildings, indicates that in the mid-19th
century there had been considerable development of the surrounding land and
gardens for both pleasure and horticulture.
The village of Chilworth was very small at that time. It lay to the north of Chilworth House. The oldest surviving buildings in the village
are the 16th century Manor Farm house and Chilworth Manor
cottage. In 1989, Chilworth village was
designated as a conservation area.
Ordnance Survey 6’’ map of 1867.
The original
route from Romsey to Southampton (red route) passed through and along the Roman
road to Bittern. Sometime before 1867,
John Browne Willis Fleming realigned the road (dark blue) so that it passed to
the north of Chilworth village, the church, the Clump (hill) and the Chilworth
Manor entrance lodges (today popularly known as the “Beehives”). Partly as a result, the carriage drive to
Chilworth House no longer ended at the “Beehives” but needed a new extension
(pale green) to reach the Romsey – Southampton road. A later lessening of the bend on the A27 at
the Clump took that road even further away from the Beehives. Manor road (pale blue) led directly to the
Chilworth House stables and coach house.
In 1956 the Beehives were entered on the list of buildings of Special
Architectural interest. At that time
they were occupied by the estate carpenter and his family. It is claimed the Beehives date back to the Tudor
period (1485 – 1603), probably at the time of first construction of the
significant dwelling on the site of the present Chilworth Manor. The land released on the south side of the
A27 near the Clump by the lessening of the bend in the A27 was conveyed to Unity
Heating Ltd., a later owner of Chilworth Manor, by Hampshire County Council in
1961 for a consideration of £227.
The Beehives.
The present
Chilworth Manor building (called “Chilworth House” until about 1900) dates from
about 1870 when John Browne Willis Fleming took up residence with his wife
Ida. The 1867 OS map shows the position
and floor plan of the original Chilworth House.
It also shows the brickfield and kilns where the yellow bricks used to
construct the new Chilworth House were probably manufactured. From personal experience during conservation
work, I know there are still substantial beds of yellow clay in the land
surrounding the Manor.
John Brown Willis Fleming had been born at Chilworth House in 1815 and he died there in 1872, though his widow, Ida, remarried, to Robert Cecil Sayers, and remained in occupation until 1890. The house was then closed up until JBWF’s son John Edward Arthur Willis Fleming came of age in November 1872, when there were extensive celebrations. JEAWF occupied the house the following year. This period around the turn of the 19th century saw a number of changes and extensions to the house implemented, including a new wing. The following dates are etched in the brickwork of the west front, 1890, 1894, and 1900, presumably commemorating different phases of extension. Further changes were made in 1903 – 1904. The present manor house appears to have incorporated a substantial vaulted undercroft at its northern end from the original building, which may be Elizabethan in origin. Some idea of the extent of the changes made can be gleaned from a comparison of the floor plan of the house and its surrounding buildings in the OS 25’’ maps for 1895 and 1908. Perhaps as a result of this piecemeal addition of small extensions, the final result was described by Nikolaus Pevsner, the architectural historian, as a "crummy building". John Edward Arthur Willis Fleming also undertook various landscaping works which persist today. He planted a double avenue of lime trees running south across a meadow adjacent to the house. Its purpose is obscure since it does not seem to have enclosed a drive approaching the residence.
After 1913 and again following WW2, substantial parts of the Chilworth estate were sold off piecemeal. In 1924, Chilworth Manor and estate was offered for sale, freehold, by auction but appear not to have been acquired. The description of the house and estate was interesting. “This fine estate about 5 miles from Southampton, 10 from Winchester and 4 from Romsey. In one of the most beautiful parts of the county, the house standing about 300 ft above sea level on light soil, contains 25 bed and dressing rooms, 5 bathrooms, exceptional suite of 4 entertainment rooms opening from galleried hall, billiard room, etc. Conveniently planned with every modern requirement and in first class order, ready for immediate occupation. The gardens are of a charmingly diversified character. The Home Farm which is let upon the Michaelmas tenancy, has ample and convenient buildings. The property comprises mostly pasture with a sufficiency of arable land for the farm, also maturing woodlands, in all about 648 acres. Freehold. With vacant possession of mansion, gardens etc”.
Chilworth Manor after the 1905 rebuild seen from the west.
After the
failure to dispose of Chilworth Manor, John Edward Arthur Willis-Fleming and
his wife continued in occupation, frequently permitting use of the house and
grounds for such activities as balls, whist drives, scout and guide camps, hunt
meets, occasional wedding receptions and the local celebrations associated with
the jubilee of George V in 1935. The
Willis Flemings also opened their gardens for public inspection as part of the
National Garden Scheme
Longsters
Nurseries worked part of the land between 1927 and 1939. John Edward Arthur Willis Fleming lived at
Chilworth Manor until at least 1940.
Subsequently, the house and lands of the manor were requisitioned for
war use. There was a gun emplacement
located in the rockery and the remains of practice trench systems were later
found in the garden west of the house.
The estate accommodated about 10,000 troops, mostly American, in the
period prior to D-Day in June 1944.
General Eisenhower, supreme commander of Allied forces in the Normandy
invasion, is reputed to have stayed at Chilworth Manor on occasion and a room
there was subsequently named in his honour.
When the Americans left the site they excavated a deep hole in the
grounds with explosives, west of the Deer Ring and dumped much surplus material
there before covering it over with soil.
John Malcolm Young and Unity Heating
Ltd
A major sale
of Chilworth land, about 96.5 acres, including the manor, took place in August
1946 to Mr John Malcolm Young an electrical engineer and entrepreneur. John Young, popularly known as “Jock”, was
born at Bangor, North Wales in 1898. He
formed a company, Unity Heating Ltd, in 1922.
It was initially located in Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire and
manufactured various kinds of domestic electrical heaters. The company later described itself as
“Pioneers in electrical space heating “.
Jock Young married a Belgian lady, Cornelia, who was described as a
bookkeeper in 1939. After the purchase
of Chilworth Manor, the Youngs took up residence in the house and the company
offices and staff quarters were located in the east wing. The Youngs were keen gardeners, Mrs Young
being especially fond of roses.
Vegetables were grown in the walled garden. Mr and Mrs Young also tended the orchard but
it is unclear if they planted it. The
Youngs also kept bees. A single story
factory was constructed between the double rows of trees at the northern end of
the avenue of limes. It appears that
Chilworth became the main, or even sole, location for Unity Heating’s
operations. The new building was
industrial in appearance with concrete beams holding up the roof of corrugated
asbestos cement sheets, and red brick infill of the walls between the concrete
columns. Jock Young died at Chilworth in
1954 and it is believed that his ashes were scattered in the Deer Ring. He was wealthy, his moveable estate at death
amounting to over £55,000 (> £1.277 million in 2024 money). After Jock Young’s demise, manufacture of
electrical heaters continued at Chilworth until at least 1960.
Hartley University College
Hartley
University College, the forerunner of the University of Southampton, was
incorporated on 23 November 1902 and a campaign was then initiated to create a
university for Wessex. However, there
was only limited room for expansion at the college’s site in central
Southampton, so land was acquired before the outbreak of WW1 for the
institution to move to a new site in the suburb of Highfield. In 1914 a new name was bestowed on the
institution, The University College of Southampton, but the functional move to
Highfield was delayed by five years until 1919, after the ending of
hostilities. During WW1, the new
buildings which had been constructed at Highfield were pressed into use as a
hospital to treat the war wounded.
Chilworth Parish becomes an upmarket
residential area
In the 1930s, the Willis Flemings initiated the growth of, what I will call, “New Chilworth” by leasing plots for the construction of houses, principally on the north side of the A27 between Chilworth and Southampton. The sites were created by making clearings in the wooded land and led to the building of substantial houses on large plots. This was the start of New Chilworth becoming a desirable, upmarket area in which many of the wealthier residents of Southampton would aspire to live.
Modern satellite image showing the
extent of New Chilworth. Marker
identities. Pale green – Kennels
Farm. Pale blue – Benham Campus. Dark green – Chilworth Manor. Yellow – New Engineering building. Black – Science Park Phase 1. Mid-grey – Science Park Phase 2. Pale grey – Sky Uplink Station. Red – Chilworth Village. Magenta (x4) – New Chilworth. The area enclosed by the various parts of
Chilworth is Chilworth Common.
The expansion of Higher Education following the Robins Report
Harold
Macmillan led the Conservative Government in power between 1957 and 1963. One of the actions of this government was to
set up a committee, under the chairmanship of Lionel Robbins to look into the
future of Higher Education. Robbins was
a noted free-market economist at the London School of Economics and his
committee sat between 1961 and 1963 when it published its report. In 1963 – 1964, only 3.8% of the British
population attended university. Robbins
recommended that there should be an immediate expansion of the intake to higher
education and that the colleges of advanced technology should be upgraded to
university status. He enunciated a
principle, later called after him, that university places “should be available
to all who were qualified for them by ability and attainment”.
The University of Southampton comes
into existence
The
University College of Southampton achieved full university, ie degree-awarding,
status in 1952 and was renamed The University of Southampton. It had emerged from what was essentially a
technical college background. The
institutional authorities clearly saw the opportunities that evolving
government policy offered in the post-WW2 period. They planned to increase the number of
students at Southampton to 4,000 by 1967.
In the academic year 1963 – 1964, seven new professorial appointments
were made and about 50 new members of academic staff were recruited over many
disciplines. The following year saw this
trend accelerate with a further 135 new academic appointments. Kenneth Mather, previously Professor of
Genetics at Birmingham University, became vice-chancellor at Southampton in
1965 and played a significant role in this expansion, especially with regard to
the establishment of a medical school.
South
Stoneham House was put up for sale by the Willis Flemings in 1878. Eventually it was acquired by the University
College of Southampton in 1920. It was
used for student accommodation until 2005 but then, due to its unsuitability,
it was boarded up. There was substantial
building of halls of residence on the site during the 1960s including a
striking tower block (now demolished) designed, like many of the 1960s
university buildings, by the prominent architect, Sir Basil Spence. The house has since been refurbished and is
now part of the Wessex Lane Halls Residential Campus.
South Stoneham House, with (now
demolished) tower block. I personally
regret the demolition of the South Stoneham tower block, an elegant and finely
featured concrete structure, as can be seen from the above photograph, in an age
which bequeathed many dreary, utilitarian buildings.
As early as
1944, the University College of Southampton produced a plan for a major
expansion of the institution and in 1946 – 1947 it was granted substantial
funds by the Government to buy the Glen Eyre estate in Basset, less than a mile
north of the Highfield campus. This
consisted of Glen Eyre House, built in 1861, and 18 acres of land. The house was demolished in 1948 and the site
then developed progressively for student accommodation. In 1955 Glen Eyre accommodated 150 men. Today (2026) it accommodates about 2000
students of both sexes.
Modern satellite image of the greater
Southampton area. Marker
identities. Green – Southampton
Oceanography Centre. Orange –
Southampton Common. Red – Highfield
Campus. Yellow – M3 motorway. Magenta – M27 motorway. Blue – Science Park at Chilworth.
The main
University of Southampton campus at Highfield was, and is, hemmed in by
domestic housing and so the university’s interest from 1920 was constantly
focussed on other sites available in the area, where expansion might take
place, particularly for student accommodation, hence the acquisition of the
South Stoneham and Glen Eyre estates. A
further site which attracted the university’s attention was Chilworth Manor and
its substantial estate, which appears to have been on the market in the early
1960s after the death of Jock Young. In
August 1964 the university acquired the freehold to Chilworth Manor and about
96.5 acres of land from Unity Heating Ltd for a consideration of £80,000, part
of which was provided by the University Grants Committee (UGC). Planning permission was obtained for the
house to be used as student accommodation, and the grounds for other university
purposes. Sixty first year students were
lodged in the manor house from October 1964.
Derek Schofield, a new recruit to the administrative staff, later to
become the University Secretary and Registrar, and his wife, Maureen, were put
in charge of the house and its student residents. They only had two or three months to make
preparations for the initial student entry, but they coped.
Highfield Campus in 1970.
After the acquisition of Chilworth Manor in 1964, the university clearly had the intention of developing the site in a similar way to South Stoneham and Glen Eyre. Plans were produced by the university’s Buildings Department showing how a substantial number of units of residential accommodation might be laid out across the meadow to the south of the Manor House and planning permission was obtained for 1420 residential places. A scheme, dated 1973, exists showing an indicative layout of residences across the site. However, the Chilworth estate, in contrast to South Stoneham and Glen Eyre, was situated about four miles distant from Highfield in a locality lacking sporting and social amenities and without, at the time, a public bus service. The location was unpopular with the students, the use of Chilworth Manor as a hall of residence ceased in 1978 and the plans to build student accommodation at Chilworth were eventually abandoned.
Chilworth Halls of residence plan January 1973.
The Unity
Heating factory building was taken over by the university’s Engineering Faculty
at least as early as 1973 and this use coexisted alongside the employment of the
Chilworth Manor house as a hall of residence until 1978. However, after the abandonment of the plan
for student residences at Chilworth, the university had to decide whether to
retain the Chilworth Estate and find alternative uses for it, or to dispose of
this substantial property. Before clear
plans had been laid, there continued to be casual use made of the house and its
substantial and attractive gardens. For
some years after acquiring Chilworth Manor, the annual University of
Southampton graduation tea party was held on the lawns in front of the
house. Also, about June each year, at
least between 1968 and 1977, when the rhododendrons and azaleas were in flower,
the gardens on the west side of the manor were opened to the public to raise
funds, through entry and the sale of cream teas, for charitable causes. There may also have been some continuing use
of the Manor House for accommodation.
Even as late as 1981 Keith Morgan, a member of staff in the Department
of Electrical Engineering was occupying the Warden’s Flat and was described as
“Warden”.
The science park concept
Present day
science parks do not constitute a homogeneous population. They vary in many characteristics, such as
size and technological specialisation.
Nor do they all incorporate the phrase “science park” in the name. Other terms frequently employed include
“university research park”,”technology park” and “technopole”. However, there are fundamental themes which
run though perhaps not all, but, at least, most such organisations. The following definition, taken from the Wikipedia
article “Science Park”, seems to me to be the most apposite. A science park is
described there as being “a property-based development that accommodates and
fosters the growth of tenant firms and that are affiliated with a university
(or government and private research bodies) based on proximity, ownership,
and/or governance. This is so that
knowledge can be shared, innovation promoted, technology
transferred, and
research outcomes progressed to viable commercial products”.
The first
science park is generally reckoned to have been Stanford Research Park, located
in Palo Alto, California, which was created in 1951. It was the brain-child of the Stanford
provost and dean of engineering, Frederick Terman as a means of earning money
for the institution at a time when it was rich in land assets but short of
cash. It was initially called Stanford
Industrial Park but this title was later changed to Stanford Research
Park. Two of the students who were
taught by Frederick Terman at Stanford University were Bill Hewlett and Dave
Packard, both of whom graduated in electrical engineering in 1935. Four years later, the pair started producing
electronic testing equipment together in a small, rented garage in Palo Alto. The Hewlett-Packard Company grew
progressively during WW2, was incorporated in 1947 and by 1956 it had
established its world-wide headquarters at Stanford Research Park, becoming
perhaps the park’s most famous resident company in the early days. Stanford University and the Stanford Research
Park were important catalysts in the development of “Silicon Valley”.
The science
park movement made its entry to the United Kingdom in 1970 with the stated
intention of the University of Cambridge to establishment a science park on
derelict land belonging to Trinity College on the north-eastern edge of the
city. It represented the university’s
response to a policy initiative by the newly-elected Labour Government of
Harold Wilson in 1964, which urged universities to get closer to industry in
order to transfer new technology, arising from academic research, to industrial
production. Outline planning permission
was granted in 1971 and the first tenant, Laser-Scan, moved onto the park in
autumn 1973. Although the growth of the
park was slow over the first five years, by the end of the 1970s it had 25
resident companies. However, during the
following decades, it became very successful and its accomplishments stimulated
similar developments throughout Europe and elsewhere in the UK, including at
the University of Southampton.
In the late
1970s and especially after the effective, if not formal, abandonment of the
Chilworth estate as a location for student residences, the University of
Southampton also had a redundant land problem. If the Manor and its estate were
not to be used for student accommodation, what should be done with them? Laurence “Jim” Gower, a commercial lawyer by
training, was vice-chancellor between 1971 and 1979. He was succeeded by historian John Roberts,
who served until 1985. Roberts admitted
in 1980, following the accession of the first Margaret Thatcher Conservative
government in 1979 and its scaling back of funding for higher education that,
in any case, there was no money to build student residences at Chilworth or,
indeed, anywhere in the Southampton area.
Professor Graham Hills proposes the
development of a science park at Chilworth
The
originator of the idea and the moving force behind the creation of a science
park at Southampton was Graham (later Sir Graham) Hills, who had been appointed
to the Chair of Physical Chemistry at the University of Southampton in
1962. He is particularly remembered as
an inspiring academic leader. At about
the same time that he publicised his scheme to create a science park at
Chilworth in 1979, he was also appointed as principal and vice-chancellor at
Strathclyde University in Glasgow, where he served between 1980 and 1991. Following his retirement, he then proposed
the concept of a higher education institution to serve the Highlands and
Islands of Scotland by creating a federation of 13 further education colleges
located across the region. Within a
decade his idea had become a reality and after a further decade of development
the body gained the title of University for the Highlands and Islands (UHI).
About the
beginning of April 1979, there was a discussion over dinner between senior
members of the University of Southampton, including Professor Hills and the
vice-chancellor, Jim Gower, and senior members of Southampton City Council,
including David Scouller, the chief executive.
The purpose of the meeting appears to have been a free-ranging exchange
of views concerning matters of mutual interest, one of which was economic
development. Apparently, one topic
broached by Graham Hills was the possible construction of a science park in
Southampton which would serve the interests of both the university and the
city. David Scouller seems to have been
seized by the science park idea, which was not surprising since the City of
Southampton was still in the throes of redevelopment after being heavily bombed
during WW2, when 5,000 buildings were destroyed and a further 11,000 badly
damaged. In addition to the construction
of major housing projects, there were also attempts to diversity the city’s
economy and make it less dependent upon the docks.
David
Scouller wrote to Professor Gower on the topic and his letter was passed on to
Graham Hills. I have not uncovered David
Scouller’s letter but I have seen Graham Hills’ response, dated 18 April 1979,
to the Southampton City Council chief executive. Professor Hills gave a succinct account of
his thinking on the topic, as the following extracts show.
“I
am at last able to collect my thoughts relating to Science Parks and they are
as follows. The case for Science Parks close to universities with avowed
interests in science and technology is more than adequately made in the
attached pamphlet describing the Cambridge Science Park. You will note from para. 2.1 how prevalent
and successful are such arrangements in the United States. Southampton University is more oriented
than most other universities in Southern England towards technology and is at
least as well placed as others to develop such a scheme. Indeed, we in Southampton should aim to go
further and seek to attract larger enterprises, as well as those embryonic
companies typifying 'Silicon Valley’”.
“So
as not to go on at length, I will now summarise what I believe Southampton
should do. The proposals are in ascending
order of importance.
1. The University should seek to enlarge its own
areas of contact with industry. This it
can do domestically by seeking to become the Southern Centre for advanced
training programmes in technology, in medicine, in management and in other
areas of development. Southampton and
its environs are a considerable attraction and we could, rather easily in my
opinion, become a centre for a special type of residential course. As a consequence, we would become known to a
wide range of key personnel.
2. In cooperation with the City, the University
should develop a local Science Park. This
should not be too far from the campus because of its already available library,
its information networks (Infoline, Euronet, etc.), its computer (note the use of the singular!) and its
direct links to the Harwell and Rutherford computers and other facilities. The buildings need not be large and they
should be seen as stepping stones to larger premises in a nearby Technology
Park. Ideally we could and should develop some of the derelict space near the
University and, in fact, there is ample room.
I do not underestimate the anxieties occasioned by such developments but
I am confident that done 'in the open’, in good taste and manifestly
of benefit to the City and its work people, then the scheme would be seen as
worthwhile.
3. The City should set up a development council
for high level technology which would oversee the creation and development of
new industries in the Technology Park. I
would prefer to call it that from the outset rather than simply an industrial
or trading estate. Special attention
would need to be paid to special needs and the links between the industrial scientists
and their opposite numbers in the University and the College of Technology (now Solent University) would need to be
fostered. Eventually, Southampton would be recognised as a desirable place to
start new enterprises of this type because the conditions were right. Of course, these things cannot be achieved
overnight but with vision, foresight and energy they might be started soon”.
It is
interesting to note that Graham Hills was actually proposing three linked
initiatives, an Advanced Training institute in science, technology and
medicine, a Science Park principally for smaller companies, and a Technology
Park for larger companies which would also provide move-on accommodation for
growing science park tenants, the first two being primarily university projects
and the last primarily a Southampton City venture. Although it is incontrovertibly the case that
Graham Hills was the originator of the concept of a science park for
Southampton in 1979, I have seen references in UoS documents to the proposed
use of Chilworth Manor as a conference centre from as early as 1972, though the
author of the concept was not specified.
By the summer of 1979, Graham Hills had developed a preliminary
prospectus for a Southampton Science Park.
Meanwhile
David Scoullar had got the bit between his teeth and was pursuing a number of
ideas for developing the Southampton science and technology economy. He paid a visit to Aberdeen, which was
rapidly becoming the oil capital of Scotland following the discovery of
significant oil fields under the North Sea, on the anticipation that there
might be another oil boom based on explorations under the English Channel. Scoullar also contacted Sir Allan Cottrell,
vice chancellor of Cambridge University to seek his advice on the viability of
the Southampton Science Park idea.
Scoullar speculated that the council would then want to visit
Cambridge. However, further discussions
involving councillors uncovered the fact that they were reluctant to see a
science park developed within their city, due to a perceived shortage of
development land which they wanted to reserve for housing and mass employment uses.
Interestingly, they had noted how successful the IBM research laboratories at
Hursley House, a grand property surrounded by parkland a few miles north of
Southampton, had been and suggested that the university should consider
developing their science park idea at Chilworth Manor, which enjoyed a similar
setting to the Hursley property.
When he wrote
to David Scoullar on 18 April 1979, Graham Hills attached a leaflet advertising
Cambridge Science Park. Clearly, it was
this leaflet which had stimulated his thinking about establishing a science
park in association with Southampton University. The person who had passed on the leaflet to
Hills was Professor Alec Gambling the head of the Optical Fibre Group and one
of the most prominent technologists on the staff of the university. (see “The life of Professor William Alexander
Gambling (1926 – 2021) – Optoelectronics pioneer” on this blog site). Alec had recently visited Cambridge and must
have been impressed by the science park concept. This appears to have been “the beat of the
butterfly’s wing” which was subsequently amplified to generate the full-blown
commercial development at Chilworth that we see today.
“A
science park is an area providing sites and facilities for science-based
research units. They have prospered
notably in the United States of America and France and have made their
appearance in this country. They do not
provide homes for manufacturing or commercial processes except on the very
small scale associated with what may be loosely termed research and
development. Such parks can therefore be
developed with care for their attractive appearance and have good amenities in
terms of low building densities and such ancillary developments as restaurants,
car parking and even recreation units. Their
physical attractiveness is one reason why science parks draw as tenants
research and development departments of large industrial concerns for they
provide pleasant working environments for the high-grade personnel such
business requires. Moreover, these parks
can be sited away from existing industrial areas and in places which offer
other inducements to staff; good countryside,
access to a town with an active musical or theatrical life, the opportunity for sport, good schools -
many other similar attractions could be listed. Companies taking sites in such
parks have felt, too, that the growth of a community of highly-qualified
personnel is beneficial to their own employees because of its stimulating
effect. The critical mass required for
this effect can be quite small and can be generated by even a few units but the
potential is clearly greater as the size of the community of high-grade
personnel based on the park grows. Such parks have even greater potential if a
university or other institute of advanced learning is sited nearby. For any individual company, such an
association is doubly attractive: it can give access to minds - those of the
university staff - engaged on work relevant to that of their own employees (and
this happens both formally, through direct consultation, and indirectly,
through social contact), and it can give access to facilities (computer
networks, information services, libraries, technical skills). A science park with a university nearby must
be more attractive than one without this association whatever the other merits
of the site”.
“What
at present seems clear is that:
(a)
The aims of the university in getting into science park business would be - to generate an investment which would in
the end provide a good and growing income. -To draw scientific (and
possibly financial) benefits from association with the firms setting up
research units at the site. -To develop with profit at all levels the
association with individual firms which would result (e.g. by attracting
patronage, opening employment possibilities to our students).
(b)
The University’s contribution to a science park could take different forms: It
would have to include the granting of access to the University's facilities in
the widest sense, including the time of its personnel. This is the irreducible minimum constituting
the special attraction of a Science Park linked to a university over one which
is not; it could also include direct
investment of cash or this might take the form of a provision of a site. All of
these are worth something of a cash return, whatever other advantages arise for
the University”.
It is very
interesting that John Roberts should have seen the university’s involvement in
the promotion of a science park associated with the University of Southampton
as having such a strong financial investment aspect, whereas many of his senior
colleagues saw the main advantages being derived from the boost such a facility
might give to the promotion of applied research.
John Roberts
also speculated on the mechanism by which a science park might be developed and
suggested that it should be through a newly-established science park company in
which the university would be a significant, if not majority shareholder and
that other partners in development should be sought with financial or
development capabilities. But the
vice-chancellor also spotted an impediment to progress. Chilworth Manor and its estate had been
bought using UGC grant money and it was likely that, should a science park
development company purchase some of that land from the university, the money
received by the institution might have to be returned to the Treasury.
By early
1980, a document had been produced within the university entitled “A
preliminary prospectus for a Southampton science park”. I have not discovered the identity of the
author but it looks like the product of Graham Hills’ thinking and he was still
resident in the university at that time.
However, it is not a prospectus in the sense of a document indicating
how participation in the project could be purchased, more an evaluation of the
beneficial attributes of Southampton for hosting such a development. In summary, the favourable features proffered
were - the general attractiveness of South Hampshire for domestic, leisure and
cultural activities to well-remunerated employees, the transport links with London
and the Continent, the pre-eminence and success of Southampton University in
science and technology research and its existing strong links with
industry. Although close physical
proximity of the science park to the main campus was desirable, the crowded
nature of the Highfield site and pressure on space from academic developments
precluded such a location. However,
Chilworth Manor was available and represented a good alternative, being only a
short car journey distant from Highfield and having the additional advantage of
a superior physical environment.
By February
1980, the decision appears to have been taken, at least informally, to proceed
with the development of a science park on land at Chilworth Manor and Graham
Hills was delegated to approach Test Valley Borough Council, the planning
authority for the Chilworth site. Mr
Taylor, the then chief executive of the borough, responded to Graham Hills’
approach with a considerable measure of caution and sought much more detail on
what was being proposed though, at that stage, much that Hills might say in
response would be speculation based upon what had so far been developed at
Cambridge. Taylor was particularly
concerned about the rural nature of the site (were there other non-rural
alternative sites available around Southampton?), the types of activity that
might come to reside there (manufacturing would not be welcomed), the potential
for generating substantial increases in traffic, access to the site from the
A27 (Manor Road was narrow and accommodated some domestic dwellings), the existing
planning permission on the site for student housing (was the new idea an
additional or an alternative use?) and the nature of the buildings to be
erected (no prefabs). But he did not
reject the idea out of hand and suggested that the two of them might meet to
discuss matters further.
But Graham
Hills was soon to leave Southampton for a new position and it was almost time
for him to transfer responsibility for the Chilworth project to others within
the university, though in his remaining months of residence he maintained his
involvement with the scheme. He had
performed an outstanding role as originator and promoter of the twin concepts
of a science park and an institute of advanced studies on the Chilworth site. Sadly, today (2025) almost, or perhaps even,
no one within the University of Southampton has any inkling of this visionary
role played by Graham Hills and, perhaps unfairly, his name is not today
commemorated on any of the science park buildings, or in the names of
individual rooms within Chilworth Manor.
But perhaps this deficiency could only be perceived with the benefit of
hindsight and from the vantage point of almost 50 years of development. In 1980, just before Graham Hills’ departure
from Southampton, the Chilworth project was little more than a grand
aspiration.
In March
1980, Hills suggested an emollient reply to the cautious Mr Taylor of TVBC,
which attempted to allay his anxieties about this proposed major development in
the south-east, rural fringe of his bailiwick, which was populated largely by
Conservative-voting residents. These
articulate and influential constituents could cause trouble for the council if
their suspicions were inflamed. The
university should assure Taylor that they saw the science park proposal as an
alternative to student residences, it would only occupy a small part, about 10
acres, of the 95 acre site close to the motorway and the university already
knew of several potential tenants, the Manor House and its gardens would be
maintained in their present pleasing state, there was no interest in attracting
manufacturing to the site, but only research leading to model and prototype
construction, and the buildings would be solidly constructed, permanent and
attractive. Hills also suggested that
the best way to guarantee that such an approach would be maintained was for a
partnership to be created between the university and the council to oversee
development. Graham Hills conceded that
direct entry from the A27 was desirable, rather than access via Manor
Road. Alternative locations had been
explored but one overriding factor indicated that Chilworth would be the only
viable site, and that was the financial reality that the site was already in
the university’s ownership, in contrast to potential alternatives.
The University of Southampton’s
industrial relations policy
Although
Southampton was a relatively new university, only having received its charter
in 1952, it had already attained an admirable academic reputation, especially
in the applied sciences and engineering.
There is no doubt that from a national perspective the development of a
science park in association with the institution was highly desirable. Southampton already had an enviable level of
funding from industry and had pursued its own model of creating industrial
advisory units to bring it closer to the end users of its research and testing,
facilities and skills. By 1979, the
Wolfson Foundation, with which the university had close links, had funded the
establishment of seven so-called Wolfson Units, in Applied Electrostatics,
Electronics, Noise & Vibration Control, Electrochemical Science, Chemical Entomology,
Marine Craft and a Materials Advisory Service.
Other, similar, non-Wolfson units had also been created dealing with
Industrial Aerodynamics, Automotive Design and Gas Bearings.
One pre-eminent academic unit within the university was the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research (ISVR) which was founded in 1963 as a post-graduate research institute under the directorship of Professor Elfyn Richards, an aerodynamicist and former employee of the Vickers Armstrong Company, Weybridge. In 1980, one research group in ISVR, the Machinery Health Monitoring Group decided it was going to disengage from the university and set up as a private company limited by shares, under the name of Stewart Hughes Ltd, but its leaders wished to make this transition smoothly, so that the work it had underway would not be seriously interrupted. The change, which was supported by the university’s management, was planned to take place from 1 October 1980 and be completed by 1 March 1981. One member of its staff, Commander Ashmead, suggested to the university that this privatisation could be employed as the launch vehicle for the science park. Stewart Hughes Limited could move progressively from Highfield to Chilworth and, in effect, become the science park’s first tenant company.
Professor
John Large, a senior member of the ISVR, who would become its director on the
departure of Brian Clarkson to University College Swansea in 1981, wrote to the
institute’s members of staff in late September 1980 to inform them of the
pending changes which would occur on the incorporation of Stewart Hughes
Limited. It was proposed that Stewart
Hughes Ltd would be allowed six months to remain in their Highfield
accommodation while new premises were under construction at Chilworth. But six months was an impossibly brief period
in which to gain planning permission and construct any but a temporary
building, so the university banned the company from making such an application
immediately, since it would be likely to raise suspicions both with TVBC and
amongst the local Chilworth population about the university’s true intentions,
bearing in mind it had undertaken not to employ prefabricated buildings. The solution lighted upon was to apply for
planning permission to house companies, such as Stewart Hughes, for a limited
period, within Chilworth Manor until permanent science park buildings could be
built. Commander Ashmead immediately set
about lobbying TVBC on this proposed solution to the Stewart Hughes
accommodation problem and received a supportive response. This opened up the possibility of offering
further accommodation within the Manor to other companies as a low cost way of
getting the science park off the ground.
However, the extant planning permission for Chilworth Manor was for
student accommodation and this alternative use would require a further, successful
planning application for that change to take place. As with all aspects of planning, these
objectives could not be wrought either quickly or easily. Having been incorporated in October 1980, it
was May 1982 before Stewart Hughes’ proposed move from its accommodation at
Highfield to pre-temporary accommodation in the Unity Heating factory building
at Chilworth could be planned. The
Automotive Design Advisory Unit which was a significant occupier of the factory
building was an enthusiastic supporter of the science park concept and was
happy to provide space for Stewart Hughes, with the qualification that such an
accommodation should not be detrimental to its own future plans. The lease of part of the old factory building
by the university to Stewart Hughes Ltd extended from 1 July 1982 to 30 June
1984. The intention was that heavy laboratory work would be retained there but
light laboratory and office accommodation would be made available in Chilworth
Manor in due course. By December of
1982, Stewart Hughes Ltd was advertising its address as “Centre for Advanced
Technology, Chilworth”. Thus, it could
be argued that 1 July 1982 was the true date of inception of the science park
at Chilworth, rather than 1984 when the first new buildings on Phase 1 were
ready for occupation.
The struggles
to accommodate Stewart Hughes Ltd at Chilworth, which extended over a two-year
period, took place against the tortuous progression of the proposal to
construct new buildings at Chilworth to accommodate the science park. It was one thing to have an inspiring and
well-conceived idea for such a development, as Graham Hills had had, but very
much another to turn that dream into reality in the context of a university,
albeit one with a strong academic reputation.
A briefing
document of unknown, but senior, authorship and date of production, though
probably from 1980, has been uncovered listing the items on which internal
university approval would be needed, via the Joint Policy Committee, in order
to move on to the next stage of development of both the science park and the
centre for advanced studies (the name for the proposed training centre within
the manor kept evolving) ideas. They
were: the abandonment of student accommodation planning permissions and
submission of new applications covering the two new proposed uses; the
appointment of a small group of senior university managers to take the
proposals forward; consultation with the UGC; evaluation of alternatives for
the management of the site, whether by committee or via a company set up for
the purpose, either of which structures might have external
representation; approval for taking
external professional advice on financial, legal and planning matters; informal
approaches to potential tenants; evaluation of options for provision of
services to the site; evaluation of options for financing new buildings for the
science park and a new bedroom block for the Manor. It was a weighty agenda but the Joint Policy
Committee at its November meeting gave the desired support.
To be fair to
Derek Schofield, the head of Southampton’s Administration at the time, and
himself an archetypal university administrator, he recognised the defects
inherent in the university’s way of managing projects and taking decisions, as
the following extracts from a letter to a colleague; written in May 1982, show.
“I
was very unhappy to learn from you two days ago that Professor Clarkson did not
support the stand that I was making in relation to rates so far as letting
Chilworth Manor to Stewart Hughes Ltd is concerned. My concern arises not so much from the fact
that there was disagreement between a Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the Secretary
and Registrar but from the fact that it was not clearly understood that only
one person (you) would be involved in negotiations with the Company. I have already expressed my great anxiety
that Mr. Ashmead has been involved in discussions over the tenancy of Chilworth
Manor with you, with Professor Hutton, with Dr. Foyle and with Professor
Clarkson. It is no disrespect to Mr.
Ashmead to say that this bizarre arrangement gives him the opportunity of
playing off one person against another and one section of the University
against another”.
“I am
sorry to fuss but this is a splendid
example of why universities are totally unsuited to conduct affairs on a
business-like footing”.
The need for professional advice
About March
1981, the Secretary and Registrar sought the advice of his Buildings Officer,
Mr Halliwell, on which firms the university might turn to for professional
advice. What he got back was an exercise
in circumlocution, which failed to give him the simple, clear-cut and brief
advice that he sought. However, by some
obscure means, an architectural practice, Gutteridge, Woodford and Chambers
(GWC) was selected to draw up preliminary plans for the first stage of the
science park which would form part of the application to TVBC for planning
permission, and Halliwell was tasked with engaging them. Caution still reigned and GWC were informed
that the decision to contract with them was without prejudice to the decision
on who would finally design the science park buildings.
The same
month, Derek Schofield wrote to Brian Clarkson listing the immediate issues he
saw as needing to be aired in order to make progress. In addition to an architectural practice,
Derek suggested they might also need the help of a surveyor/estate agent to
manage the development, such as finding tenants and capital, and providing
management services, though he was unsure this was the right place to look for
such help. If Professor Clarkson
disagreed with using an estate agent, then where should they look for such
help? The issue of whether or not to
create a company, both for developing the project and for managing it on
completion, was still unresolved. And
still their dealings with the UGC had not been concluded. Further there loomed on the horizon the need
to plan for a propaganda meeting with the various local government bodies with
whom they had engaged. Derek Schofield,
who was feeling overwhelmed by these matters, realised that he was getting out
of his depth, but also worried that others in the university to whom he might
turn also could not cope adequately.
“Our
recent talk with the two people from Taylor Woodrow confirmed the view that we
must either get professionals to undertake the development or appoint someone
to manage it. Some of the issues raised
were of a complexity which I am sure cannot be dealt with by the University's
existing staff. No doubt we could learn
the ins and outs of a commercial development but I do not see how it can be
just tagged on to existing heavy responsibilities – whether to yours, mine or
anybody else’s. I fear we shall get
ourselves into difficulties unless we retain, one way or another, professional
experience to look after the development on the university’s behalf”.
The
responsibilities of delivering the project financed with borrowed money also
weighed heavily upon Derek Schofield.
“In
relation to the loan it is worth bearing in mind that the cost of the
infrastructure (roads electricity and gas supplies sewerage disposal and the
like) will exceed £1m. The cost of
refurbishing the Manor and building 50 bedrooms will account for about another
£1/2 m. Even if these guesses are
substantially out we are still talking of considerable sums and even at 7% we
will have to obtain over £100,000 pa just to pay interest charges. I am sure that this is by no means impossible
but it does require professionally and commercially orientated management”.
At this stage
it appeared that Derek Schofield was viewing the “Centre for Continuing
Education” (or with whatever other tag the project within the Manor might be
labelled) as the means by which capital might be borrowed, a profit generated
from the investment in new facilities and the site serviced for both Chilworth
ventures.
The Secretary
and Registrar commissioned GWC Architects to prepare the planning application
to TVBC “half way between an outline planning application and an application
for full planning permission” and gave the practice a detailed scope of the
work to be performed, which covered both Chilworth projects. The Buildings Officer followed up this
contact with details of his own concerning the science park.
“The
research and development units should be in a notional layout consisting of a
total of 14 single-storey buildings of varying sizes and shapes with a total
area of approximately 100,000 sq.ft. The part of the layout to the west of the
existing laboratories should be labelled "Stage I", and the part in
the field to the east of those laboratories "Stage II". 3. The design concept from the management point
of view is brick external load-bearing walls and low pitched roofs spanning 30
ft. from ridge to eaves, with hips and valleys to turn corners. This concept lends itself to a great variety
of building arrangements (six examples of which are given on the attached
sheet) which will provide suitable envelopes for the types of accommodation the
tenants are expected to require. It will
facilitate extension, will provide scope for the extra height which some tenants
might require for research rigs or proto-type production, without increasing
the scale of the development, and will lend itself to producing the kind of
interesting but disciplined layout which is likely to commend itself to the
Test Valley Borough Council”.
Mr Halliwell
gave further instructions concerning the access from the A27 and car parking.
“The
present access to the site from the A27 would not be acceptable to the Highway
Authority and a new access should be shown joining the A27 about 200m from The
Clump Inn on the Romsey side. Parking
space for approximately 500 cars should be shown evenly distributed throughout
the site, on the basis that an ultimate working population of about 420 is
envisaged and that some allowance for visitors must clearly be made. A thin screen of trees should be shown on the
southern and western flanks of Stage I”.
I have
puzzled over the two area designations, “Stage I” and “Stage II”. They clearly indicate the areas of the sheep
grazing to the west (Stage I) and east (Stage II) of the lime trees and
presumably also the intended sequence of development. The outturn, however, was the exact opposite
of this initial plan, which made sense from the point of view of raising
finance. Had the originally designated “Stage
I” been developed first it would have entailed incurring all, or most, of the
roads and services costs upfront, whereas the alternative allowed a significant
portion of those costs to be deferred.
The process
of seeking professional advice continued in July 1981 with a meeting between
representatives of Richard Ellis, the property consultants, Brian Clarkson and
Derek Schofield. It proved to be a
sobering experience for the UoS representatives when the cold realities of the
property and finance markets were poured over them like a bucket of icy
water. The characteristics of the
project as then envisaged were so negative that the property professionals had
not even bothered to prepare a written report.
It was simply unfundable because it would not make any return on the
investment required. Doubt was expressed
that any hotel chain would be prepared to put money into the Manor project and
no alternative source could be identified.
With regard to the science park, the high-minded aspirations about multiple
single storey quality buildings, low density and extensive landscaping, which
had been offered as inducements for support from the planning authority, again
added unfundable cost to the project.
Had the university thought of selling off part of the land for housing
as a means of raising funds? The low
development density with relatively small buildings greatly increased the costs
of roads and services. Could the project
be re-jigged to develop the area nearest to the entrance first with bigger
buildings for shared letting? The
Richard Ellis people did offer some useful advice on a possible way
forward. The university should consider
employing a “design and build” contractor, rather than employing their own
architect. Further, advice from a
quantity surveyor was an essential preliminary to recasting the project. Another suggestion was to submit a planning
application to TVBC for a residential development in conformity with the
existing outline planning permission, which would have the advantage of pressurising
the planning authority. One wonders how
this last piece of advice was perceived, being the kind of tactic which was
utterly foreign to collegiate university types.
However, Derek Schofield did later adopt this approach. In January 1982 he informed Mr Pybus of TVBC
that Proposed Residential Development (Application No. RSR 12091) would be kept
open “until we can satisfy ourselves that the alternative development of a
Research Park and Centre for Advanced Studies is both realistic and financially
viable”.
Subsequent to
the meeting with the university, Richard Ellis formalised its advice by letter,
indicating that the firm would be prepared to act on the university’s behalf in
the role of advising and arranging financing, and on the letting of accommodation,
but at a cost which probably shocked the university representatives - £400/day
for a partner and £275/day for a partner’s assistant. It must have dawned on the university’s
managers by this stage that, truly, they had wandered into an alien world.
The granting
of outline planning permission for the Chilworth Manor project in October 1981,
signalled to Derek Schofield, the Secretary and Registrar and the dogsbody who
had had to shoulder the bulk of the communications with the planning authority,
that it really was time to engage substantial professional help. In late November 1981 he wrote to Brian
Clarkson with his views and confessed his anxiety that they must move quickly
on this front, because he did not have confidence that the work could be
undertaken by university staff, a view he had previously expressed.
“The
Joint Policy Committee has now agreed that we should proceed to the next step
over the development of a Research Park and Centre for Advanced Studies. It also agreed that a firm of estate
developers/ surveyors should be retained to work up the proposal in all its
aspects - i.e. physical development, funding and management. As you know, we have been dealing on an arm’s
length basis with Richard Ellis and in a letter from the firm dated 5th
July 1981 (a copy of which was sent to you), it was suggested that initially at
least the firm's charges should be calculated on a time basis as
follows:-Partner £400 per day, Partner's assistant £275 per day plus VAT and
travelling expenses. May I please know
whether you wish the University to retain Richard Ellis on this basis and, if
so, whether you wish to obtain more precise authority for the University to
incur fees of this magnitude? Finance
Committee is the obvious body to provide that authority. I am, of course, worried by the size of the
fees but if the University is serious about the project then I am sure that we
will badly need the professional advice of an organisation such as Richard
Ellis. The University does not have the
staff with the necessary commercial background (and arguably, flair) to
undertake the task itself. To leave it
to existing University staff would be to run an undue risk of financial
disaster. Apart from any other
considerations, the members of the Administration who would need to be
concerned will just not have the time - let alone the expertise - which the
project deserves. Even in relation to the physical development of the site, it
is my view that we should ask Richard Ellis to take it on board - including
acting for us in relations with the Planning Authority. Physical development and viable funding are
intimately connected for a project such as this and it would be dangerous to
separate the two”.
At the
beginning of December 1981, Derek Schofield wrote to Mr Glover of Richard Ellis
offering him the commission to advise the university on many issues surrounding
the process of getting the Chilworth project off the ground. Firstly the university needed help in
negotiating planning conditions with TVBC.
Secondly, the university would look to Richard Ellis for advice on constructing
a development team of appropriately qualified professionals, though Derek
sought to lay down complicated procedures for making such appointments. Thirdly, the team, led by Richard Ellis,
would front all further dealings with TVBC.
Fourthly, advice was needed on securing interim use of Chilworth Manor
by companies intending to move to the science park when accommodation became
available there. It had also been
decided by the university that the science park would be developed first,
followed by the use of the Manor for training and conferences. Finally, perhaps worrying about the level of
costs involved, Derek required monthly billing and a limit of £10,000 for the
first phase of Richard Ellis’ work, followed by an evaluation of whether they
should continue in the role. Was Derek
worried that the university might get ripped off?
Perhaps Derek
believed that Richard Ellis would bite off his hand when the offer of a
commission was made. They did not and by
the end of December 1981, no reply had been received, causing Derek Schofield
to prompt them, displaying an air of anxiety bordering on irritation.
Finance – where will the money come
from?
Vice-Chancellor
Roberts had early identified a potential financial problem for the Chilworth
schemes, in that UGC money had been used to purchase the Chilworth site and any
sale of part or all of that land might require the return of the income to the
Treasury. John Roberts wrote to Sir
Edward Parkes, the UGC chairman, in July 1980 to inform him of the plans and to
seek his support. Roberts received a
positive response, as Parkes described the two initiatives for a Research Park
and a Centre for Continuing Education as “both very timely” and offering
further discussions once the plans had reached a more advanced stage. It would be necessary to gain formal
Government approval and he suggested talking to Reading University which had
recently proposed similar developments involving major commercial companies.
It was also
recognised by the management group within the university that central
government would need to know about the science park project and might provide
financial help, so Graham Hills, still resident in Southampton in October 1980,
wrote to Dr Ashworth in the Cabinet Office, enclosing a brochure on the
project, recounting the encouraging noises being made by various interested
parties and asking Ashworth to show the brochure to both to Prime Minister
Thatcher and her secretary of state for industry, Sir Keith Joseph, “stressing
that the proposed development is an important step towards the improvement of
the quality and speed of technological
developments in this country”.
Graham Hills then employed an unusual argument in his plea for funds to
support the project. “It is just that
time is pressing and if we are to make a significant impact in the 80s, before
the enthusiasts die, we should begin soon. Sorry to importune you so”.
(“Dr
Ashworth” was Professor John Ashworth, a biologist from Essex University on
secondment to the Cabinet Office as Chief Scientific Adviser (1976 –
1981). He is credited with having
alerted Margaret Thatcher to the dangers of man-made climate change).
Possibly on
the advice of Dr Ashworth, Graham Hills then wrote to another well-connected
figure in public life, Lord Solly Zuckerman though, by 1980, Zuckerman was 77
and largely retired. However, it may
have been his influence with the Wolfson Foundation, or with Sir Keith Joseph,
which had prompted the suggestion to approach him. After describing the twin Chilworth projects,
Graham Hills had written, “Do you think the Department of Industry or the
Wolfson Foundation would help us to get going? We would be quite prepared to
match any grant that the Wolfson Foundation might provide and perhaps you would
advise us once again if we should attempt a formal application”.
At this early
stage in the evolution of the Chilworth projects, it is interesting to note
that the senior managers at the university saw the sourcing of at least some of
the necessary finance in similar terms to an academic looking to funding bodies
to donate the wherewithal to undertake a research project. Who would give them money? The national government? A charitable foundation? A local authority? The European Economic Community (EEC)? Yet, borrowing
from a financial institution and paying back the capital cost, with interest,
over a number of years from the profitable operation of the two ventures was surely
going to be essential. The three main
items for which initial funds needed to be sought were - the access road works,
services and landscaping; the bedroom block at the Manor; the construction of
the buildings in the initial phase of the science park. No one was mentioning the word “profit” as an
objective of the project. Indeed, it was
probably not an early aim, provided that each component brought in enough cash
to wash its face. The thrust of the
university’s motivation for undertaking the project was revealed by its stated
intention to limit its market by restricting tenancy to companies wishing to
take advantage of the University expertise and facilities, though this
philosophy was at least partly driven by the use of UGC money, which was seen
to oblige the university to take this line.
Yet, financial institutions only lend money on a sound expectation that
profits will be made, otherwise how could making loans ever be justified?
In April
1981, the vice-chancellor, John Roberts, wrote to Basil de Ferranti who, at the
time, was a member, representing Hampshire West, and a vice-president of the
European Parliament, to invite him to the meeting being organised for 11 May
with the three local government authorities adjacent to Chilworth. Roberts had previously mentioned the
Chilworth projects to the MEP. Of
course, the principal purpose behind this invitation was that de Ferranti might
be able to open doors in Brussels which could dispense EEC financial support
for the project. In the following July,
de Ferranti wrote to Viscount Davignon,
a Belgian former diplomat and, at that time, a vice-president of the European
Commission. de Ferranti outlined the
capabilities and status of Southampton University and its intentions regarding
the two linked Chilworth projects.
Finally, he asked Davignon for his advice on how the science park
project could present itself so as to be attractive to potential funders. This was all warm, friendly stuff but
unlikely to lead to hard cash. At the
time there appeared to have been a lack of understanding that funding from
Europe was all policy-led and it was necessary to identify a programme within
whose specific objectives a project could be shoe-horned. It took Davingnon until October and the end
of the summer holidays to respond, as expected, with praise for the project but
little else beyond suggesting that Southampton contact Mr Cyril Silver of the
Directorate General for Science, Research and Development. A letter was quickly dispatched to Cyril
Silver describing the project and inviting him to visit Southampton when he was
next in the UK. He responded to the
vice-chancellor with more warm words but little prospect of a financial
contribution. Perhaps more
helpfully, Cyril Silver noted that Southampton was not a major participant in
EEC-funded research projects and that if he visited Southampton it might be
beneficial for him to talk to senior academics about the research programmes
available and the procedures for making application. Mr Silver duly visited Southapton and made a
presentation on European research programmes. Derek Schofield, wrote the
following, in discussing Silver’s visit with the V-C. “It was perfectly clear from Mr. Silver's
comments that half the battle in obtaining E.E.C. support for research
projects is to know what programmes are being launched in the immediate future”. He said that “this knowledge could easily be
obtained by informal contacts but that these contacts needed building up”. The generalised pursuit of European funding
for the Chilworth project persisted for a while through Gloria Hooper, MEP, who
knew John Large, and Madron Seligman, MEP for Sussex West but, apart from warm
sentiments, there was no significant outcome from these approaches.
Brian
Clarkson had maintained his liaison with the Department of industry, no doubt
hoping that some financial help would be forthcoming from that source but in
June 1981 he received the unwelcome, but probably not unexpected news, that the
DoI had no specific funds for such projects.
“As you know we are very
interested in these developments, though at the moment we have no special
provision for assistance other than the normal assistance for small firms and
so on”.
The Chilworth project proved not to be the sole example of a university
aspiring to build a science park and seeking to attract the support of
government (local or national) as a means of boosting economic regeneration at
that time. In January 1982, it was
announced that Aston University, a former College of Advanced Technology
situated in the centre of Birmingham had reached agreement with Birmingham City
Council and Lloyds Bank to establish a science park on land adjacent to the
university. The park was initially owned
by Birmingham Technology Ltd, whose shareholders were the bank, the university
and the city council. Aston University
provided management and consultancy services, while the other two shareholders
invested £1m each in the project. This
development must have given hope to UoS that local government in South
Hampshire would be equally forthcoming.
Brian Clarkson, about to leave for a new post in Swansea, wrote to David
Scouller at Southampton City Council pointing out what was happening in Aston
and also in Swansea where another science park development had been mooted, and
directly suggesting that SCC should follow suit and back the Chilworth project
with hard cash. Anyone observing the
behaviour of local government over the years will be aware that local
authorities are not good at innovation but once rival authorities have
successfully introduced a scheme or facility, many other, rival authorities
want a similar development too.
Clarkson’s suggestion to SCC was unlikely to be dismissed out of hand.
How will the Chilworth projects be
managed?
Following the
departure of Graham Hills in late 1980, his role was passed on to Professor
Brian Clarkson, the director of the ISVR, another outstanding scientist but
also one who was destined for a higher calling.
In late 1981 he departed to become the principal of the University
College of Wales, Swansea. During the
year that Brian Clarkson played a significant role in the Chilworth projects,
the steering group, consisting of the vice-chancellor, DV-Cs, Secretary and
Registrar and, sometimes, the Buildings Officer, met periodically to review
progress. One such meeting was held on
17 March 1981 at which Edwin Gifford, a member of the UoS Council, was
present. Presumably “Giff”, as he was
usually known, had been invited to the meeting to add his commercial
perspective to the discussion of the Chilworth projects. On the departure of Brian Clarkson for the
Principality of Wales, his role as director of the ISVR was passed to Professor
John Large. The staff of this institute
was involved in much applied research and a group of them had recently departed
to form Stewart Hughes Ltd. Another
group within the institute was also involved in the commercialisation of its
inventions and John Large was helping them move this process along, though he,
too, was feeling a deficiency in his own knowledge and experience. In late August 1981 he wrote to Derek Schofield
seeking his help.
“I
am sorry to bother you again but I wonder if it would be possible for Mr
Middleton and I to meet with the University Accountants in order to find out
from them first hand their information as to the pitfalls in setting up a
commercial enterprise. The reason for
the urgency is that I will be going to Prutec within the next few weeks with
Knowles Electronics where they plan to develop and market two devices. This affords a splendid opportunity to ask
Prutec to provide enough capital to help us set up an organisation for the
exploitation of devices developed within the Department giving us I hope some
capital in the first instance to acquire a building on the Science Park site,
but before going to Prutec it would be very useful if I could discuss with the
accountants the many questions that must arise in contemplating setting up such
an enterprise”.
Prutec Ltd
was established in 1980 with the following objectives, to undertake R&D, to
exploit commercially the results of R&D and to operate as an investment
company. John’s letter does indicate a
degree of naivety on his part concerning the commercialisation of
research. Derek Schofield took the
intent of John Large’s request to mean university auditors, not university
accountants and then
declined the request on the grounds that the auditors had already given a
negative view on the advisability of a company being set up to manage the
science park. He also warned John Large
that manufacturing would not be permitted at Chilworth.
Gaining planning permission for the
Chilworth projects
By mid-1980,
the twin ideas for the future use of the Chilworth Manor site had been broached
with Southampton City Council, though it had no formal role as a planning
authority extending beyond the city boundary.
It was still important to keep the city on side because of its influence
over the Highfield campus and other UoS sites within its bounds and its
potential role as a financial partner in the science park proposal. Over the following months, the support of the
city was amply confirmed, driven largely by its chief executive. Formal planning responsibilities lay with
Hampshire County Council (HCC) concerning access to the site from the A27 and
this authority was also the owner of Manor Road within the site and of Kennels
Farm, which was only accessible through the Chilworth Manor property. Test Valley Borough Council was responsible
for planning permission for buildings and infrastructure on or under the Manor
land and would be particularly sensitive to the representations of local
residents and their district councillor representatives. It was time to make further informal, and
then formal, approaches to all these local government structures and to win
their support for the university’s ideas, taking advice, accommodating
suggested modifications, and allaying anxieties.
In May 1980,
further high level diplomacy was initiated with an invitation to Keith
Robinson, chief executive of Hampshire County Council and his wife, to a
cocktail party where the Chilworth proposals could be floated past his
attention. The initiative had the
desired effect and Robinson subsequently described the ideas as
“exciting”. He also suggested convening
a meeting, involving both senior officers and relevant committee chairmen from
the three local authorities, SCC, HCC and TVBC.
He would ensure an appropriate level of representation from HCC. Such a meeting would encourage all three
authorities to lend their support to the ideas, indeed this support would be
essential if the proposals were to succeed.
Robinson also suggested the European Economic Community (EEC) as a
potential source of funding for the venture.
An approach
was made by the university to TVBC in October 1980. Although Vice-Chancellor Roberts was unable
to be present himself, he made clear to his colleagues who would be present
what he wished to see achieved by the meeting.
Fundamentally what he hoped to gain was a positive response to the
proposal to submit planning applications for change of use at the Chilworth
Manor site, though even if the response proved to be negative, he speculated
that the university would still wish to press ahead. In presenting their case he wanted his
colleagues to emphasise the limited nature of the proposal both in extent and
in the type of activity proposed, care for the environment and their
willingness to abandon existing residential planning permissions. His final point concerned a matter on which
they should not concede. “... I regard
it of the first importance that we do all we can to retain financial control,
for I hope that one day there will be a
real return on our investment in terms of cash as well as in terms of academic
advantage, public relations and prestige ...”. This view was consistent with his previous
sentiments concerning the proposed science park.
At the
meeting with TVBC, held on 10 October 1980, Graham Hills led the presentation
of the university case and urged the council not only to grant permission for
the proposal but also to consider becoming a financial partner in the
venture. Although there were various
grumbles and restrictions aired, especially by the members, the over-riding
message was one of approval and they “expressed their willingness to be
actively involved - including, possibly, a financial involvement”, The council was much happier with the
proposal for a science park and a conference centre than it had been with the
residential proposal, perhaps fearing that the prospect of more than a thousand
university students let loose in leafy Chilworth would potentially disrupt the
calm of this upper-middle-class, semi-rural idyll. They made clear to the university
representatives that the granting of planning permission for the two new
proposals would likely require the surrender of the residential
permission. Graham Hills was anxious
that foregoing the outline permission for student housing might leave the
university without any planning permission and the need for a new bedroom block
at the Manor was paramount. He was
assured that his worries were groundless. Finally, it was agreed that nothing
said at the meeting would be binding and that for the present the whole matter
would remain confidential though it was recognised that a public statement
would soon need to be made. By December
1980, Graham Hills had departed the Southampton scene and his liaison role with
TVBC seems to have been assumed by the Secretary and Registrar.
By the start
of 1981, the University had decided its intentions for the future of the Chilworth
Manor Estate. Various titles were
applied to the whole project but one of the most frequently used was “The
University of Southampton Centre for Advanced Study”, summarised in the
following terms. “The proposed development will provide
attractive accommodation for industrial firms or research institutes which may
wish to take advantage of the University's expertise and facilities by
establishing a project group or research/development group close to the
University. It will also provide
high-standard facilities and accommodation within the Manor House itself for
short courses and small conferences directed at professional people in
mid-career”.
The creation of a conference centre in the Manor House had been mooted as
early as 1972 (mentioned in a letter written by Keith Morgan) and over the
following decade the plan for its implementation progressively took shape. By 1981 the conversion requirements had been
decided and in February of that year, the University Council agreed that a
planning application could be submitted seeking formal approval for the two
Chilworth projects. The Manor House “has
impressive public rooms and a number of very large bedrooms which can easily be
converted into seminar rooms or small lecture rooms. Dining facilities for some 70 people already
exist and the proposed addition of a 50-bedroom block will create an attractive
residential centre for short courses lasting between two days and two weeks ...”. The proposed courses would cover many
subjects and various levels of instruction from advanced career-orientated
updating to lower level courses aimed at a general audience. But the intention was definitely not to
create an up-market hotel.
The second part of the Chilworth project was to develop accommodation for
science and technology companies of various sizes, or research institutes, principally using the 20 acre paddock
to the south of the Manor House. This
area had, to that date, generated an income of about £190/year on being let for
grazing sheep. Again, the university’s
desire, expectation, or even perceived obligation, was to restrict tenancy to
companies which wished to work with the university. There was no intention to create a general
business park, or even a technology park where a link to UoS was not
obligatory. As will be discovered in
what follows, in the case of both Chilworth projects, when these naive
intentions to restrict the kinds of business that the university would allow at
Chilworth collided with the hard realities of the marketplace, this principled
stance would, on several occasions, be softened in an attempt to boost business
at least to a level of commercial viability. Forty
five years later, it is particularly ironic that the economically viable
solution to the role of Chilworth Manor has proved to be – a 3* hotel and
conference centre divorced from Higher Education.
Mr Pybus,
TVBC’s chief planning officer wrote to Derek Schofield with some good news
following the October 1980 meeting between representatives of UoS and
TVBC. The borough’s Planning and
Development Committee had just passed the following resolution. “That a) Southampton University be encouraged
to submit, a formal planning application for the development of a Centre for
Advanced Studies and a Science Park at Chilworth Manor and b) That following
the submission of such an application, the officers be instructed to initiate
agreements or other appropriate action to cover the following matters:- i) control
by the Borough Council of the occupants and uses of the new buildings. ii)
revocation of the existing planning permission for students accommodation. iii)
the construction of the new road and access to the A27. iv) further safeguards
which might be necessary in respect of other land within the grounds of
Chilworth Manor but the application site”.
The Chilworth show was now truly on the road to delivery, though there
was one further formal obligation to be ticked off prior to this move. If the total floor area of the research and
development part of the project was expected to exceed 50,000 sq ft, possession
of an Industrial Development Certificate from the Department of Industry would
be necessary before a planning application could be considered. This certificate was eventually granted on 24
March 1981.
In May 1981,
the University, through the GWC architectural practice, submitted an
application to TVBC for outline planning permission covering the two Chilworth
projects. A decision was expected at the
end of July 1981 but to the dismay of the university, it was deferred, no
result could be anticipated until September and even that date was uncertain. Derek Schofield complained to Mr Pybus, the TVBC
Chief Planning Officer, but to no avail.
The highways authority (HCC) was still evaluating the proposal for a new
entrance to the site direct from the A27 concerning such matters as the
capacity of the road and lines of sight at the entrance, which was on a bend in
the road. There was general acceptance of the proposal for a study centre based
on the Manor but much concern about, and opposition to, the development of the
science park. A variety of other issues
had also been raised with TVBC, probably by local residents via the parish
council. As a result, Mr Pybus posed a
number of questions and issues for clarification to the university.
The outline
plan for built units of the science park raised the complaint that
architecturally they were out of character with a rural/residential area. Another objection was that alternative sites
were available in the vicinity. Had
other sites been considered? The head of
planning also asked if the university would agree to limit development on land
at Chilworth Manor not covered by the present planning application. Anxieties had also been expressed about the
types of R&D which might be carried out, such as those using radiation or
high energy electrical discharges. Other
worries concerned the potential storage of toxic materials.
In August
1981, during the absence of Mr Pybus, his deputy, Mr Bell wrote a letter of
apology to Derek Schofield, admitting that the consultation had taken too
long. He would be attending a meeting of
the Chilworth Parish Council on 13th curt. when he expected that
their objections would be formalised.
Bell’s estimate was that the university’s application would be
considered on 8 September but, as the application was contrary to policy and
had engendered public concern, it would then need to be referred to the
Planning and Development Committee on 23rd of the same month. I wore a wry smile as I read the documents
dealing with this planning delay and the excessive concern for the
evidence-free protests of Chilworth parishioners. In the summer of 1981 this kind of behaviour
was probably new to Derek Schofield but two decades later it would have become
routine for the science park’s managers.
Despite the
Chilworth Parish Council’s previous position that Manor Road could be used to
access the proposed science park, it now changed its collective mind to one of
opposition and support for a new entrance direct from the A27. HCC Highways Department, on the other hand
had come to the conclusion that Manor Road could, with modifications, be
used. But Mr Guttridge, the architect
retained by the university felt that the Parish Council’s new position would
prevail and the university should include a new access road in its plans. He also urged the university to consider
alternative sites, even though the university’s ownership of Chilworth Manor
made it imperative that the development should go there. In planning terms, an alternative site which
caused fewer disturbances and was not contrary to policy was desirable. For example, there was a redundant MoD site
at Marchwood which the New Forest District Council would have been delighted to
see developed as a science park.
There was now
some urgency to prepare the university’s case to present to the coming planning
meetings and in this regard the TVBC Planning Department offered some
interesting information. Cambridge
Science Park did not preclude industrial production and there was generally similar
latitude on American sites. However,
TVBC would still be seeking an agreement to restrict the kinds of activity
permitted at Chilworth, should permission be granted.
Derek
Schofield responded to the issues raised by Mr Bell of TVBC. Alternative sites had been evaluated but they
all suffered from one over-riding deficiency, ie that they were not in the
ownership of the university. If the
university was to maintain the Manor and its grounds in good condition, it was
essential that the present drain on university resources be reduced. With regard to future activities on the
science park, it was, of course, impossible to say what these might be or what
materials might be stored or employed there but the university was prepared to
accept restrictions provided they were not too onerous. Further, the university had already
undertaken to abandon the residential planning permission if permission for the
science park were to be granted.
At the 8
September 1981 meeting of the Planning sub-Committee, the application for
outline permission for the Chilworth project was considered and rejected on the
grounds that it was contrary to policy and was therefore to be passed on to the
Planning and Development Committee on 23 September for the definitive
determination, though it was possible that there could be a further deferral to
14 October pending receipt of further guidance on highways matters. Doubts had been raised about the viability of
the whole project, for example, would the university totally exclude manufacturing,
and Mr Pybus had concerns about what would happen if the project was partly
implemented and then failed? He advised
the university to provide further clarification on these points.
On the
question of alternative sites, the university had to go through the motions of
evaluating alternatives though it already knew that no viable alternative was
likely to be discovered. It engaged LS
Vail, a local property agency and the forerunner of Vail Williams, to report on
the MoD site at Marchwood which was on the market, freehold. The Buildings Officer also visited Marchwood
and his report was mixed, the site having both positive and negative features,
including the following observation.
“The site is very overgrown (mainly with the finest blackberry bushes I
have ever taken samples from) and its clearance would therefore be more
expensive than Chilworth”. But three
fundamental problems remained. The
university did not own the Marchwood site, it was 8.5 miles distant from
Highfield, compared to 3.5 miles for the Manor, and there was no equivalent on
the site to the Manor House.
Derek Schofield
wrote yet another soothing letter to the TVBC planners, in answer to the
concerns expressed in their last communication, though admitting that he was
giving his personal views and not relaying formal university policy. Finally, the university’s planning
application was determined on 14 October 1981, in favour of the applicant. Five days later Mr Pybus wrote to the
university with the good news but his missive had a substantial sting in its
tail. The decision to approve the
application was accompanied by a long list of conditions, including the need
for a legally-binding section 52 agreement.
None of these conditions would individually have been a surprise to the
university but collectively they were still onerous. The university had been so accommodating to
TVBC that it was in danger of ending up with a project which was so compromised
that its commercial viability was threatened.
Should a company limited by shares be
formed to manage the Chilworth projects?
During early
1981 the university was edging towards establishing a company limited by shares,
with a board of directors possessing relevant skills and experience and with a
mix of shareholders, in order to manage the project, though at that stage it
was envisaged that one company would deal with both projects, the Research Park
and the Centre for Advanced Studies.
Collectively, the two started to be referred to as The Chilworth Centre
with both pursuing a common objective of extending the collaboration between
the University and industry to the benefit of both. Initially the name proposed for this company
was “Chilworth Manor Ltd”, though when it was eventually incorporated, the name
chosen was “Chilworth Centre Ltd”.
However, the Secretary and Registrar was still in the process of taking
legal advice on the pros and cons of establishing a separate company to manage
the whole project, perhaps emphasising
the lack of commercial experience within the institution. Curiously, Hepherd Winstanley and Pugh, the
legal firm consulted by the university, while generally backing the formation
of a management company, still hedged its bets by suggesting that a small
management group from within the university, with appropriate authority, could
also carry out the task of implementation.
This “on the one hand – on the other hand” response from HWP confused
Derek Schofield who concluded that the law firm was pointing the university
away from the company formation route.
Derek was unconvinced that this was, indeed, the optimal solution, which
was not surprising considering his views on the commercial capabilities of
university personnel and his knowledge of what was happening in other higher
education institutions. A further reference of the issue to the university’s
auditors was therefore undertaken, but that did not lead to clarity either, it
being claimed that the only advantage of forming a company would be to escape
from the university’s committee structure.
This caused Derek Schofield and the finance officer to reverse their
previous opposition to the project being retained within the university
management architecture. However,
Derek’s frustration with the system that he administered had not gone
away. “I think that we are all agreed
that it is important that someone or some very small group should be empowered
to get on with things without continual reference to university committees”.
Generating publicity for the Chilworth
project
Up to May
1981, discussions and negotiations concerning the Chilworth projects had been
conducted, most of the time, both within and outwith the university, on a
confidential basis. However, that
quasi-secrecy could no longer be maintained after the publicity and
fact-finding meeting of 11 May 1981 with TVBC, HCC, SCC and Chilworth Parish
Council. The meeting, in general terms,
passed off well and endorsed the university’s objectives, though the Chilworth
Parish Council expressed some unexpected opinions. Their representatives were particularly
exercised about the proposal for a new entrance to the site from the A27 west
of the Clump pub. They felt that this
would produce an accident black spot and suggested that Manor Road be retained
as the main entrance to the site.
Following
that meeting with the local authority big wigs, it was planned to hold a
second, local meeting specifically for the benefit of the Chilworth parish
population. Internally within the
university, Derek Schofield also prepared a comprehensive article for
publication in “Viewpoint”, the university’s house news sheet. It was published in May 1981. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of
the university to explain to the public that what was being envisaged for
Chilworth was not a collection of factories, feedback relayed by Basil de
Ferranti indicated that some local Conservatives had got the idea that an
industrial park was being planned.
An article
appeared in the Southern Daily Echo of 13 January 1982 referring to the
university’s plans for Chilworth Manor and quoting a comment ascribed to the
HCC Planning Officer that Chilworth was but a “smaller satellite” of
developments elsewhere. Derek Schofield
sent a tetchy letter to the HCC Chief Executive, correcting the impression given
in the Echo article. Chilworth was not
linked to any other development and it was a science park not an industrial
estate. He hoped the HCC officer had
been mis-quoted. No matter how carefully
the university managed its public relations, false ideas could easily be spread
abroad in the print media.
By the end of
1981, news of the university’s intention to construct a science park was
becoming widely known and it attracted unsolicited expressions of interest in
taking space there, and of offers from companies to provide services of various
kinds such as construction or finance.
There was even a bid from one senior manager, recently made redundant,
to manage the park on the university’s behalf.
Derek Schofield, anxious not to lose the momentum created by these
approaches from potential science park tenants, wrote to Mr Pybus at TVBC in
January 1982 to tell him that the university was considering the temporary use
of Chilworth Manor to accommodate science-based companies until new units
became available on the science park itself.
Could Mr Pybus offer the university guidance on how temporary change of
use of the existing building might be achieved?
The following
month, Mr Bell, who had succeeded Mr Pybus as Chief Planning Officer at TVBC,
responded to Derek Schofield’s last missive on the temporary use of the Manor
for science-based companies. He could
support the housing of Stewart Hughes because of their particular circumstances
but he could not support a general concession until the conditions attached to
the planning permission for the science park had all been met and he even
presented this conservative position as a concession. One particular matter which he felt that
local residents would home in on would be the continued use of Manor Road to
gain access to the park. Another issue
to which he drew the university’s attention was the actual uses to be made by
individual tenants. If those uses were innocuous,
it would be easier to justify a concession but if the views of the Fire
Authority or the Health and Safety Executive were problematic, difficulties
might arise. Mr Bell assured the
university that he would do what he could to help but advised not making an
application until the details of tenant uses had been ascertained and safety
agencies consulted.
John Large succeeds Brian Clarkson as
the leader of the Chilworth project
About April
1982, Brian Clarkson finally left Southampton for his new position at
University College, Swansea. He had been
informally leading the Chilworth project for the previous two years. A replacement for Professor Clarkson was
needed and Derek Schofield landed on John Large. He had written to John towards the end of May
asking him to take over Brian Clarkson’s duties in relation to Chilworth. Interestingly, the vice-chancellor made the
same written request to John Large. “I
think it is of the greatest importance that we make arrangements in the light
of the departure of Brian Clarkson in so far as these affect the future of the
Chilworth project which he has been handling.
I would be most grateful if you would undertake to succeed him as my
representative in dealing with this matter until the University arrives at some
more formal framework”. Could it be that
the V-C and the Secretary and Registrar had agreed the invitation together but
got confused over whose task it was to make the formal approach? John Large was, of course, pleased to accept
this doubly-proffered appointment. John
Roberts, the vice-chancellor indicated that the informal committee (which may
have been called the Chilworth Centre Working Party) looking after the Chilworth
project was to continue until “a more formal framework” was arrived at.
JT Design Build enters the picture
It was in
March 1982 that this Bristol-based design and build construction company
entered the Chilworth story. It appears
that JT had made a speculative approach to the university, presumably prompted
by publicity surrounding the Chilworth project.
John Halliwell, the university’s Buildings Officer had been fingered by Derek
Schofield to brief him ahead of a pending meeting of the committee promoting
the Chilworth project. Halliwell contacted Roger Mortimer of JT with
a plea for an urgent response concerning the way in which a design and build
contract worked, the “various possible ways in which the proposed development
might be planned, funded and implemented, of which a design and build package
of the kind offered by your firm (i.e. JT
Design Build), is one”. Roger Mortimer responded on the short,
demanding timescale requested and promptly put his company in pole position to
land future work at Chilworth.
Chilworth Centre Ltd is established
By early
1983, plans had been laid to create a science park on the Chilworth Manor site,
principally using the paddock to the south of the Manor House. As an interim measure the now redundant manor
house, together with a limited amount of space in the Engineering building, had
been pressed into use to accommodate Stewart Hughes Ltd. This ISVR spin-out described themselves as
“Signal Processing and Machinery Engineers”. John Large had been recruited as the informal
lead person from the university at the end of May 1982 but no formal decision
had been taken on the question of management, the two alternatives being a
university committee with substantial powers or an independent company, limited
by shares, initially in the sole ownership of UoS. At about this time, this decision was finally
made to establish a limited company to undertake the development of the two
Chilworth projects.
In February
1983, the university had purchased an off-the-shelf company, Victorypush Ltd.,
to become the management vehicle for both the science park and the training
centre in the Manor. Its name was
changed to Chilworth Centre Ltd (CCL) in July of the same year The initial composition of the board of
directors of CCL was Kenneth Dibben, Edwin Gifford, John Large (Chairman) and
DS Hodgson. The role of this company was
to manage the development of Chilworth Manor and its surrounding land, including
the development of a science park.
Regrettably, no documentation has been uncovered showing how this
decision was taken in favour of the company formation route since, at an
earlier stage, the alternative model had been in the ascendancy.
The composition
of this first board of CCL was interesting.
John Large, the first chairman of the company was an engineer who
specialised in sound and vibration. He
had worked for the Boeing Aircraft Company before being appointed to a chair in
the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, later assuming its
directorship. Subsequently he was
involved in industrial liaison and the Chilworth project. In 1989, John Large formally became the University’s
Director of Industrial Affairs to which role he devoted 50% of his time. He
acted as the University link man to many local organisations such as
Southampton City Council, the Institute of Directors and the Southampton
Chamber of Commerce.
Kenneth
Dibben graduated from the University College of Southampton with a B. Comm.
(London) degree in 1952 and subsequently had a successful career in the City of
London, initially as a chartered accountant, then in merchant banking, and
finally as an independent financial adviser.
Before his involvement with the Chilworth project, he had fulfilled a
number of honorary roles in the University of Southampton, including the
prominent role of Treasurer.
Edwin Gifford
was an engineer, a naval architect and a successful local entrepreneur, having
founded Griffon Hovercraft Ltd in 1976.
This company became a leading manufacturer of small to medium-sized
vehicles of this type. Additionally,
Edwin Gifford had a long association with Southampton University, serving on
its Council for many years and being awarded an honorary D Sc, possibly for his
services to engineering. In retirement,
“Giff” devoted himself to the design and construction of reproduction ancient
boats, such as the Viking long ship found at Sutton Hoo. When I joined the board of Chilworth Centre
Ltd in 1995, “Giff” was still a member and I met him but never really got to
know the man. I now regret that omission
on my part.
Although no
information has been uncovered on the background of DS Hodgson, it is clear
that the initial board of CCL was well qualified to undertake the development
of the Chilworth projects. Mr Davis, a
UoS administrator, was appointed as company secretary and later joined the
board. Derek Schofield was keen to have
a senior member of his administration undertake this role, presumably to keep
him informed of developments at Chilworth.
It is
important to remember that in 1979, Graham Hills had proposed three separate
projects, an advanced training institute in science, technology and medicine, a
science park and a technology park, only the first two being for the action of
the university. In fact, the City of
Southampton never developed a technology park, though plenty of commercial business
parks, which could accommodate technology companies, sprang up, especially
adjacent to the junctions on the M27 motorway.
The two university projects based at Chilworth Manor underwent a degree
of evolution both in name and nature over the coming years. The project based within the Manor building
was variously referred to as a “Centre of Continuing Education” or a “Centre
for Advanced Studies”. The emerging
company accommodation was known as a “Science Park”, a “Technology Park”, or a
“Research Park” and the two projects collectively were known as the “Centre for
Advanced Technology, Chilworth”, or more simply as “Chilworth Research
Centre”. When a company was established
to manage and develop these two separate projects, the initial suggestion for a
name was “Chilworth Manor Ltd”, though that nomenclature was rapidly replaced
by “Chilworth Centre Ltd” (CCL).
In 1983, the
first three issued shares in the company were lodged with Ken Dibben, Edwin
Gifford and John Large, though held on behalf of UoS. It was also at this time that the university
established a legally-independent Development Trust and these three shares were
then transferred to its ownership.
In 1983, the
newly-established CCL, and especially its board of directors, faced a daunting
task. Although owned by the University
of Southampton, the company had no assets, just a remit from the university to
develop a science park on the university’s land at Chilworth and a centre for
advanced studies in the Manor. The
fundamental problems were that, in addition to not being the owner or lessee of
the site, it had not then accessed the money needed to install infrastructure,
particularly a road network across the site from the A27, or for the
construction of buildings suitable for letting to science-based companies, or for
the conversion of the Manor and the construction of a bedroom block to equip
the building to act as a conference centre.
However, there was evidence of demand for accommodation. In late 1983 enquiries were already being
received concerning space on the first phase of the science park
development.
In April
1983, Test Valley Borough Council granted outline planning permission to
Southampton University to create a science park and also a change of use and
the extension of the Chilworth Manor House to form a Centre for Advanced
Studies, under application TVS 3443/1.
All subsequent Chilworth Manor planning applications sailed under this
identifier, /2, /3, etc. This initial
planning approval required the submission of a reserved matters application
within three years and the permitted development was required to be initiated
within five years of the date of the initial approval.
The first
board meeting of CCL took place in October 1983, its immediate concerns being
with the establishment of a workable company structure with a group of advisers
and suppliers. John Large was appointed
as chairman, Tony Davis took on the role of company secretary, an account was
opened with the Lloyd’s Bank branch on University Road, Highfield and the
company’s financial year was established as 1 April – 31 March.
One curiosity
of the founding board of directors was that it had a nominated chairman (John
Large) but no designated chief executive.
Thus, there was no clear separation of operational matters (normally dealt
with, day-to-day, by a CEO) from strategic matters (normally dealt with by the
chairman and non-executive directors, principally at board meetings). The board appeared to handle either type of
business at board meetings. As a result,
there were often substantial numbers of attendees at such conclaves dealing
with operational issues. Initially, CCL had
no employees, the first such appointment being Mrs Shirley Smith, who dealt
with the company’s day to day accounting and secretarial tasks. Shirley joined CCL in December 1985. The higher level financial services,
including the preparation of annual accounts, were provided by Ken Dibben and
his company, for which they were paid a fee.
In the first
year of its operations, the board of CCL evaluated the different options it had
for developing the site, which varied in the degree of trade-off between
initial cost and long-term income. In
order, they were: selling plots freehold; long-leasing plots for an up-front
premium and an annual rent; financing construction from bank borrowing and its
own resources, and risk and profit sharing with institutional investors. These options were not mutually
exclusive. With regard to contracting
the construction of its own buildings, there were two separate alternatives,
instructing its own architect and then choosing a contractor by competitive
tendering, or letting a contract for design and build to one company. In the former case more control would be
maintained over the appearance and lay-out of a building, or buildings, whereas
the latter cedes decision-making to the contractor after the initial
specification has been decided, sometimes resulting in unimaginative building
designs, or utilitarian fit-out. Those
were the down-sides. The up-side was
that the design and build process is, or should be, cheaper and faster.
Phase I of the Science Park and access
to the Chilworth Manor Estate
All the
companies which had approached CCL expressing a wish to relocate to Chilworth
were keen to take a long lease to a plot and to take responsibility for the
construction of their own premises. This
was not an attractive proposition for CCL who wished to keep a tight control
over the design of buildings erected at Chilworth so, in October 1983, the
board took the decision to inform all the initial enquirers that CCL was not
prepared to consider proposals for anything other than leasing arrangements of
buildings to be constructed and owned by the company itself, at least until the
science park was well established.
By the middle
of 1984, agreement had been reached with the University for the purchase of the
22 acre sheep meadow at a price of £550,000, this sum to be sourced by taking a
loan from Lloyds Bank, secured against all the land and building assets on the
Chilworth site. In return the university
agreed to pay £300,000 (a limit imposed by the UGC) towards the cost of
installing roads and services on the site.
Much later the University insisted that all freeholds at Chilworth
should be transferred to the parent body in return for a long lease of the land
back to the science park. This transfer
was completed in 2002. Thus, this vital
component of the Chilworth operation, the access road and services, eventually
came into the effective ownership of CCL (CSPL as it had then become). Thus the science park eventually obtained
both the sheep meadow and the access road for a price of £550,000 in 1984
money. At that stage in the evolution of
CCL, Southampton law firm Hepherd, Winstanley and Pugh acted for both seller
and buyer. Property company, LS Vail,
was engaged as the letting agent for Phase I, a role that firm (or its
successor) would fulfil on the science park for the following
half-century. In March 1985, CCL
appointed solicitor Robin Tutty as its company secretary. Robin also served as the company’s legal
representative. He remained in this
position until his resignation in 1992 and his replacement by Parker Bullen
(Company Secretaries) Ltd.
By August
1984, the CCL Board had agreed to accept an offer from Bristol company JT Design
and Build Ltd (at some stage they dropped the “and” from their name) for the
overall design of Phase I. Roger
Mortimer of JT Design and Build had already established a good personal
standing with the university by providing advice, gratis, to the Estates Department.
This looked like a good choice as JT was, at the time, a successful and
expanding company, with a growing customer base. It later obtained much work in the Cambridge
area, including on the new Cambridge Science Park.
Although
initially it had seemed possible that access to the Chilworth Estate could
continue on its pre-existing routes, ie by the carriage drive between the
“Beehives” from the A27 and via Manor Road, it soon became clear that this
existing provision would not constitute a long term solution, if traffic to the
site increased significantly. One of
JT’s first tasks was to advise CCL on the provision of a new access road, to be
called University Parkway, subsuming the section of Manor Road within the
Chilworth Manor site. Roger Mortimer
organised the tendering process for the work, which was won by Hampshire County
Council’s Direct Labour Organisation.
Work started on 10 September 1984.
Roger estimated that it would take two months for this contract to
create a suitable access to the Phase I site for construction work to begin
there.
The freehold
of Manor Road within the Chilworth Manor Estate was owned by Hampshire County
Council. That authority was prepared to
transfer the freehold to the university in return for full access and no
responsibility for maintenance. However,
the university’s Estates Department refused to take on this obligation, leading
the cash-strapped CCL to think of seeking adoption as a way to avoid these
costs. By January 1985, the access road
from the A27 to phase 1 had been completed and was open. CCL then asked Hampshire County Council to
close Manor Road at the point where it entered the Chilworth Estate and this
was done by installing a robust, locked gate.
This access route was then retained as an emergency exit from the site.
John Large
suggested to the CCL board that the company should appoint a project manager to
oversee the construction of Phase I and he proffered the name of John
Stuart-Buttle. However, the preference
of the board was to appoint Mr Bradman, a recently retired member of the UoS
Administration. Perhaps Bradman turned
down the offer, since Stuart-Buttle’s services were secured for this
position. Stuart-Buttle’s
responsibilities included oversight of the laying of the Phase I access road,
to be called Venture Road, from its junction with University Parkway.
Ferring Pharmaceuticals comes to
Chilworth
By July 1984,
Ferring Pharmaceuticals Ltd had contacted LS Vail to inform the agent that in
principle it wished to purchase a 125 year ground lease to the 1¾ acre plot
designated to contain 1 Venture Road at a premium price of £275,000 (later
reduced to £265,000, with the building’s gross floor area reduced by 2,000 ft2
to 18,000ft2) and an annual rent of one peppercorn. This company, which had been founded in 1950
in Sweden, is presently (2025) a specialist pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Switzerland. The
Ferring intention for the Chilworth facility in 1984 was that it would be
concerned with the creation of new products for urological medicine. Ferring would be responsible for the design
of its facility and for gaining planning permission but involving close liaison
with JT to ensure architectural coherence between all the Phase I buildings and
no compromise to the development potential of the remaining land for Phase
I. The estimated build time was 10 – 12
months. The contractor eventually
employed on construction of the Ferring facility was Louis Thompson (Southern)
Ltd.
CCL had tried
to persuade Ferring to take a site adjacent to the Engineering building but
they refused, which was not surprising given the shambolic state of the
neighbouring facility, and held out for the first plot on Venture Road adjacent
to the north-east boundary. CCL gave
way, partly because the layout of the rest of this phase was being held up,
particularly a proposal to construct premises for the university spin-out, York
Technology Ltd. Ferring thus obtained a
long lease to its preferred site. An
application for planning permission for phase 1 had been submitted to Test
Valley Borough Council early in 1984 but a decision was deferred until a
viewing by councillors took place on 19 October. They had concerns about the height of no.1
Venture Road but those anxieties were dispelled by Ferring agreeing to recess
their building into the ground, as can be seen today by passers-by. Consent was granted in November 1984. Detailed planning permission for nos. 1,2 and
3 Venture Road was granted by TVBC in 1985.
Exchange of contracts with Ferring took place on 1 February 1985 with a
first payment of £132,500 (50% of the premium) transferred on that date.
The
relationship with Ferring was uneven, with a lingering dispute arising over the
disposal of water from the site and the passage of services through it. Ferring also made a fuss about the presence
of the major gas main at the back of their site, adjacent to Chilworth Drove,
though its existence had been known from the start of negotiations and its
track indicated on all plans. As a component
of the deal worked out to settle these matters, an offer by Ferring to buy out
the freehold of their site for a further payment of £20,000 was accepted. John Stuart-Buttle admitted that this price
was at the bottom end of what CCL considered a bearable sum. The conveyance was dated 13 October 1987 with
the boundary between plot 1 and plot 2, Venture Road now being agreed to pass
through the middle of the balancing pond adjacent to the external boundary. The deal illustrated the extreme need for cash
which CCL suffered at the time. This was
an action which was contrary to the CCL Board’s management philosophy and it
was a decision which it would later regret.
The completion of Phase I
This
agreement with Ferring then allowed the planning of the rest of Phase I to be
completed and construction to start on the other two buildings constituting
this initial science park phase. Nominal starts on Nos. 2 and 3 were made in
March 1985. In addition to the
negotiations taking place with Ferring Pharmaceuticals, other discussions were
underway with a variety of companies for access to buildings on plots 2 and 3,
Venture Road. York VSOP (Ventures and
Special Optical Products) Ltd was a spin-out from the Optoelectronics Research
Centre at Southampton University and it was negotiating for the construction of
a “York Technology Building” to be located on plot 2. However, York VSOP Ltd was seeking a subsidy
on rent extending for five years, which was more than a bit “toppy”. York VSOP Ltd was given an ultimatum to
accept present terms, with CCL’s fallback position being to adapt no.2 Venture
Road for multi-occupancy. York declined
the terms and, from that point, 2 Venture Road was most likely to become a
multi-occupancy building. Discussions
were also underway with two further companies, KCB Process Automation and
Appleton Ultrasound for access to plot 3, Venture Road.
However, as
has already been noted, the financial position of CCL at this preliminary stage
of the science park’s development was precarious. In addition to the bank loan obtained from
Lloyds Bank, CCL sought the financial involvement of both Test Valley Borough
Council and Southampton City Council.
Ken Dibben and John Stuart-Buttle met representatives of both
authorities. TVBC declined to buy equity
in CCL but appeared open to granting a loan to the company, though in late 1984
it withdrew its financial interest in CCL.
The CCL representatives received a positive response from SCC, which was
open to taking equity in the science park company. SCC formally agreed to invest in the science
park in January 1985 and two months later SCC transferred £375,000 to an
enterprise agency, which became known as Southampton Economic Development
Corporation (SEDCO), with a view to transfer to CCL
In March 1985,
the issue of shares in CCL stood at 100 ordinary shares of £1. Later there was a further share issue of
499,900 ordinary shares of £1 each, which were purchased 60% by the university
and 40% by the University of Southampton Development Trust.
1 Venture Road under construction. 1 Venture Road recessed into its site.
The employment of Chilworth Manor as a science park annex
Stewart
Hughes Limited first took up residence on the Chilworth campus on 1 July 1982
when it was granted a lease to part of the Engineering Building. However, that accommodation was insufficient
for the company’s whole operations and immediately, encouraged by the
university, it started to lobby TVBC for its agreement to a change of use of
part of the Manor from residential to office accommodation. TVBC was supportive in its response to
Stewart Hughes and a planning application by the company was granted in
1984. This move came as a surprise to
the directors of CCL who then suggested to the university that the best way to
handle this development and any other temporary leases would be for the whole
of the Manor to be leased to CCL so that the management of the building was
entirely in one hand. The university’s
Policy and Finance Committee agreed to this request, with the South Wing, which
to that point was still under university occupancy, to be leased to CCL, at a
rent agreed by the District Valuer, for a period of three years. However, once change of use had been agreed
by TVBC, the remainder of the building was also to be let to CML, the
termination of this second lease to be coterminous with the lease of the South
Wing. Thus, CCL would have use of the
Manor until the beginning of 1998. The
intention of this arrangement was to tide over CCL until the first science park
buildings were ready for occupation, when the temporary residents of the Manor
House would be re-housed and the building could then be employed as a
conference centre.
The Space
Allocation sub-Committee was the university body charged with deciding which
parts of the university might be allowed to use various components of the
Chilworth Estate, though on the strict understanding that such occupation was
temporary and could be ended by the sub-Committee. The relevant areas were the Factory Building,
the habitable cottages, the Walled Garden, the grazing land, Jubilee Cottage
and the Arboretum.
Within the
Manor House itself, during the tenancy of CCL, that company would be
responsible for space allocation and the following companies, in addition to
Stewart Hughes Ltd, are known to have been granted sub-leases by CCL at some
point. KBC Process Automation Ltd,
Hi-Tech Metals, Don Taylor Associates, Paint Pot Computers, Orsynetics,
Appleton Ultrasound and British Satellite Broadcasting. In addition, ISVR had some temporary
accommodation and CCL itself occupied an office in the building. The rental income to the university was about
£24,000 per annum, which was used as a source of funds for the maintenance of
the house and grounds, the net income then to be remitted to the UGC.
Chilworth Manor Hotel Front and Rear views 2025.
The Chilworth Delegacy
Chilworth
matters were initially dealt with by the Policy and Finance Committee and in 1985
a proposal was put to that body to commission JT Design Build, already busy on
the site, to carry out a survey of the potential market for the use of a
redeveloped Chilworth Manor House as a centre for continuing education. Authorisation for the £10,000 cost of this
proposal was sought from Sir Bernard Miller, then Chairman of Council. Sir Oswald Bernard Miller (1904 – 2003) was a
distinguished personality in the South Hampshire business community, serving
most of his career in the John Lewis Partnership, which he joined in 1927, was
elevated to the Board in 1935 and served as Chairman between 1955 and
1972. Not untypically, he became
involved in the affairs of the University of Southampton in an honorary capacity,
being Treasurer between 1974 and 1982, Chairman of Council from1982 to 1987 and
serving as Pro-Chancellor during the years 1983 to 1990. Though he had reservations about using JT
Design Build for this role (they had an interest in the project’s
implementation and they did not seem to have had much experience in the field
of interest), he did not stand in the way of the recommendation.
In
time-honoured fashion, in early February 1985, the university saw the need to
create a new administrative body to look after its interests on the Chilworth Campus. The Chilworth Delegacy held its first meeting
in February 1985. At its inception, the
membership of the Delegacy was Professor K. Hilton (Chairman), Professor K.J.
Gregory, Professor J.B. Large and Professor P. Rhodes, with the
Secretary and Registrar (Derek Schofield) in attendance. Thus the composition of the Delegacy included
several deans, the Secretary and Registrar and the chairman of CCL. John Large, who was simultaneously both the
Dean of Engineering and Applied Science, and the Chairman of the science park
company, but that was not seen as a conflict of interest. The Delegacy’s rather nebulous remit was as
follows.
(a) To oversee, on behalf of Council, the use
and possible development of the Chilworth site so far as this does not fall
within the sphere of Chilworth Centre Limited.
(b) To take such decisions on behalf of the
University as are necessary, in its view, for the protection of the
University's interests and to act in normal circumstances on the University's
behalf in negotiation with Chilworth Centre Limited.
(c) To report annually to Council on
developments at the Chilworth site and from time to time to Policy and Finance
Committee on such matters as appear to it to be appropriate.
Thus, the
Chilworth Delegacy represented the university’s interests in negotiations with
CCL concerning those parts of the estate not under the control of that
company. Yet another university body,
the Budgets and Development sub-Committee was responsible for allocating money
for the maintenance of those parts of the Chilworth site not under the control
of CCL, the access road and its verges, the gardens and arboretum around the
Manor House, and the woodlands and meadow to the north of the Manor.
The secretary
to the Delegacy, Mr Davies, noted that the University had received “over a
number of years”, “proposals to develop the Manor House as a residential centre
for short courses and conferences, which could also provide social facilities
for tenants of the Research Park. No
decision had been taken on these proposals, although outline planning consent
existed for the extension of the Manor House for such purposes”. It was the role of the Chilworth Delegacy to
consider and plan for the long-term use of the Chilworth Manor House from 1998,
when the lease to CCL was due to end.
Outline planning permission already existed for the construction of an
extension to the building.
In passing a
resolution to engage JT Design and Build to carry out the survey of Chilworth
Manor’s potential to be operated as a conference centre, the Chilworth Delegacy
gave an illuminating example of bureaucratic university decision-making.
“Resolved:
(i) That in the light of the considerations set out in the foregoing
Minute and of the acceptance by the Chairman of Council of the need for such an
enquiry, the JT Group be commissioned to carry out a market survey/feasibility
study for the development of the Manor House as a residential centre for
continuing education. (ii) That in commissioning the JT Group in accord with
(i) above it be made clear that the client is the University of Southampton and
not Chilworth Centre Ltd. and that the commission does not involve any implied
commitment to retain the services of the JT Group (as architects or consultants
or contractors) in the event of the project going ahead. (iii) That the once and for all fee for the study
covered in (i) and (ii) above be limited to £10,000 exclusive of VAT but
inclusive of expenses”.
The conduct
of business by the Chilworth Delegacy continued in this fashion for the whole
of its existence between February 1985 and the same month in 1989 when it
terminated its own existence. During
that interval, it had held ten meetings and produced reams of minutes. In May 1985, a new short lease between
Stewart Hughes Ltd and the University for the main part of Chilworth Manor was
concluded and a further lease between, CCL and the University for the
residential wing of the Manor was almost ready for signing. Both leases would terminate on 31 December
1985. From 1 January 1986, a new
agreement would lease the whole of Chilworth Manor to CCL and Stewart Hughes
Ltd would become sub-tenants of CCL.
This lease was anticipated to be of two years’ duration after which the
tenant and all sub-tenants would have been accommodated elsewhere at Chilworth.
At this time,
the Geology Department was storing a series of deep rock core samples in the
dilapidated piggeries at Chilworth but these eyesores were due for demolition
during the construction of the new access road and it was proving difficult to
find an alternative location for the samples at Chilworth.
Tentative
plans had been made by the University in 1980 to extend Chilworth Manor but no
formal commitment agreed. However, if
the Manor were to be converted for use as a conference centre, additional
bedroom accommodation would be essential.
The Delegacy simply kicked this issue into the long grass in May 1985 by
resolving “That the 1980 sketch plans for an extension of the Manor House be
noted”.
At the November
1985 meeting of the Chilworth Delegacy, Roger Mortimer was in attendance to
present his report into the feasibility of extending the Manor and operating it
as a conference centre. The members of
Standing Committee of Council were also there to hear Roger speak. He concluded that the project was feasible
provided the conference centre were to be managed by competent personnel
experienced in this line of business.
His estimated cost for the conversion was £1,425,000 “ready to
open”. He estimated that from year 3 the
business would make a reasonable profit of £122,000. The discussion which followed the
presentation revealed that there were several senior people who were already
getting cold feet and feared that the University would be exposed to substantial
financial risk. The solution? Another kick into the long grass, while the
Vice-Chancellor and the conference officer gathered more information on
occupancy rates at other conference facilities.
Ken Dibben, now Chairman of CCL, also shared his colleagues’ concerns
and thought that the financial risks needed to be shared with others.
Also at the
November 1985 meeting the Delegacy was tasked with giving approval to the
Department of Biology to store temporarily a caravan at Chilworth over the
winter, a trivial matter which surely did not need to reach such a high level
for a decision to be taken. This caravan
was being used in connection with a project concerning smooth snake ecology in
the New Forest. Permission was given and
that caravan was parked near to Jubilee Cottage where it remained, immobile for
many years until I managed by some means to get rid of this decaying object
which, by the time of its demise, had become a suitable subject of study
itself, such was the accumulation of biota upon it.
The next
meeting of the Delegacy did not take place until March 1996, when the business
was largely taken up with the future development of Chilworth Manor as a
conference centre. It was concluded that
the project was too risky for the University to undertake alone and that a
development partner, or partners, should be sought. Gordon Higginson, the new Vice-Chancellor was
proving to be quite risk-averse and also turned down John Large’s proposal to
buy more land adjacent to the science park to be developed as a new University
campus, with direct access from the M27.
Vice-Chancellor Sir Gordon Higginson.
The 10th
and final meeting of the Chilworth Delegacy took place on 23 February
1989. By that date a management team had
been assembled under the chairmanship of John Large to pursue the Chilworth
Manor conference centre proposal. Since
the first financial estimates of the cost of converting the Manor had been
obtained, the estimated cost had risen from £900k to £1.9m which led to a delay
in the start of the project while the implications of this change were digested
and a solution obtained.
At about this
time, the University established a company, University of Southampton Holdings
Ltd to oversee all its commercial assets.
This led to the Delegacy concluding that its role was now largely
redundant, that it should be discharged at the earliest possible opportunity
and that the Estates Committee should take over responsibility for the University-owned
land at Chilworth. Later in the year, this
end was duly accomplished and this bureaucratic body sank into oblivion,
represented only by papers gathering dust in the University’s various archives.
Chilworth Centre Ltd starts trading
CCL’s
Directors’ Report and Accounts for the end of March 1985, which was reported to
the Chilworth Delegacy, showed that the company had started trading for the
first time during that year. Turnover
was £270,471, profit before taxation came in at £118,759, giving a net profit
after taxation of £104,878. The
company’s fixed assets were valued at £609,451 and its activities were
described as “...provides accommodation and services to companies carrying out
scientific research”. This emphasis on
research would subsequently be weaponised by its adversaries in the local
community.
A board
meeting of CCL was held on 10 June 1985 whose minutes showed clearly that the
development plans for the science park were proceeding at pace. No. 1 Venture Road appeared to have been
completed and nos. 2 and 3 were under construction. Consideration was now being given to the idea
of turning no. 2 into an “innovation centre” and a model of its layout had been
commissioned, though the CCL board continued dithering on the decision, causing
the rate of construction to be slowed down.
Also, there was a suggestion of holding a formal opening ceremony for
this building in the spring of 1986. The
Duke of Kent was later suggested as a VIP to perform the ceremony.
John Large,
Chairman of CCL, made a report to the Chilworth Delegacy in October 1985,
summarising science park progress. Part
of that report dealing with the construction of the Phase I buildings follows.
“In
summary, the whole of Phase I is under construction for completion in March
1986, the first unit (ie 1 Venture Road)
being occupied by tenants (ie Ferring)
in November 1985. Most of the infrastructure of this Phase will be complete by
Christmas leaving a little landscaping to finish in the Spring season. Construction.
Revised detail planning consents have been secured for Phase 1, after
some difficulty, enabling the company to execute a long lease to Ferring
Research Ltd. for the land of Unit No. 1, and to enter into contracts for the
infrastructure and the construction of Units 2 and 3. The buildings are of
brick on a steel and concrete frame, slate roofed and double glazed, finished
internally as an open shell to office standards, lighting in suspended
ceilings, heated by hot water radiation, painted and carpeted. Unit 1 is being constructed by and at the
expense of the leaseholder Ferring to the same standard in similar materials.
Unit 3 is 8,000 sq. ft. and Unit 2 20,000 sq. ft., the contract sum being
£1,096,374.00”.
2 Venture
Road was accepted from the contractors on 21 April 1986, though it was not
expected that the building would be fully let until early 1987. Initial rental rates were typically £7/ft2. At this stage it was still undecided whether
this building would be operated as an innovation centre, perhaps with support
services and relaxed letting conditions, or simply retained as a reconfigurable
multi-occupancy structure. About the
same time an attempt was made by CCL to sell the freehold of 3 Venture Road to
KCB Process Automation, but instead it was acquired leasehold by that company
for a period of 21 years, together with the concession of being permitted to
sub-let. RLX Software and Plasmotechnic
became sub-tenants of KCB. Initial rent
of 3 Venture Road was agreed at £47,000 pa.
The science park was officially opened by the Duke of Kent on 11 June
1986, with the planting of a tree, which was thriving in 2025.
Funding of Phase I
By mid-1985,
SCC had agreed to invest in the development of the science park at
Chilworth. It did this via a
wholly-owned vehicle, the Southampton Economic Development Company, generally
referred to by its acronym, SEDCO. It
negotiated a £3m loan facility with a bank, presumably guaranteed by SCC. But this initiative by the city council did
not please all its members. Alec Samuel,
a retired member of UoS staff claimed that SEDCO’s action was illegal, a view
refuted by SCC. SEDCO pressed ahead and
CCL received £600,000 against a second mortgage on Chilworth Manor assets, with
an interest rate of 12%. Subsequent to
the £300,000 advanced by the university to funds roads and infrastructure, an
additional £125,005 was subscribed for a further tranche of £1 ordinary
shares. CCL already held an overdraft
facility from Lloyds Bank of £975,000.
To these sources of funds was added £265,000 as a lease premium from
Ferring (subsequently enhanced by the £20,000 to buy out the freehold of their
site) and the net rental income from Phase I and Chilworth Manor. The following year SEDCO agreed to provide
further substantial funding as a mix of equity (42,000 redeemable ordinary
shares at a price of £7.03 per share) and a secured loan of £454,500. SEDCO then owned a little over 25% of CCL and
gained a right to appoint two directors.
The negotiations with SEDCO had been protracted, lasting over two years,
but had been conducted amicably and to the satisfaction of both parties. From the university’s point of view it had
managed to retain effective control over the science park with near to 75% of
the equity. Ken Dibben was responsible
for both the SEDCO negotiations and the negotiation of the overdraft facility
from Lloyds Bank, in my opinion putting in a brilliant performance.
Planning for Phase II
In mid-1986,
plans were also being laid for the construction of a further phase (Phase II)
of development in the area to the west of the avenue of lime trees. John Stuart-Buttle was retained as the
project manager and he gave instructions to Roger Mortimer of JT Design Build
to carry out a site investigation to establish load-bearing capability and
water permeability of the underlying strata.
Roger proposed drilling 12 bore holes spread across the subject
ground. The land proved to have an
adequate load-bearing character but it had insufficient permeability to make
soak-aways feasible. This would require
costly storm water drainage to be installed.
Initially, outline planning
permission was sought for 104,000ft2 gross floor area of buildings
but that was subsequently increased by 50% due to the lesser area not providing
a sufficient yield to attract commercial lenders. Roger Mortimer was contracted to redraw the
possible lay-out of this proposed increase in building density on Phase
II. An informal approach was made to
TVBC and privately supported, but CCL was advised not to submit a planning
application before the council elections to be held in May 1987. However, that would involve a long delay and
the CCL Board instructed Mortimer to proceed anyway. The revised outline planning application for
Phase II was granted on 10 Mar 87 for 158,000 ft2, gross external
area.
Significant
interest was being shown by external enquirers in the possible creation of
Phase II, especially by existing Manor House tenants, which probably convinced
the board to press on with some urgency, especially bearing in mind that CCL’s
lease of Chilworth Manor was due to terminate at the beginning of 1988. Right from the start of planning for Phase II
of the science park there was a concern in the CCL Board to develop a viable
financial plan for its implementation.
The company was heavily indebted after the recent completion of Phase I
and though Lloyds Bank had offered to lend up to 50% of the value of Phase II
it would be difficult to borrow the remainder of the necessary money. Other financial mechanisms might have to be
employed. One suggestion was that 2
Venture Road might be sold but John Vail cautioned that it would have to be at
least 2/3 let, which was not anticipated for another 4 – 5 months and would
result in a substantial reduction in the control that CCL could exercise over
the site, possibly even creating a rival science park within the science
park. Alternatively, a number of
commercial funders might be interested in a deal. Arlington, Brixton Securities, Taylor Woodrow
and even JT Design and Build were mentioned as potential partners for Phase
II. However, their terms were unlikely
to be much more palatable than the pursuit of further freehold sales. In January 1987, Taylor Woodrow made an offer
to CCL. They would be responsible for
the infrastructure of the whole of the 14 acres of Phase II land and pay
£800,000 in return for the freehold of 10 acres, leaving CCL owning 4 acres of
serviced land for their own development purposes, possibly for the construction
of an innovation centre. Other
developers came up with similar proposals.
Initially, there was support for the Taylor Woodrow deal within the CCL
Board, perhaps again illustrating the then current, uncomfortable financial
position of the science park. However,
on further consideration, that support evaporated and the Board started to
explore a different route to the financing of Phase II. This involved rolling up the now completed
Phase I with the proposal for developing Phase II in one package, thus giving
CCL a greater share in the total equity of the science park, to look for a
joint venture partner. The downside of
such a proposal was that they might lose control of that part of the science
park which they presently did control.
Metropolitan Estates & Property
Corporation (MEPC)
It was in
mid-1987 that Metropolitan Estates & Property Corporation, usually known by
its acronym MEPC, arrived on the Chilworth scene. This property development and investment
business was founded in 1946 and in 2025 was the second largest such business
in the UK. Although currently MEPC concentrates its interests on business parks
(including Milton Park, Abingdon which is a combined business and science park,
where it is headquartered) Chilworth was its first venture into the science
park market. The connection between CCL
and MEPC seems to have been made through an introduction by a third party,
Russell Cash & Co.
By the end of
June 1987, the board of CCL, but principally Ken Dibben who was its most
financially astute member, was considering two alternative partnership offers
for the development of Phase II of the science park, one from Sheraton and the
other from MEPC. Ken’s analysis of the
alternatives was explained in a letter to John Large.
“... it seems to me that the outline scheme they (Sheraton) propose is distinctly more
risky, and therefore less attractive, from our point of view than the MEPC
arrangements. In particular, we would be
highly vulnerable to movements in interest rates. The whole import of Peter Taylor's
(of Sheraton) commentary is that the
capital uplift of £1,090,000 makes the scheme attractive to us since we would
have a 50 per cent share in it, and the very narrow revenue surplus of £49,000
on his assumptions is therefore of no great concern. This
argument seems to me to be fallacious, since it would not take a very
significant movement in interest rates both to eliminate the revenue surplus
entirely and to reduce the capital book value as well. ... By contrast the MEPC
scheme leaves us indifferent to interest rate movements (except possibly during
the construction period) since we have a fixed share of gross rents. In effect, MEPC is carrying the whole
interest rate risk to the extent that it chooses not to fund building costs
with equity. In these circumstances I
believe Chilworth Centre will enjoy entitlement to virtually inflation-proof
income for the whole lease period which must, in itself, be a marketable asset
should it ever wish to sell out. All in all therefore my view is that we should
proceed with the MEPC meeting I have already arranged for 2nd July, when John
Vail (property professional) and
Robin Tutty (lawyer) have agreed to
join me, and that we should only revert to Sheraton thereafter if those
discussions appear to be running into difficulty. I have therefore written a
holding letter to Peter Taylor (copy attached), which I do with a clear
conscience, given the fact that his letter of 19th June is in effect the first
response to the discussion I had with Sheraton JT at the end of April”.
So, the provisional decision was taken in August 1987 to form a joint venture
with MEPC for the development of Phase II of the science park. The essential points of the subsequent
agreement were as follows. CCL would
retain the freehold of the site but grant a 200 year lease, with a ground rent,
of the land of Phases I and II to MEPC, which would be responsible for the
infrastructure of Phase II and for the construction of the buildings
thereon. Rental income for Phase I
sub-leases would be split 5% to MEPC and 95% to CCL. Rental income from Phase II would also be
split but with a reciprocal division of rental income, the larger proportion
going to MEPC to yield that company a 10% return on its investment on certain
assumptions about rental levels and occupancy, though I have not been able to
discover the actual percentage finally agreed.
MEPC would act as managing agents for the site, collecting rents and
ensuring that maintenance was carried out but both companies would be
responsible for marketing the site, with Vails being engaged for Phase I and
MEPC taking responsibility for letting on Phase II. Tenants would, of course, have to conform to
the requirements of the S52 agreement applying to the science park, wherever
they were domiciled, and sub-leases would be on a full repairing and insuring
basis.
On the face of it, this was a workable and balanced agreement. It dealt with the problem of CCL’s
indebtedness and it accommodated CCL’s minority shareholder, SEDCO. But what could not have been foreseen was the
quality of the developing relationship between the two companies, CCL and MEPC,
their compatibility and competence. If
the partnership did not gel, then a period of 200 years would constitute a very
long time
Hazel Copse
The Willis
Fleming estates were in financial decline throughout much of the 20th
Century, leading to the disposal of land and houses in a steady succession, due
to income from the letting of land not meeting the running costs of the estates
and, after WW2 the swingeing levels of death duties. The remaining, rather fragmented estate was
left in trust for future members of the Willis Fleming family by JEA Willis
Fleming, who died in 1949. An
unsuccessful attempt had been made to dispose of Chilworth Manor in 1927 and it
was finally sold in 1946 to Unity Heating Ltd., before passing into the hands of
the University of Southampton in 1964.
Thus, at the time that the science park was being created in the
mid-1980s, the Chilworth area contained many packets of land still in the
ownership of the Willis Flemings, via their family trust. Some of these patches of land were small,
some more substantial and some were contiguous with, or at least adjacent to,
the science park’s boundaries. Currently (2025), all such family land assets
are owned by Willis Fleming Enterprises Ltd.
In November
1984, John Vail, one of the principals at the science park’s letting agent,
held a conversation with HCC’s Estates Practice concerning its desire to sell
Kennels Farm. In the same conversation,
John Vail gleaned that the Fleming Estate might be willing to sell the freehold
of Hazel Copse, a 5.14 acre wood located between the motorway, the western
boundary of the Phase II land, the track leading to Kennels Farm and the land belonging
to that HCC property. It was subject to
an area tree preservation order (TPO).
In a letter to John Large, CCL’s chairman, John Vail wrote–
“I
am inclined to the view that we should approach the Estate direct and Hazel
Copse could form a useful adjunct to Phase 2 of the Research Centre. I will let
you know as soon as I have any further news ...”.
At the
beginning of 1985, John Vail was instructed by the board of CCL to negotiate
with the Willis Fleming trust for the purchase of two pieces of land contiguous
with the science park. Chilworth Drove
on the eastern border of Phase I of the science park was realigned to cross the
M3 – M27 motorway link, isolating a small triangle of land between the Drove
and the science park. The second parcel
of land was Hazel Copse. It appears that
that this move was speculative and not related to the subsequent interest in
Hazel Copse from British Satellite Broadcasting, as that company was not formed
until late 1986. John Vail was
authorised to bid £17,000 for the two parcels of land, with authority to go to
£20,000. At this initial stage he was
unsuccessful in his mission but agreement was subsequently reached with the
Willis Flemings at a price of £30,000, including costs. The completion of all documentation relating
to the purchase of Hazel Copse took a considerable time and it was August 1987
before the purchase was concluded.
Each of the newly-purchased packets of land would prove to be important
for the future development of the science park.
Strengthening the Board of CCL
With the
first tenants in residence on Phase I and new accommodation shortly to be
available for let, CCL started to turn its attention to marketing and
governance matters. Professor Gordon
Higginson, a mechanical engineer, had been appointed to be the new
vice-chancellor of the university in 1985 and he was invited to join the board
of CCL. In January 1986, Gordon held a
well publicised meeting at the science park to which a bevy of local MPs was
invited. A major sign at the entrance to
University Parkway from the A27 was installed, and a brochure describing the
science park and its facilities was commissioned. They both used the description of the
Chilworth Manor site as “Chilworth Research Centre – A Southampton University
Enterprise”. There were further moves to
strengthen the board of CCL with the nomination of two further personalities
for membership, each with a substantial record of business achievement. Sir John Rix, an engineer and naval architect,
had been chairman of Southampton shipbuilder, Vosper Thorneycroft. I never had the pleasure of meeting him,
though he was a near neighbour of mine when I lived at Owslebury. The other new
businessman was Don Pepper who, after his navy career was cut short by
ill-health, had a dazzling career with Rolls Royce (aeroengines, not cars),
being appointed to the board in 1969 and serving as vice chairman between 1976
and 1983. He had a reputation as a
people-person and as a skilled negotiator.
I had a great admiration for Don, who was always friendly towards, and
supportive of, me personally. A further
new directorial appointment was John Arnold, the Labour leader on Southampton
City Council. He was nominated by SEDCO
which was a part-owner of the science park.
John was a decent man but, as a political appointee, he had little experience
which was of operational benefit to CCL, but his support had been crucial in
securing the investment from SCC via SEDCO.
Roger
Mortimer of JT Design Build had been engaged to produce provisional plans for
the lay-out of Phase II but the agreement with MEPC diminished his chances of
being retained to design the definitive arrangement of roads and
buildings. He was instructed by John
Stuart-Buttle to hand over his provisional work to MEPC, though that company
did retain Roger to design the detailed infrastructure plan. The developer then selected the Edward
Cullinan architectural practice to design the buildings. Cullinan was born in 1931and was a socialist
by political persuasion. In 1959 he
established his own practice which, six years later, was turned into a
collective with a socialist philosophy and was an early disciple of
environmental sustainability. Some of
his buildings are particularly eye-catching but perhaps that does not include
the Phase II buildings at Chilworth.
They used wood extensively, inside and out. I did not like the method of construction
because of the need for frequent external maintenance and the flimsy nature of
some of the internal features, such as the raised floors. The Cullinan practice used to visit Chilworth
regularly with a group of students, or perhaps young architects, to view the
Phase II buildings, so Cullinan clearly looked upon this commission as being
one of his successes.
The
negotiations concerning the details of the contract between MEPC and CCL
started to run into difficulties in late November 1987 concerning contingencies
to be catered for as the buildings on Phase I aged and needed refurbishment or
redevelopment. Ken Dibben was the
proponent of a conservative approach but he encountered significant push-back
from MEPC. Further delays were caused by
attempts to reduce the cost of constructing the Cullinan designs. This caused John Stuart Buttle much anxiety
because he was aware of the long lead-in times for material orders, such as for
steel. Significant delays would
compromise the programme for moving Chilworth Manor resident companies into new
accommodation on Phase II. If Manor
companies had no accommodation available when their then present leases came to
an end on 31 December 1988, they would have no alternative but to move off site
and would probably be lost as foundation tenants in the new development.
Another
problem which had arisen concerned the identity of the contracting parties.
MEPC was not such a participant but its subsidiary, College Hill Investments
Ltd, was, which caused concerns for SEDCO, CCL’s minority equity holder. A parent company guarantee for 200 years
rendered this entity acceptable from a legal point of view. The delays to the conclusion of the agreement,
were starting to risk a collapse of the deal which was expected to be in place
by late May 1988. MEPC had organised a
champagne reception to celebrate the completion of the formalities but the
deadline passed without agreement. MEPC,
which must have already made the arrangements for the bean feast, decided to go
ahead with the party, but with the press excluded. It should have been a convivial, celebratory
occasion, but the opportunity for building relationships and gaining publicity
for the venture had been compromised.
Staverton Construction had been engaged to carry out the building work
on the Phase II development ahead of completion of the contract with MEPC but
Staverton was due an interim payment of almost £43,000. CCL agreed to step in and settle this
invoice, though it should have been for MEPC’s account. The contract was finally signed in June 1988,
backdated to 25 March of that year.
Thus, the term of the agreement was due to end on 24 March 2188. There was a “Turning of the sod” ceremony
attended by Sir Christopher Benson, the chairman of MEPC, at which he reassured
the CCL directors that it was MEPC's intention to participate in a true science
park at Chilworth.
Sir Christopher Benson. Cullinan building, Phase II.
The six two-storey buildings constituting phase 2 were initially identified by the first six letters in the English alphabet but later replaced by their equivalents in the Greek alphabet (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon, Phi). The managers, Roger Mortimer and John Stuart Buttle, appointed by CCL to oversee the construction of Phase II continued to be concerned at the rate of progress. Staverton’s £5m contract was to complete the six buildings to a shell and core level but, before they could be occupied, the incoming tenants would need to specify their individual fit-out specifications in sufficient time for the work to be contracted. Units E & F, those nearest the motorway were due for completion by 10 July, C & D by 11 August and A & B, nearest the Manor, by 25 September, all 1989.
JT Design Build had been contracted to carry out the building of the new
bedroom block (97 4* rooms) and other works at Chilworth Manor at a contract
price of £4.5m. Roger Mortimer warned
John Stuart-Buttle that it would be necessary for one of the Phase II buildings
to be completed to shell and core by 10 July and Stavertons to be given the
work of fit-out if there was to be any hope of the Manor House tenants moving
out by the beginning of September. This
timetable would be necessary for the Manor House works to proceed as planned. John SB had got a verbal assurance from MEPC
that it could be met, but he needed this commitment in writing, which MEPC was
reluctant to provide. His initial letter
seeking reassurance went unanswered and he had to communicate his wishes again
at the end of November 1988. He finally
received a reply on the day of the next meeting of the CCL Board which informed
him that no firm date could yet be offered, but wished him Happy Christmas! At that board meeting on 19 December, John S-B
related his fears that the necessary time table would not be met. Concerns were also expressed that MEPC had
not produced any marketing materials, nor had they appointed a commercial agent
to source new tenants. After that
meeting, CCL’s Board was probably entertaining doubts about the suitability of
MEPC as a partner in the development of the science park.
In late January 1989, John Large added his weight to the polite
complaints to MEPC, which had been made by his colleagues, by writing to Nick
Miller, who appears to have been the MEPC person responsible for the Phase II
project.
“My fellow directors and I are increasingly
concerned at the lack of a confirmed completion date for Phase II. As you know, a delay in your project could
have severe knock-on effects for the Conference Centre. We do of course have
your verbal assurance that sufficient space will be completed”.
John Large’s very polite badgering appeared only to produce further
generalised assurances. The first two
buildings were to be completed “in August” and the remainder “in
September”. This long stop date
subsequently slipped to “in October”, necessitating an extension of CCL’s lease
on the Manor and a delay in the start of that building’s refurbishment and
extension. Even in May 1989, there was
still doubt that the first Phase II building would be available for occupation
by 31 August.
In late April 1989, the first Phase II building was topped out and a
ceremony, conducted by Roger Squire the development director of MEPC, held to
mark the occasion. To its credit, MEPC
issued a substantial press release, couched in positive terms extolling the
virtues of the project and advertising the availability of accommodation at
about £9.75 / ft2 for shell and core, and about £10.75/ft2 fully
fitted. The Edward Cullinan design was
portrayed in glowing terms.
“... the development incorporates garden walls of
local brick and stone at the entrances to each building. Plate glass doors
connect the entrance lobbies to the central avenue at the interface with the
curving masonry. Within each building an oval staircase and lift shaft form a
compact core, which allows flexibility for internal planning and subdivision
for multiple tenancy. The timber elevations give the buildings colour and
warmth, and a tactile finish inside and out, impossible to achieve with
conventional curtain walling systems.
Projecting steelwork supports a tensioned system of sunscreens adapting
to the varying needs for weather and solar protection of each elevation. In this way, the buildings react individually
to the landscape setting and orientation, while maintaining the overall
symmetry of the development design”.
No doubt MEPC had chosen the Cullinan practice because they thought its
designs would bring kudos to their first science park project. It would later be observed that the work of
this seer of the architectural profession did not subsequently receive many
plaudits, either from its occupiers or its part owners. The new buildings would prove to be
persistently more difficult to let than the multi-occupancy 2 Venture Road on
Phase I, which was designed by an architect with no public profile.
In mid-June, with late summer deadlines for moving companies out of
Chilworth Manor looming, John Large again wrote to MEPC probably seeking
assurances (I was unable to find a copy of his letter) but what he received in
response was the start of a blame game.
“We too are concerned that the progress of your
development and our Phase 2 are now clashing. We are taking all reasonable
steps to ensure that the delayed project is finished as soon as possible. I
believe, however, that it is unlikely that the date for the completion
of Unit B (the unit being negotiated for Chilworth Technology Ltd) can be
bought forward to 1st September this year. As you will appreciate,
we have had no input into your programme for the refurbishment work and
although we were unable to provide a programme until late, did informally
advise you of our problems. We
understood that your programme which you set was inflexible. As, at the time of writing, Chilworth
Technology have not signed an agreement for lease and their fit-out
requirements are only now becoming available, the opportunities for shortening
the programme are limited. I understand
that you have already turned off the hot water in the Manor House and assume as
you still have tenants that you are making a temporary provision for them and
wonder whether it will be possible to provide temporary electricity for the
tenants for the difficult period. The late resolution of all matters has
inevitably created difficulties and I hope that with effort and good will
things can be resolved”.
Decoded, the implications of this letter were as follows. We are going to be late finishing the
building work on Phase II, but we told you we were having problems. The work will be finished as soon as we can,
but we can’t finish building B by 1 September.
Your programme for Chilworth Manor is inflexible and we were not given
access to it, so don’t blame MEPC for your predicament. It is up to CCL, not us, to resolve the
difficulties the Manor companies now find themselves facing.
I can imagine that this response caused John Large to utter a few
expletives. He, Roger Mortimer and John
Stuart Buttle had been warning MEPC of the problems which would be caused by a
delay for almost a year and had received only verbal assurances and vague
promises, with nothing in writing. Now
to be told that the difficulties were their fault must have been hard to
stomach. John could not let this missive
from MEPC go unanswered and his reply follows.
It is remarkable that John Large should have retained his civility and
composure, at least on the surface, but he was clearly very angry and deeply
worried for the future of the relationship between MEPC and CCL.
“I must express disappointment that MEPC appears
unwilling to make any move towards offering temporary accommodation to tenants
who are currently occupying the Chilworth Manor House Annex. I have been aware
that there was some slight delay to the building programme but you will
recollect that on 8 June when we met, you indicated that 16 September was most
likely the date that the building would be ready for Chilworth Technology
Ltd. It was only on 12 June when
talking with Paul Cartwright I was told that MEPC had informed him several days
earlier that the earliest completion date prior to fitting out would be October
16, completely at odds with your information. You mention the inflexibility of
our programme, may I remind you that the Manor House programme was arranged on
the basis of your estimate of 1 June - 1 August completion date for Phase
II. I have copies of letters to you
dating from November last year asking for confirmation of completion in
writing, our letters have remained unanswered and as you know, I have stated my
concern to you on innumerable occasions.
Therefore there was no other choice than to base our plans on your
original estimate. I find it incomprehensible that MEPC would now be
jeopardising the loss of these companies on the science park, and also its
relationship with the University due to unwillingness to help organise a smooth
transition from the Manor House to Phase II. Although I have mentioned to
tenant companies individually there is no way we can extend their stay in the
Annex, I now will tell them once again collectively that our work programme
must go ahead on time and unless temporary accommodation can be found after
September 1 they will no longer be able to carry on their business at
Chilworth. In the past I have explained how impossible it is for us to delay
the Manor House project, being initially planned for a 3 month period between
Phase II completion and evacuation of the Manor House. I must express my sense of anxiety and
frustration in seeing the companies I have brought to the Chilworth Research
Centre put at risk, and all the implications this has for our future
relationship”.
An offended Nick Miller of MEPC immediately struck back, rejecting the
John Large version of events and making frankly facile suggestions for sourcing
temporary accommodation, including “the pepper pots”, which appears to have
been a reference to the Beehives at the entrance to the Manor’s carriage
drive. Extracts from his letter follow.
“I have your letter of 28th June 1989. I am
surprised at its tone and content. I do not agree with your recollections or
interpretations and am quite prepared, if you so wish, to go through point by
point your argument that MEPC is entirely responsible for the current
predicament. I would, however, prefer to ignore this somewhat destructive
approach and concentrate in a positive way on the problem in hand. The
situation as you appreciate is that both your programme and ours are on fixed
paths which cannot easily be altered. ... I am most anxious that at the beginning
of a long relationship we do not start with bad feeling and I think it is
essential to exorcise and resolve this bitterness which seems to be building
up. In this connection, I would very much like to speak to you as soon as
possible but at the time of writing have been unable to do so. My thoughts are
entirely along positive lines and I look for your response”.
Nick Miller had escalated the exchange of views with John Large to a
higher level in MEPC and this elicited a further response to John. Although more measured and less accusatory,
it still maintained the MEPC version of the past year’s events and listed,
generically, the various ways in which the problem might be solved. John Large’s response was to focus on the
practical issue of how the companies who were to be ejected from the Manor at
the end of August might be found temporary accommodation, adding “I cannot
believe temporary accommodation is difficult to organise” and suggesting that
portacabins might provide an answer. He
also pointed out the downside to MEPC of leaving the Manor’s temporary tenants
in the lurch.
“Of course my great concern is to retain the
goodwill of the companies currently here and to foster a climate which will
encourage other members of the University to become tenants, otherwise the
development ceases to have those ingredients vital to the life of a successful
science park”.
Finding a solution to the temporary accommodation problem then seems to
have been delegated to Roger Mortimer of JT Design Build and the person in
charge of the Manor’s refurbishment.
Roger was a man of sound diplomatic skills who could be relied upon to
remain calm, though it is unclear how the difficulties were subsequently
overcome and normal relations resumed.
When the Phase II buildings were finally completed in January 1990
(though some landscaping remained to be provided) they were between three and
four months late. An official opening of
the new facility was arranged for 15 June and Sir John Fairclough agreed to
perform the honours. A plaque on the
wall between Gamma and Epsilon houses records this event. At
the time John was Chief Scientific Adviser at the Cabinet Office.
Plaque commemorating opening of Phase
II. Delta – Phi garden Phase II.
During September 1992, another disagreement arose between the two
partners in the science park over the mechanism to be used for providing funds
for maintenance. CCL thought that a
sinking fund should be created but MEPC policy was to charge tenants for maintenance
costs as they arose by a surcharge on their annual costs. However, a year later, MEPC changed their
stance and a service charge of £1.25 / ft2 was introduced.
The actual initial
rental level was £10/ft2. By
early 1990, Southampton University Management School (SUMS) had taken a lease
on Alpha House. However, that project
soon ran into trouble and SUMS left the building with internal adaptations
which rendered it difficult to let to a succeeding tenant without considerable
remedial work. Beta House was occupied
by Chilworth Technology and Wessex Integrated Systems. Gamma and Delta houses were vacant. Epsilon House was occupied by MAC (Multiple
Access Computing), Promega and SJK. It
had not been easy to get these properties let, with rent holidays of between
one and six months having to be granted as inducements. At the end of April 1990, Phase II was still
only 60% occupied. By that August
occupancy had only risen to 65% and it crept to 70% in May 1991, causing the
CCL Board to predict gloomily, “No material change is anticipated in the
company’s trading in the foreseeable future”. They were correct. In
February 1992, with the recent recession well in the past, Phase II occupancy
had dropped back slightly to 65%. Phase
II remained stubbornly underlet for years, indeed after I joined the CCL Board
in 1995, this was the most significant weakness that I identified in the
company’s performance.
In contrast, Phase I only had 6% empty space in February 1992. MEPC started casting around for strategies to
improve Phase II’s occupancy, including by seeking a relaxation of the terms of
the S52 agreement, but TVBC rejected that request. Although
MEPC did not manage to negotiate a change in the s52 agreement, financial
pressure on the company led to it admitting one or two tenants whose compliance
with the terms of that agreement were at least questionable. Rank Xerox (RX) was one of the suspect
companies. Its principal activities at
that time were the manufacture and sale of photocopiers. RX was actually conducting sales from its
Chilworth base. Presumably someone had
reported to the TVBC planners that RX was non-compliant, forcing the planners
to take action. It was reported at the CCL
board meeting of 22 March 1995 that “…the Planning Office have given MEPC this
week to sort out the problem with RX not complying to the Section 52
Agreement.” RX made the case that sales
activity only comprised 3% of their business and on that basis TVBC decided to
take no further action. It would have
been very embarrassing for them if they had had to force out a company from the
science park. However, a legacy of
suspicion had been lodged with the TVBC planners that the science park could be
casual in its compliance with this planning requirement.
MEPC’s next idea was either to remove or to repaint the external
metalwork structure on the Phase II buildings, which was often likened to
scaffolding, to improve its appearance.
However, the planning authority vetoed removal. Instead the metalwork was repainted dark
green at a cost of £24,000 to diminish its impact, but the consequence was that
the buildings subsequently looked rather gloomy. This refurbishment was taking place only
three years after construction, suggesting that the Phase II buildings might
prove to be expensive to maintain. John Large, too, was a critic of the
phase 2 buildings. In May 1992, he
commented that their external appearance was off-putting to prospective
tenants. Other board members also had a
dislike of these external decorative features at first floor level, which
carried brises soleil and, in my
absence, in 1997 the board suggested getting quotations for their removal. When I returned, I too vetoed this proposal
on two grounds, cost and respect for the integrity of the architect’s design.
One indulgence instituted on Phase II was the inclusion of a croquet lawn
between Gamma and Epsilon houses and a set of mallets, hoops and balls for
communal use was kept in the Manor.
Croquet can only be played on a very smooth grass surface, requiring
frequent maintenance. Unfortunately, the
game never proved popular with residents and one of MEPC’s economy measures was
to reduce cutting and rolling of the lawn so that, in effect, it was simply
reduced to a grass landscape feature. In
the future it would, on several occasions, prove useful as a suitable site for
erecting a marquee. In early 1995, MEPC
appointed property agency Richard Ellis to market the vacant space on Phase II,
rather than deal with letting in-house. Unfortunately,
none of these moves had a dramatic impact on occupancy or profitability for
MEPC. By this year, further evidence
emerged suggesting that MEPC’s stewardship of Phase II was being poorly
handled. The tenants on that part of the
science park formed an association to defend their interests collectively in
negotiations with MEPC, mainly stimulated by the soaring service charges on
that part of the estate. The Tenants’
Association appointed its own agent, Neilson and Holt, to represent tenant
companies in negotiations on service charge.
The buy-out of SEDCO’s interest in the
science park
In mid-1994,
a change in Government regulations concerning investment by local authorities
in commercial entities required a speedy negotiation of the purchase of SEDCO’s
interest in the science park at Chilworth to be completed before 1 April 1995 if
it were to serve the interests of Southampton City Council. Ken Dibben again took charge of these
negotiations, both with SEDCO and with Lloyds Bank and a price of £570,000 was
agreed for the repurchase of the loans and shareholdings. Completion was set for 27 March 1995 and
Lloyds Bamk agreed to fund the science park’s purchase of the SEDCO interest
and to provide a £1m overdraft facility to tide the company over the immediate
period. The bank overdraft stood at
£1,076.192 at the end of the financial year (end of July 1995). SEDCO wrote to the CCL expressing their
thanks to the Board of Chilworth Centre Limited for a very satisfactory
conclusion to negotiations.
MEPC
disposes of its share of the science park estate
By September 1994, MEPC’s enthusiasm for science parks, or at least the
science park at Chilworth, had almost completely evaporated. They had no interest in being involved in the
development of further phases of the Chilworth site and even suggested that if
CCL were to attempt such a development independently that they would oppose
it. The board of CCL had clearly started
to consider if MEPC’s share of Phase II might be bought out, or, alternatively,
if the agreement with the partner might be revisited to give CCL more control
over policy on Phase II. A year later
the situation had developed to the point where MEPC had told CCL that they
wanted an exit and they had agreed to provide CCL with a valuation of their
interest in the site.
But the problem for the CCL Board in finding a way forward remained the
level of indebtedness of the company, so the direct solution of borrowing the
money to buy out their reluctant partner was, for the present, out of the
question. Other alternatives were
considered such as finding a new risk and profit-sharing partner, but who would
agree to CCL managing the whole park, or selling some asset, such as 3 Venture
Road to generate the necessary buy-out cash.
MEPC’s own valuation of its interest at Chilworth was £4.8m which John
Vail thought to be excessive. CCL
obtained its own independent valuation which suggested a figure of £3.8m. Could MEPC be negotiated down towards the
lower figure? A compromise of £4.0m was
tentatively suggested. Meanwhile, in
late 1995, there was further evidence of MEPC’s waning enthusiasm for Chilworth
and lack of concern for the views and actions of its partner. Multicosm Ltd was a spin-out from UoS in
which Deputy Vice-Chancellor Michael Bourne had an interest. He made an agreement with Shirley Smith of
the CCL office at a particular price but then concluded an agreement with MEPC
at a lower rental level. This
undercutting did not sit well with the board of CCL who complained to MEPC.
By March 1996, CCL’s financially astute chairman, Ken Dibben, had taken
control of the negotiations concerning a possible MEPC buy-out. Occupancy of Phase II had picked up and, with
the recovery of the economy from the recession of 1990 – 1991, the science park
was essentially fully let. This put CCL
in a much stronger position to borrow from a bank in order to buy out MEPC’s
interest. John Vail had continued
negotiations periodically with MEPC and they now agreed to sell at a definite
price of £4.25m, a sum which was acceptable to Ken Dibben and the rest of the
CCL Board. That decision then needed to
be endorsed by the UoS Planning and Resources Committee, which resolution was
agreed on 4 May 1996. Completion was
planned for the June quarter day, if a bank loan could be secured. Lloyds Bank, the Midland and Dutch bank Mees
Pearson all expressed interest. A loan
was taken from the Midland Bank and a surrender of the lease to MEPC was signed
off on 28 May. At last, CCL was free of
the troublesome relationship with MEPC, which had subsisted for 7 ½ years. Ken Dibben had again guided CCL safely through
choppy financial waters and secured 100% ownership of the science park’s
immediate owner, Chilworth Centre Ltd.
Chilworth Manor Ltd is formed to
develop and manage the conference centre
An
off-the-shelf company, Audenmark Ltd was purchased in mid-December 1988 and its
name changed to Chilworth Manor Ltd. in February 1989. The initial directors were Gordon Higginson,
the Vice-Chancellor, and Derek Schofield but this was clearly just a temporary
measure until further directors with appropriate experience could be
identified. The newcomers included Ken
Dibben and John Large. Roger Mallett,
Director of Halls and Catering in UoS was later added to the board. CCL continued to control Chilworth Manor
until 1 September 1989 after which CML took charge. JT Design and Build, who had been
substantially responsible for the design and construction of Phase I of the
science park and the infrastructure design on Phase II, was contracted, in May 1989,
to refurbish and extend the manor for its new role, including the construction
of a new bedroom block and a small fitness studio at the southern end, and a
lecture theatre at the northern end of the building. The detached dwelling called “The Cottage”
was included in the works and became the administrative accommodation for both
CCL and CML, with CCL paying its sister company £4,750 p.a. in rent. This arrangement also allowed the sharing of
staff resources. The Cottage contained
three separate offices and a first floor meeting room.
The Cottage, Chilworth Manor.
A loan of
£4.75m, which later rose to £6.0m, was negotiated with Lloyds Bank to cover the
costs of conversion. The Manor House and
adjoining land were leased to CML for 99 years from 24 June 1989 at an initial
rent of £85,000 per year. Demolition of
two cottages started in May 1989 and the bedroom block and car parks were the
first structures to be built, followed by conversion work within the Manor
getting underway in August. Gardner
Merchant, the large catering contractor, was appointed to manage the facility
once it was ready for trading. In
November of that year chairman John Large could report to the CML Board that
the estimated value of the development on completion would be £8.5 - £9.0m. The bedroom block was five weeks ahead of
schedule and the auditorium was also in advance of the planned programme,
though the Manor House itself was lagging.
The scheduled completion date was 31 July 1990. Optimism was running high with a predicted
income of £2.2m on an occupancy level of 65% in the first year of operations. In late August 1990 it was reported that the
project was almost complete and close to £1m of bookings had been taken. Everything in the Chilworth Manor garden
looked rosy. JT Design Build had
delivered a project essentially on time and to budget.
The Manor
opened for business as a residential conference centre on 1 September 1990 and
on 1 October of that year there was an official opening of the facility by Lord
Jellicoe, accompanied by V-C Gordon Higginson and Leigh Eisenhower. George Jellicoe, 2nd Earl
Jellicoe, whom I met briefly, but only once, was Chancellor of Southampton
University between 1984 and 1995. He was
a larger than life character with a distinguished and colourful career behind
him. He had commanded the Special Boat
Service during WW2 and was a member of the House of Lords for 68 years, filling
a number of ministerial roles. George
Jellicoe resigned from the Government in 1973 after admitting to casual
relationships with prostitutes, which activity had been uncovered by accident. Leigh Eisenhower is assumed, though I have
not been able to uncover the relationship, to have been a descendant of General
Dwight D Eisenhower, who had a distinguished career during WW2 and who may have
stayed at Chilworth Manor occasionally.
There is a stone plaque on the front of the building commemorating the
official opening by Lord Jellicoe.
Earl Jellicoe. Chilworth Manor Conference Centre plaque.
Chilworth Science Park Ltd’s financial position slowly improves
CSPL’s
financial results for 1988 – 1989 showed that the company had moved onto more secure
ground over the past year. The
accumulated deficit from previous years had been eliminated and a net profit of
£82,498 secured. Fixed assets on the
basis of historical cost amounted to £2,171,576. Even so, the difficulties encountered in
achieving high letting percentages on Phase II were causing concerns to the
board of CSPL because of the need to achieve the repayment of the debenture to
SEDCO and to secure transfer of its shareholding back to CSPL. In late May 1991, SEDCO was due to be wound
up, but Phase II still had voids of 30,000 ft2. By the end of the year, vacant space had
lengthened and some tenants were now in debt.
By the end of
the 1989 – 1990 financial year there had been sufficient letting experience for
Vail Williams to make an open market valuation of CSPL’s fixed assets, though
the figure they derived - £4,151,703 - looked decidedly toppy, and the August
board meeting noted that “The market is now extremely difficult”. The revaluation of the assets at the next end
of financial year, July 1991, reduced the previous valuation by £450,000.
British Satellite Broadcasting and
BSkyB
The mid-1980s
saw the start of direct broadcasting by satellite (DBS) in the UK. By international agreement, each country was
allocated five broadcasting channels and, by early 1987, the British Government
had awarded three of its channel quota to British Satellite Broadcasting
(BSB). This commercial vehicle had emerged
from a consortium of media companies to bid for a DBS franchise in December
1986.
BSB needed an
uplink station to transmit its programmes to geostationary satellites from
where they could be retransmitted as a subscriber service to the geographical
areas served by the company. This
necessitated a location near the south coast of England with a clear view to
the south easterly horizon. A number of
alternative sites was considered but Chilworth emerged as the preferred
option. It was located at 300ft above
sea level and, lying roughly 10 miles from the coast, was ideally placed to
meet BSB’s requirements. An approach to
CCL concerning the possible siting of the uplink station at Chilworth was made
early in 1987 at a time when the plans for the development of Phase II were
still fluid. The most suitable available
site for such an uplink station was the most southerly part of the Phase II
land adjacent to the motorway, where a natural dip in the ground would allow
the large dish aerials, initially four in number, to be placed so that they
were invisible from the motorway during most of the year.
The British
Satellite Broadcasting business was planned to operate with a headquarters and
promotions office in London, a subscriber management centre elsewhere in
Hampshire and an operations centre at Chilworth. The science park facility would contain
several elements. A play-out centre
where incoming data, principally transmitted through optical fibre links, were
assembled prior to up-linking to a geostationary satellite, a tracking,
telemetry and control centre to command and monitor the performance of the
orbiting satellites and a technical operations centre. Initially only one satellite would be used
but there were plans to add a second and possibly a third satellite later. The Chilworth site would be operated by BSB
in conjunction with the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), the
regulatory body for UK commercial television which existed between 1972 and
1991.
British Satellite Broadcasting
logo. Dish aerials at Chilworth.
But there was a fundamental obstacle to the location of BSB’s facility on the science park: the company clearly did not conform with the terms of the S52 agreement covering the site. Application was made to TVBC for a waiver of those terms specifically for BSB. Great play was made of the numbers of staff with high technical qualifications to be employed and the need for frequent interactions with staff at the University of Southampton, which was pre-eminent in a number of key technical areas. It had the largest academic department of Aeronautics and Astronautics in the UK and was also noted for its expertise in optoelectronics and other technical disciplines.
This outline
application was considered by the Southern Area Planning sub-Committee and
approved on 4 August 1987, with a waiver of the terms of the S52
agreement. The land required for the BSB
facility was withdrawn from the contemporaneous negotiations with MEPC. Discussions were then opened with BSB for
access to the site. Because of the
technical complexity of the proposed development and the need for tight
deadlines to be met (the facility had to be fully functional by August 1989),
it was immediately clear that it would be inappropriate for the science park,
or another developer, to take responsibility for construction. BSB’s initial proposal, therefore, was to
acquire a 150 year leasehold of the site for a premium and an annual rental of
a peppercorn, but with an appropriate contribution to maintenance of the access
road, other services and site security.
The company also offered to buy the freehold of the adjacent Hazel Copse
on the south western boundary of the BSB site, which had recently been acquired
by the science park. BSB’s legal
representatives emphasised their willingness to be flexible and to make
contributions to the university.
Clearly, BSB really wanted to come to Chilworth. The detailed planning application was made by
BSB in October 1987. It received Chief
Planning Officer recommendation for approval and was duly waved through the
following month.
Agreement was
finally reached between CCL and BSB in January 1988 for the lease of both the
land on which the BSB satellite broadcasting facility was to be placed and the
adjacent Hazel Copse. A restrictive
covenant only permitted development within the Hazel Copse land to be in
connection with DBS and for no other purpose.
In the case of each parcel of land, the term was 125 years from 1988 to
2113. However, in the former case the
lease was initially for 99 years, extendable on certain terms to 125
years.
The consideration was £82k per year in rent and a premium of
£330k. Rent reviews were to be 5 yearly,
upwards only, based on a formula (0.0875 x 70% capital valuation). At the first review only, BSB had the right
to buy down the rent to a peppercorn by paying a sum equal to 70% of the
capital value per acre. At that time CCL
was short of cash to invest in infrastructure and was pursuing a policy of
selling freeholds/long leaseholds.
IBA/BSB did not have funding in place to buy the freehold/long leasehold
initially but this option gave them time to put finance in place.
Development
of the BSB facilities got underway quickly.
Because of the nature of this operation, redundancy had to be planned
into all its components and systems, including telecommunications to and from
the science park. BSB had arranged for
duplicated optical fibres to be laid, one in each verge of University Parkway,
which caused some consternation for John Stuart-Buttle, as they had used up
virtually all the available service strip on each side of the main access
route. He made arrangements for
additional space to be acquired. The
Chilworth DBS facility started broadcasting on 25 March 1990. Later the same
year BSB merged with Sky Television plc to form a new entity, BSkyB, or British
Sky Broadcasting.
In February
1988, BSB composed a press release dealing with the acquisition of the site at
Chilworth for its uplink facility. Part
of that release follows.
“British
Satellite Broadcasting will site its main satellite control centre near
Southampton, at the Chilworth Research Centre, University of Southampton’s
science park. The company is to acquire a five acre site, on which will
be built the main technical centre for BSB. The complex will include a
telemetry tracking and control building, which will control and steer BSB's two
satellites and the broadcast uplink to be owned and operated by the IBA, along
with other facilities. The first
building is due to be completed by 1 October. "We will be laying the
foundations for Britain's satellite broadcasting industry at Chilworth. Southampton University have provided us with
a perfect site with excellent protection from radio interference", said
Anthony Simonds-Gooding, chief executive of BSB. He added that "BSB intended to foster
close links with the University and encourage research work in fields
associated with direct broadcasting by satellite".
In the same
year, in June, a competitor for British Satellite Broadcasting appeared on the
scene, Mr Rupert Murdoch, the Australian newspaper owner. At that time his newspaper interests debarred
him from owning UK television channels and being involved in the BSB
consortium, but the wily Rupert found a way around that restriction. He leased channels on the Astra satellite
which was owned by a consortium based in Luxembourg. One channel would broadcast Murdoch’s
entertainment channel, called Sky Channel.
The Astra satellite was due to be launched in November 1988 and the
signals that it would broadcast were powerful enough to be picked up by
domestic aerials on the ground in Britain.
Murdoch had stolen a march on BSB which was not due to start
broadcasting until 1989, though it was actually 1990 when BSB started satellite
broadcasting. In 1990, Sky Television
merged with BSB to form British Sky Broadcasting, which grew progressively to
become a major force, first in satellite broadcasting and subsequently digital
broadcasting. The British Sky
Broadcasting Group plc subsequently changed its name to Sky UK Ltd.
At the end of
August 1989, at the start of BSB’s operations at Chilworth, the Southern Daily
Echo contained an article where Richard Johnstone the site manager, described
the state of affairs on the site.
“FLYING the satellite that will beam pictures
to homes throughout Britain is a round the clock operation. “There has to be someone there all the time,
24 hours a day, 365 days a year," said Richard Johnstone, manager of the
new BSB station at Chilworth Science Park. "We have a staff of 28 here,
and there are ten satellite controllers working in five shifts of two. "This will be maintained right through
until the end of the life of the satellite in 1998." The controllers have
to have a working knowledge of computers, electronics and the spacecraft itself.
"It's a field of its own really, we have had to do 95 per cent of the training
ourselves," said Mr Johnstone. A bank of enormous satellite dishes at
Chilworth control the satellite and will transmit broadcasts from the London
studios — connected to Chilworth by a landline — into space. The satellite will
then beam programmes out across Britain, and customers will pick them up using
the company's unique square aerial”.
Richard
Johnstone and his understudy Malcolm Smalley, who succeeded Richard on the
former’s retirement, were both excellent representatives of their company and
were people for whom I had the highest regard.
They were always pleasant, understanding and cooperative and even when
the science park was in dispute with BSkyB over the interpretation of their
lease terms, the site management never allowed these circumstances to interfere
with inter-personal relationships. An
example of the “squarial”, the uniquely-shaped BSB domestic receiving dish was
kept on the Chilworth site for many years after that design had ceased to be of
use.
On 27 August
1989, BSB’s first satellite, Marco Polo 1 was successfully launched from Cape
Canaveral in Florida. Two days later it
was boosted into its geostationary orbit from where broadcasting of the
television signal would take place after deployment of antennae and solar
panels. The satellite proved to be in
excellent mechanical order. The
Chilworth facility was of such importance that a visit to the site by Prince
Edward, Duke of Kent, was arranged for 9 May 1990. He arrived by helicopter and stayed for an
hour. Technology had been a long time
interest of the Duke and he visited the science park on two other occasions. After the excitement of the successful Marco
Polo 1 satellite launch and the establishment of direct broadcasting by
satellite, the relationship between BSB and the science park settled down
mainly to the management of minor issues that arose from time to time.
The 1990
merger of British Satellite Broadcasting with Sky Television to form BSkyB Ltd,
required the assignment of the original lease of the Chilworth site to the new
company. During the negotiation of this
lease, the science park had been represented by Parker Bullen, a firm of
solicitors in Salisbury. Within that
lease, the first rent review date for BSkyB was 26 February1993 and the
agreement gave them an option to buy down their rent to a peppercorn if they
gave notice of their intentions within 12 months prior to that date. However, because the state of the letting
market had deteriorated in the interim, no formal rent review was ever carried
out as the revised rent could be upwards only.
Although a meeting was held between BSkyB’s representative and Vail
William agreement could not be reached on the interpretation of the lease terms
in the then current circumstances. The
wording of the lease was ambiguous. The
CCL Board minutes for 22 February 1993 noted “...it may be advisable to take
Counsel's advice”. Shirley Smith wrote
to BSkyB telling them that the rent would remain at the passing rate for the following
five years to the next rent review on 26 February 1998. BSkyB did not reply. In March 1994, it was recorded in the Board
minutes, entirely reasonably, that “It is believed that the deadline has now
passed for the BSB option to be exercised”.
An exchange between Shirley Smith and Richard Johnstone, the BSkyB site
manager, which took place about a month later, seemed to confirm that BSkyB
would not exercise their option to buy. But
BSkyB were not just letting the opportunity ebb away but rather playing their
cards close to their chests and keeping their options open.
In 1995,
BSkyB, through the architectural practice of Barclay Phillips (who would later
be responsible for the Fibercore Building on the science park) applied for
planning permission to erect three further 9 metre dish aerials on the Hazel
Copse site. Permission was granted. Later the same year planning permission was
also granted for the erection of a 4.5 metre antenna on a new steel extension
column. The following year a further outline
planning permission was granted for the erection of a building for use as
offices and the installation of eight antennae with their associated housing. The BSkyB business was going through a period
of substantial expansion.
In late 1996,
I entered the role of chief executive of the science park and progressively,
over the next two years, I became familiar with the matter of the next rent
review for the BSkyB site, due in 1998, and the unresolved issue of whether or
not the 1993 review had been completed as was required by the lease terms. In October 1997, I met with John Vail and Ian
Froome of Vail Williams and commissioned them to open negotiations with BSkyB
on the conduct of the pending rent review.
It was anticipated that there would be a small uplift in the site
valuation at this review since the depression in property values which took
place in the early 1990s had by then passed.
When approached by Vail Williams concerning the 1998 rent review, BSkyB
responded by informing us that, in their opinion, the 1993 rent review had
never taken place and requested a current valuation of the site.
By late 1999,
analogue television broadcasting was coming to an end to be replaced by digital
signals. BSkyB decided that they needed
a disaster recovery station somewhere in the Southampton area in case the
Chilworth facility was put out of action.
Initially they considered locating it on Kennels Farm and then on the
other half of the Biology Paddock remaining after the lease to Merck had been
concluded (see below) but both sites were discarded, due to proximity to the
primary station, in favour of a site at Fairoak.
Meanwhile,
negotiations were proceeding slowly concerning the resolution of the
outstanding rent reviews and the issue of whether or not the 1993 review was
agreed to have taken place or to be still outstanding. It was agreed to ask the RICS to appoint an
expert to give an opinion on the 1998 review.
BSB then asked for the remit to be extended to the 1993 review too,
which we declined. By February 2000
informal agreement had been reached on the 1998 rent review. It was settled at £94,000 pa, up from £82,000
pa and some £39,000 was due in outstanding rent plus a still to be determined
sum for interest. However, while these
figures had been agreed informally with BSB’s property agent, DTZ, they then
refused to sign off the agreement. At
that stage barrister Jonathan Brock was firm in his opinion that we had a
strong case concerning the 1993 review being spent. However, aggressive letters from BSB’s
lawyers, Herbert Smith, soon resumed, indicating that the 1993 review was still
a live issue for them.
The reason
why BSB were resisting signing off on the 1998 rent review was that the 1998
agreement would then become the first rent review which would be beneficial to
the science park side being much higher than the 1993 figure. Similarly, the science park side was
resisting arbitration because that might establish a lower figure for the value
of the site than had been agreed informally with Herbert Smith. Despite further subtle (and expensive)
manoeuvring involving Mr Brock, Mark Howarth, DTZ and Herbert Smith we had
reached an impasse. It appeared that
court action was the likely next step for them to try to establish that the
1993 review had not been validly completed and thus that their right to acquire
the freehold of the site was still outstanding.
It was at this point, in early May 2001 that we received an informal
approach from BSkyB via DTZ and Vail Williams.
Anthony Doyle of DTZ and Matthew Samuel-Camps of Vails had formerly been
colleagues. Would we like to meet with
BSkyB/DTZ to discuss the possibility of sale of the BSkyB site and so avoid the
need for litigation? I responded
positively, subject to the agreement of the science park Board and the owner,
the university. Mark Howarth saw no
problem with holding a “without prejudice” meeting to see what the other side
had in mind. We were also slightly
exercised by the fact that our barrister, Mr Brock had initially been very
bullish about the strength of our case but had started to nuance his advice
with the qualification that nothing is certain with litigation and now
estimated the probability of our winning the argument at 0.67. There was also the issue of likely costs if
the matter were to be decided in court.
The figures would be about £50k on our side and £75k on their side but
the winning side could only expect to recover about 70% of their costs. Mark Howarth’s colleague, Clive Thompson, the
litigation partner at Paris Smith, gave the opinion that BSkyB would be
unlikely to be seeking negotiations if they believed that their case was
strong. It seemed that both sides had
reached a similar estimation of the legal position in which they jointly found
themselves. Perhaps to give the
impression that they believed their case was stronger than it was, BSky B
served notice of court action on us, which they then held over on a monthly
basis while negotiations were continuing.
At this point, in late May 2001, John Brooks, the science park’s
finance director, and I sat down together to make a probabilistic estimate of
the financial parameters of a potential deal, using Mr Brock’s estimate that
our chance of winning was 0.67. We
discounted the possibility of the sale of the freehold of the site on the basis
of our belief that the university would never countenance such a disposal,
given the experience of selling the freehold of the Ferring site. Thus the key calculation concerned BSkyB’s
option to buy down the rental to a peppercorn.
The net
present value was calculated using a discount factor of 12.5% (8x
earnings). This was the norm for this
type of undertaking and was used by Vail Williams to value the business. The value, averaged across both outcomes (win
and lose) if we proceeded to litigation, was £883k. If there were to be a negotiated outcome,
most of the legal costs would have been avoided and the net present value would
rise to £926k. This was our estimated
break-even figure to be kept in mind for the coming negotiations and was
included in a paper we presented to the board of the company at the end of May
2001. We were authorised to have a
“without prejudice” meeting with BSkyB’s representatives to receive any offer
they might make.
That meeting
took place on 27th June 2001, John Brooks and myself representing
the science park and David Butorac (BSkyB), Guy Addison and Anthony Doyle (DTZ)
in Chilworth Manor. I made clear that
since the meeting had been requested by the BSkyB side we were there to listen
to what they had to say. The offer made
by our opponents was to buy down the rent for 4.18 acres (excluding Hazel
Copse) of the BSkyB site to a peppercorn for 70% of the value based on 1988,
not 1993. Since at that time the site
valuation was thought to have been “about £1.3M”, the price being offered
amounted to about £776K, rather less than our break-even estimate. However, David Butorac also indicated that
they had in mind a figure of “about £1M”.
We thanked them for their offer and agreed to take it away for
consideration. Our next board meeting
was not until September 2001 but we undertook to reply before that time.
I believe
that John and I managed to keep our emotions hidden at this outcome of the
meeting. Initially, we were puzzled by
the discrepancy between the two figures mentioned by David Butorac until we
realised that he had said “1988” when he probably intended to say “1998”. In 1998 the value of the land was about
£310K/acre, which would give a price of about £907K, not high enough to secure
our agreement but getting close, especially given Butorac’s round figures
price. I sought to advance to our target
figure by responding to David Butorac with a proposal to fix the price above
£1m without reference to the value of land in 1998, on the grounds that valuing
land in the past was an uncertain exercise.
As hoped and planned, David Butorac made an offer of precisely £1M. We now had an offer which we could recommend to
the science park board. I also went back
to Mr Brock for his current thought on our chances of winning in court, “no
better than 50/50, I am afraid”, was his disappointing response. This hardened our view that we should accept
£1M while it was still on offer. John
and I then wrote a paper for the board members, recommending acceptance of the
offer and asking for a response before 27th July 2001. As expected, no one opposed our
recommendation.
We were
pleased that we would exceed our break-even price by a significant margin. This figure had an added relevance because it
was also the price that Hampshire County Council was demanding for the long
leasehold of land at Kennels Farm. If we
achieved £1M for BSkyB we could then buy Kennels without the need for a
financial partner, or the need to grant a long-leasehold to a substantial part
of the Kennels site. That was the deal
we eventually did with HCC to acquire a long lease on the developable land at
Kennels Farm.
And that was
it! Another science park saga had been
brought, eventually, to a satisfactory outcome.
The acquisition of land at Kennels
Farm and the securing of planning permissions
The science
park company, then called Chilworth Centre Ltd, first discovered that Hampshire
County Council wished to sell its freehold property, Kennels Farm, which could
only be accessed through the Chilworth Estate, in November 1984. At that time the 20 acres of land was valued
at £100,000, £5,000/ acre, i.e. an agricultural valuation. CCL was interested in the site but could not
afford to pay the asking price. Interest
in the site by CCL then languished for four years before an approach was made
by CCL to HCC but no agreement was reached and the science park managers again
turned their attention elsewhere. In
1994, CCL chief executive John Large was authorised to spend £3,000 in having a
provisional scheme for a Phase III of the science park prepared for the most
suitable six acre section of the farm.
This draft scheme was presented to HCC and considered by its Land
sub-Committee. It was indicated that HCC
would sell but was now looking for a price of about £1m, i.e. an assumption had
been made that the land would achieve panning permission, even though such
permission had not yet been sought.
Application
for outline permission was made to Test Valley Borough Council in March
1995. However, the planning officers
recommended refusal and it was only by chance due to the composition of the
Southern Area Planning sub-Committee on the night that the proposal was
approved by one vote. The application
then had to clear a further hurdle at the superior planning committee where,
again, it scraped through. But this
advance proved to be the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the
end. Protracted negotiations then got
underway with TVBC on the terms of the section 106 agreement and with HCC on
the s278 agreement, the latter covering highways matters. HCC were demanding the introduction of a bus
service with a substantial subsidy and a contribution to the Test Valley Cycle
Network, the total cost of these two items being estimated at a whopping
£400,000.
By the end of
1996, Phases I and II of the science park were practically fully let and the
management was again contemplating the development of a Phase III on the
Kennels Farm land. Also, the science
park company (now renamed Chilworth Science Park Ltd) was in good financial
shape and estimated that it could afford to buy the Kennels Farm land using
bank borrowing. There was a local
government election on 21 May 1997 affecting all the English counties,
including Hampshire. The Hampshire
administration had been run by the Liberal-Democrats before the election and it
had indicated informally that it would accept £540,000 for the freehold of
Kennels Farm. CSPL offered £525,000 for
the property but received no reply before Election Day when the Conservatives
were returned to power, led by Freddie Emery-Wallace, a supporter of the local
Chilworth Conservatives who were hostile to the further development of the science
park. CSPL then offered the full price,
but it was too late. There was no
response to the offer and soon afterwards HCC announced that Kennels Farm had
been withdrawn from the market.
The
knock-back from Freddie Emery-Wallace in 1997 caused me, with the board of CCL,
to consider alternative sites for further science park development. Freddie would not have realised that his
action in blocking the sale of land at Kennels Farm stimulated CCL to seek
alternatives for the location of Phase III, as he was probably unaware that we
had any. I met with Howard Newby, the
Vice-Chancellor, and summarised for him the alternative sites that might be
considered, should Kennels Farm not be secured, namely, the Engineering
building, Woodlands (University site off Manor Road previously intended for a
house for the V-C), the Walled Garden (near Chilworth Manor but belonging to
the university), the Paddock (belonging to the university) Estate Dept premises
(Chilworth gardeners’ compound, also belonging to the university), Chilworth
Common (Willis Fleming-owned, but optioned to the Wilky Group, property
developers, Guildford, who were talking to the science park). Howard was supportive of our ideas, which was
helpful since several of them would involve tricky negotiations with current
university users.
Diplomatically,
CSPL had no alternative but to await a change in the leadership of HCC to a
more supportive regime if it wished to reactivate negotiations for Kennels
Farm. That came about in 1999 when Ken
Thornber, a science park supporter, was elected leader of the Conservative
Group on HCC. Negotiations were then
resumed but they were long and tortuous because HCC had fixed a price of £1m
for the developable land at Kennels Farm on political grounds but our valuation
of the plot on economic grounds produced a figure substantially below that
level. The elongated shape of the site
and its distance from the A27 meant that accessing and servicing the site would
be very expensive, in the region of £2m.
Also, time was becoming pressing because the outline planning permission
was due to expire on 21 October 2001. In
order to break the impasse, the Board of CSPL agreed to offer £1m for the site
in June 2001 but it was rejected by HCC!
There was then pressure put on HCC to reconsider its position and good
sense prevailed but it was then necessary to take action to extend the currency
of out planning permission. We submitted
a “reserved matters” application which, if granted, would extend the start date
for work on the site by two years. It
was successful. Further planning
applications were made in August 2002, both successful, one for a further five
year extension of the outline planning application and the second one a
detailed planning application under reserved matters.
At the
beginning of 2004 the name by which we would refer to the site was changed from
“Kennels Farm” to “Benham Campus”, which was taken from the 1755 Searle map of
the Chilworth Estate. On the planning
front, because of the complexity of the conditions attached to the detailed
planning permission, the notice of planning permission was not issued until 31
March 2005, which gave us two years to complete all preparatory actions. A further year elapsed before TVBC was
satisfied that all planning conditions had been met and work could begin on the
access road from the BSkyB entrance at the end of University Parkway to the
entry to the Benham Campus site could be initiated. It was early 2007 before the contractor came
on site, an enormous relief for me just a few months before my retirement. This project had begun in 1984 and had
occupied me throughout the 11½ years of my time as chief executive.
The Biology Paddock
Merck is a family-owned,
German company that traces its origins back to 1668. Today (2025) it is massive with over 60,000
employees and a presence in many countries.
At a high level, its business areas are generally involved with design,
production and sales of specialist chemicals and pharmaceuticals. It had a research and manufacturing base in
Poole, Dorset in the 1990s but decided that its manufacturing facilities should
be consolidated and the Poole facility closed down. It then needed to establish a new UK research
facility concerned particularly with the design of liquid crystals for use in
visual displays and that the facility should be located close to a university
with expertise in synthetic chemistry, with whom the company could form a
strategic partnership. Merck then
undertook a search for an appropriate partner in higher education which had a
pre-eminent reputation in synthetic chemistry.
Their short list consisted of Southampton, Oxford, Cambridge and
Imperial College, London. In 1997, the
science park at Chilworth was chosen as their preferred location. Within the park, the conclusion was reached
that the best site for this prestigious development would be the Biology
Paddock near the entrance to the park but, at the time it was occupied by the
Scool of Biological Sciences and owned by the University of Southampton. Delicate negotiations were then required to
relocate the biologists and to negotiate a price and other terms for the long
lease of the site to the science park company.
Merck took up half of the available space at the Biology Paddock. The remaining half of the biology Paddock was
eventually acquired from the university and long-leased to Fibercore, a
spin-out from the Optoelectronics Research Centre, for the construction of a
bespoke building for R&D and production of specialist fibre optical
components, essentially completing the land holding on which the science park
today stands.
Conclusion
Successful
property ventures, because they are sometimes aided, or even determined, by
unpredictable influences may depend on serendipity for a beneficial
performance. Thus a chance coincidence
of unlikely events, or the taking of a good decision, but for the wrong reason,
may make the difference between economic viability and disappointment. The University of Southampton Science Park at
Chilworth may be judged, by several different criteria, to have aided the
university substantially in its mission.
The beneficial conversion of a redundant property, the generation of a
substantial capital asset and annual income, the promotion of technology
transfer and a source of employment for its graduates, immediately come to
mind. Did chance events play a part in
the evolution of this project, or was its success more the consequence of the involvement
of able people taking good decisions along the way?
In my
opinion, the science park, as it exists today, is the result of both good
decisions and ones which, with hindsight, might have been taken differently, or
at a different time, and also as a result of the shrewdness of a few
far-sighted thinkers who were involved in initiative-taking or decision-making
at key times during the first 28 years of its gestation and existence. But I am also left with a sense of good
fortune having played its part, since the substantial Chilworth Manor Estate
was bought at the right time, but for the wrong reason, and that this purchase
coincided beneficially with the start and early growth of the national science
park movement.
The emergence
of the concept of developing a science park on the Chilworth Estate in 1979
resulted from Alec Gambling, at the time an influential scientist who is now
recognised to have been one of the founding fathers of the new technology of
optoelectronic communication, recognising the potential of science parks after
visiting Cambridge, and in consequence, gave a leaflet about the Cambridge
Science Park to Graham Hills, whom he must have considered to be the senior
Southampton academic most likely to run with the idea of creating a similar
facility in association with the University of Southampton. Indeed, Graham Hills did seize on the idea
and promoted it with both zeal and vision, even though he was shortly due to
leave Southampton for a senior academic position in Glasgow and could have been
forgiven if his attention had been diverted northwards. It should also be remembered that Graham
Hills’ idea was enthusiastically supported by two vice-chancellors, Jim Gower,
a lawyer, and John Roberts, a historian, each of whom could still see the
strength of the case being made by Graham Hills.
The
successful development of a science park by a university brings benefits to
more than the academic institution. It
can also be a major agency of economic development, especially involving new
technologies and potentially new industries.
The creation of the University of Southampton Science Park has been
economically important especially for the three adjacent units of local
government, Test Valley Borough Council, Hampshire County Council and
Southampton City Council, yet those three bodies have not been equally
supportive in promoting the science park at Chilworth. It should be recalled that David Scouller,
the SCC Chief Executive in 1979 was particularly enthused by the idea of
creating a science park on his authority’s doorstep and that Southampton City
Council was the only authority of the three which invested actual cash into the
venture, but also got its money back and more.
Councillor John Arnold was also very encouraging, serving on the board
on the science park company for several years.
While the officers of both the science park’s planning authorities, Test
Valley Borough Council and Hampshire County Council, were generally helpful,
the science park was subjected to political actions from time to time by
members who had personal considerations uppermost in their minds in the period
up to 2007.
Derek
Schofield, Secretary and Registrar during the crucial years of the 1980s,
deserves to be mentioned for the role he played in guiding the university away
from the complexities of university administrative structures in its search for
a responsive and competent managerial mechanism for the development and control
of the two Chilworth Manor Estate projects.
Derek recognised that professional skills, knowledge and drive were
essential components of commercial success.
Of all the
individuals who have served, gratis,
on the board of the science park company over the years and even decades of its
existence up to the time of my retirement, the contribution of one man stands
out and that is Dr Kenneth Dibben. His
financial and business acumen served the science park company royally on
several occasions. The negotiation of
investment terms with SEDCO and their subsequent buy-out, the negotiation of
terms for various bank loans, and, especially, the timing and negotiation of
terms for the acquisition of MEPC’s interest in the science park. All these phases contributed to the position
that the University of Southampton finds itself in today as the owner of 100%
of the equity in the University of Southampton Science Park Ltd. It is, in my opinion, fitting that Ken’s name
should be commemorated in the naming of a substantial and attractive building
in his honour.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful
to the staff of the University of The Southampton Science Park Ltd for granting
access the company’s archives.
Don Fox
20260226
donaldpfox@gmail.com
