Lab tested: UK science property enters a more selective phase

Our analysis of twelve months of The SectorScope news stories covering the science building sector highlights a maturing market in which location, specialisation and credible research ecosystems increasingly determine which projects move forward.

The UK's science and technology property market is still expanding, but the development story is becoming more complicated. A year of projects reported by The SectorScope shows substantial investment continuing to flow into laboratories, research facilities and innovation districts.

Major corporate occupiers are committing to new R&D facilities, universities are completing specialist buildings, developers are bringing speculative laboratory space to market and large science-led masterplans are progressing.

At the same time, the market is becoming more selective. Rising vacancy, development and financing costs and a substantial pipeline of consented space have made the strength of individual locations and schemes increasingly important. Investors are concentrating on higher-quality projects, while developers are tying new space more closely to established research institutions, specialist occupiers and identifiable clusters.

The result is a market that appears to be moving beyond the first rush to create laboratory space towards a more subtle definition of what makes science property viable.

Clusters strengthen their pull

Oxford, Cambridge and London remain central to that development. In Cambridge, GSK is planning a £400 million research and development facility on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, accommodating more than 1,000 scientists. The investment places a major corporate research operation within an existing concentration of biomedical research and clinical expertise.

Elsewhere in the Cambridge market, Glencar completed 56,000 sq ft of speculative laboratory and office accommodation at Chesterford Research Park. The building was developed without a single occupier determining its specification, but the decision to build speculatively was made within an established science location rather than an untested market.

The distinction is important as it shows that speculative development has not disappeared, but developers appear increasingly conscious of where risk can sensibly be taken.

A similar pattern can be seen in London. Snowsfields Quarter includes around 245,000 sq ft of laboratory space close to Guy's Hospital and King's College London and within the SC1 Life Sciences Innovation District. Its development case therefore rests not simply on demand for London laboratory space, but on proximity to an existing concentration of healthcare, academic research and life sciences activity.

The planned expansion of the London Cancer Hub takes the cluster model further. Around 1 million sq ft of laboratory and research space forms part of plans for a high-density research campus bringing together scientists, clinicians, start-ups and established life sciences companies.

Here, the surrounding ecosystem is not merely an amenity for occupiers. Increasingly, it is part of the property proposition itself.

From laboratory space to specialist buildings

The buildings being designed and constructed are becoming more differentiated too. Oxford University's £200 million Life and Mind Building demonstrates how far modern research facilities can depart from the idea of a conventional laboratory block. Alongside teaching and research accommodation, the building incorporates specialist facilities including rooftop glasshouses, sleep laboratories, experimental classrooms and botanical collections.

At the Ellison Institute of Technology in Oxford, Foster + Partners is redesigning three buildings already under construction to accommodate the institute's Plant Biology and Generative Biology research.

The proposals combine flexible laboratories with learning and collaboration areas, auditoria and a rooftop greenhouse. Rather than fitting scientific occupiers into predetermined commercial space, the buildings are being reorganised around particular research requirements and workflows. That distinction may prove increasingly important for the construction industry.

Flexibility remains a recurring requirement across new science developments, but flexible does not necessarily mean generic. Research buildings must be capable of adapting as scientific programmes and occupiers change while still providing the specialist infrastructure required for technically demanding work.

That places greater emphasis on building services, environmental control, vibration, power and the relationship between laboratory, office and collaborative space. For contractors, consultants and designers, the growth of science property therefore creates demand for specialist knowledge as much as capacity.

Existing buildings join the science pipeline

That expertise requirement for contractors and specialists is also opening possibilities for existing property. Adaptive reuse is not yet the dominant story in science development, with substantial purpose-built projects continuing to progress, but several schemes show that demanding scientific uses do not automatically require demolition and replacement.

For example, at the Ellison Institute, substantial parts of three structures already being built are being retained and redesigned around a fundamentally different scientific brief.

In London, the ARC West London development in Hammersmith retained the existing concrete structure while creating around 150,000 sq ft of laboratory and R&D accommodation. The design has had to respond to requirements including vibration control for scientific research.

Oxford provides another example of the changing relationship between science and existing urban property, with the former Debenhams department store being repositioned to provide around 100,000 sq ft of laboratory and innovation space.

These schemes remain notable partly because laboratory conversion is technically difficult. But if developers and design teams become more confident in adapting existing structures for specialist research uses, science could become another route for repositioning obsolete commercial property in suitable locations.

Science as a regeneration anchor

The geographic story is also beginning to extend beyond individual laboratory clusters. At Golden Valley in Cheltenham, science and technology employment sits at the centre of a wider regeneration proposition. The development is intended to combine innovation and high-value employment with housing, infrastructure and public realm, bringing together industry, academia and government.

That represents a different role for science property. Rather than being one commercial use within a mixed-use development, research and technology activity becomes the economic anchor around which the wider place is created.

Government backing for the Oxford-Cambridge corridor similarly reflects the extent to which science development is becoming connected with wider questions of housing, transport, infrastructure and economic growth.

This suggests that the next stage of the market may be measured not only in square feet of laboratory space. The more mature proposition is an innovation ecosystem combining property with research institutions, skilled workers, infrastructure, capital and businesses capable of commercialising research.

A large pipeline meets a more discerning market

None of these trends remove the risks surrounding the science and technology building sector. Market evidence reported by The SectorScope during the year showed vacancy rising, although the pace of that increase was slowing, alongside contraction in development pipelines and uneven rental performance. Improving financing conditions and renewed capital availability for pharmaceutical and biotech businesses offered more positive signals for occupier demand.

Market analysis from Cushman & Wakefield at the end of 2025 recorded around 3.8 million sq ft of lab-enabled UK space under construction in mid-2025 and a further 5.1 million sq ft with planning consent. It also pointed to investors becoming more discerning and concentrating capital on stronger developments, while construction and financing costs remained potential obstacles to delivery. That combination may be one of the clearest signs of maturation.

Developers focus on factors such as type of space, building location, type of occupier – and what type of ‘science’ is being carried out. But the year's project pipeline provides plenty of evidence that capital is still finding a market and creating the right projects.

Market maturity

GSK's Cambridge commitment, completed speculative development at Chesterford, Oxford University's new research facilities, the London Cancer Hub and major schemes such as Snowsfields Quarter all represent different forms of confidence. They also range from corporate R&D and academic research to speculative development and large-scale innovation districts.

What they have in common is a stronger proposition than laboratory floorspace alone. For developers, that makes science and technology property simultaneously more attractive and more demanding.

Established clusters retain powerful advantages, but science-led regeneration is creating opportunities elsewhere. Flexible buildings remain important, but occupiers increasingly require sophisticated specialist infrastructure. New construction dominates much of the pipeline, while technically ambitious conversions are beginning to demonstrate what can be achieved with existing stock.

Above all, a growing market is becoming more capable of distinguishing between projects. That may make the next phase less forgiving than the initial enthusiasm surrounding UK life sciences suggested. Not every consented laboratory will be built, and not every building marketed to science occupiers will attract them.

But selectivity should not necessarily be confused with weakness. It may instead indicate that UK science property is becoming an established development sector with clearer expectations around location, specification, occupier demand and investment risk.

The question facing the market has therefore changed. It is becoming less about whether enthusiasm for UK science can generate a property market around it, and more about what successful science property actually looks like.

A year of SectorScope reporting suggests an answer is beginning to emerge: clustered and connected, technically sophisticated, flexible but genuinely specialist, and supported by a credible scientific and commercial ecosystem.

That is a more demanding proposition than simply building laboratories. It is also the sign of a market growing up.