Cambridgeshire and Peterborough £53m investment review reveals successes and losses

A new review of £53 million invested across 78 projects by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority reveals an 82.4% business survival rate, successful medical technology ventures and significant property valuation gaps, alongside company failures and financial risks.

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) will examine a major review of its investments on November 2.

The report, due before the authority’s Funding Committee, covers 78 investments made through six programmes, with a combined value of approximately £53 million.

Its findings reveal business survival rates above the regional average, successful medical technology ventures and significant financial challenges, including failed companies and property assets valued well below their construction costs.

According to the review, the overall portfolio has remained broadly stable despite individual company failures and changes in valuations.

Officers report a valuation movement of minus £50,000, or 0.7%, compared with the September 2025 review. Excluding property investments associated with Anglia Ruskin University (ARU), the authority’s remaining company investment exposure stands at approximately £9.632 million, with an estimated current valuation of £9.582 million.

Why the Combined Authority invested public money

The investment programmes originated in government funding awarded between 2019 and 2024, including the Local Growth Fund, Getting Building Fund, Gainshare funding and growth funds inherited from the former Local Enterprise Partnership.

Rather than relying exclusively on grants, the authority used several approaches, including direct company investments, equity stakes and property ownership. Approximately £49.3 million was deployed through these investment mechanisms.

The primary objective was not to maximise financial returns. Instead, the authority sought to stimulate economic growth, create employment, develop skills, support innovation and help businesses expand.

The distinction matters because some investments were intended to deliver public benefits that commercial investors might not consider financially attractive.

The report identifies an overall business survival rate of 82.4% across the portfolio, compared with a reported three year survival rate of 59.4% for businesses across the CPCA region.

Officers caution that direct comparisons are difficult because supported businesses were often selected for their growth potential. Nevertheless, the figures suggest that many companies backed through the programmes have survived and continued trading.

ARU Peterborough accounts for the largest investment

The largest commitment is approximately £41.9 million invested in two property companies established to deliver the ARU Peterborough university campus.

The project was intended to address a longstanding gap in higher education provision in Peterborough, supporting skills development and helping strengthen the city’s economy.

The Combined Authority invested £28.1 million in Peterborough HE Property Company, holding a 44% stake. Peterborough City Council owns 39%, while Anglia Ruskin University owns 17%.

A further £13.8 million was invested in Peterborough R&D Property Company.

The authority considers the campus a strategically important, long term project, with the investment not expected to mature until at least 2040.

However, the property valuations highlight the financial challenges involved.

Phase 1 and Phase 3 cost approximately £63.9 million to develop but had a combined fair market valuation of around £10.9 million in June 2025. Phase 2 cost approximately £13.7 million and was valued at roughly £3 million.

These figures represent a substantial gap between development costs and market values.

The authority argues that the project was driven by regeneration and economic development rather than commercial property returns. Without public investment, officers say, the buildings would not have been delivered on the same basis because local land values and rents were insufficient to make the development commercially viable.

The project’s long term success will therefore need to be judged partly through its contribution to education, skills and the local economy, rather than its property valuation alone.

Growth Works faces mixed results

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Business Growth Company, known through its Growth Works brand, provided business support, coaching, skills brokerage and inward investment services.

It also invested approximately £1.8 million in nine companies.

The portfolio has a reported survival rate of 77.8%, although its investment valuation fell by around 15%, from £2.25 million to £1.92 million.

The company is now being wound up following decisions by the Combined Authority Board. Its remaining investments have been transferred directly to the authority.

The findings demonstrate that business survival does not necessarily translate into rising investment values, particularly when supporting young companies with uncertain growth prospects.

Life sciences investment brings opportunities and risks

The authority backed several programmes designed to help develop the region’s life sciences sector.

Through the Illumina Accelerator at Granta Park, it invested approximately £1.5 million across 15 start-ups. Individual businesses could receive up to £100,000 through agreements that could convert into shareholdings in future funding rounds.

The programme has a reported survival rate of 73.4%. Four companies are classified as dead investments, while another five have received red ratings because of concerns about their prospects.

One company, Genegoggle, has warned that it may fold because of funding difficulties.

There have also been positive developments. Dama Health is preparing a major funding round, while Broken String converted its investment agreement into shares during 2026. The report also highlights continuing gene research among companies supported by the programme.

The results illustrate the risks associated with investing in early stage biotechnology, where promising research can take years to reach commercial markets and businesses may need substantial additional funding.

MedTech Accelerator delivers a positive return

The MedTech Accelerator provides a more encouraging example of public investment.

The Combined Authority invested £500,000 in a regional fund worth £1.47 million, managed through Health Enterprise East.

The investment is now valued at approximately £536,000, representing growth of around 7.2%.

Among the businesses highlighted is SAFIRA, a regional anaesthesia delivery system that has expanded internationally and generated revenues of approximately £302,000.

Neutrocheck has secured a $6 million seed funding round, while LUMEVAC and LocANTS continue progressing through clinical development and NHS innovation pathways.

The portfolio has a reported survival rate of 76.9%.

Officers say the programme is making continued progress in commercialisation, clinical validation and market expansion, suggesting that targeted support can help medical technologies move closer to practical use.

Start Codon highlights the value of specialist management

The authority committed £3 million to Start Codon, a life sciences accelerator managed by Cambridge Innovation Capital. Of that amount, £2.4 million has been drawn down into a wider £15 million investment fund.

The programme has invested in 28 companies and reports a survival rate of 85.7%, the strongest among the major investment programmes reviewed.

The report identifies professionally managed funds as a recurring feature of better performing portfolios. Start Codon, MedTech and funds managed by the FSE Group are among the stronger performers.

This suggests that specialist investment expertise and active management may improve oversight and help identify problems earlier, although it does not remove the risks associated with early stage businesses.

Business and social investment programmes

A £10 million Gainshare allocation was divided between business growth and social impact initiatives. Of the total, £9.5 million was earmarked for investment activity, with £500,000 allocated to administration.

The business investment programme, managed by the FSE Group, has invested nearly £4 million across nine companies. All nine remain trading, giving the portfolio a reported survival rate of 100% so far.

The social impact programme distributed nearly £587,000 to 20 organisations across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough before being closed early by agreement between the authority and delivery partner Allia Impact Ltd.

Peterborough received the largest share of approved funding, with £240,844 allocated across nine organisations.

Another initiative, the Greater Cambridge Impact Fund, aims to address systemic inequality through social impact investment.

The Combined Authority committed £1 million, matched by £1 million from Cambridge City Council. The fund has raised £9 million towards a £10 million target, including £1.5 million from The Crown Estate, and identified potential investments worth approximately £21 million.

No investments had been made at the time covered by the report. The first are expected within six to 12 months.

Company failures offset some investment gains

The review is candid about businesses that have failed or suffered significant falls in value.

Companies classified as dead investments have been dissolved or liquidated. Others have received red ratings because they have stopped trading, stalled or become difficult to contact.

Among the largest negative valuation movements were:

• Synergy Grill, down £350,000 following weaker trading.
• Autopickr, down £230,000 after entering voluntary liquidation.
• Cosyne Therapeutics, down £63,000.
• Enhanced Genomics, down £28,000.
• RevoNA Bio, down £25,000.

Together, these declines amount to nearly £700,000.

Officers acknowledge that some red rated investments may eventually need to be written off. They also warn that private company investments are difficult to sell quickly, often remaining illiquid until a major event, such as an acquisition or stock market listing, provides an exit opportunity.

However, the report also identifies investments that have increased in value.

Ipiphany AI rose by £250,000 following renewed activity, while 52 North gained £115,000. Verinnogen increased by £63,000 and Lucida Medical rose by £200,000 after a successful funding round.

Combined, these positive movements total approximately £628,000.

The gains help explain why the overall portfolio valuation has remained relatively stable despite individual failures and substantial losses.

What the findings mean for taxpayers

The report presents a mixed but broadly stable picture of the Combined Authority’s investment activity.

Some businesses have failed, some investments have lost value and the ARU Peterborough property portfolio faces a substantial gap between development costs and market valuations.

At the same time, the review highlights business survival rates above the regional average, medical technologies attracting further funding and companies continuing to develop potentially valuable innovations.

The authority’s investment strategy was designed primarily to achieve economic and social benefits, rather than commercial returns alone. Assessing its success therefore requires consideration of employment, skills, innovation and regeneration alongside financial performance.

The reported 0.7% decline in the overall portfolio valuation since September 2025 offers some reassurance, but it does not prove that every investment has delivered value for money.

Nor does a company’s survival automatically demonstrate that public funding produced the desired economic benefits.

The Funding Committee’s task will be to weigh those outcomes against the financial risks, including whether unsuccessful investments should be written off and how future programmes can be managed more effectively.