The Council

COUN02-M1

Minutes of the 284th Meeting of the University Council held on 20 February 2002.

Members:

Sir Bryan Carsberg (Chair); Professor C J Backhouse; Mr J B C Blood; Dr R H Boissier;
Dr T G M Brooks (ab); Dr S Campbell (ab); Dr M J Catton; Ms V Dhupa; Dr M Gilbert; Professor C Hanson (ab); Mr P Harrisson; Mr P J K Haslehurst; Dr T Higgins;
Ms N Honey (ab); Mrs J E Hull (ab); Ms H Jenkinson; Professor T J Kavanagh;
Mr E O Maxwell; Professor R McCaffer; Mr M Moghal; Mr D Morris; Mr W M Moss;
Dr P N Murgatroyd; Dr L R Mustoe; Mr J Mutton; Mrs W M Pilkington; Sir Denis Rooke; Dr J F Rowland; Ven I Stanes; Mrs J A M Strong; Mrs M C Tomlinson (ab);
Mr D R F Walker; Professor D J Wallace; Mr J B White; Mr C S Woodruff

In attendance:

Professor J L Alty; Professor N A Halliwell; Professor I C Morison; Mr H M Pearson; Professor P H Roberts; Professor H Thomason; Mr J M Town; Miss M T Whyte;
Ms H E Baldwin
Mr R D Thorpe for items relating to minute 02/5.2 - 02/5.3, Mrs K J Newcombe for the item relating to minute 02/6

Apologies for absence were received from:

Dr T G M Brooks, Professor C Hanson, Mrs M C Tomlinson

02/1 Minutes

It was RESOLVED to confirm the Minutes of the 282nd Meeting of the Council held on 18 December 2001 [COUN01-M9].

02/2 Business of the Agenda

The item relating to Minute 02/10 was unstarred.

02/3 Chairman's Business

The Chairman updated members on estates issues.

02/4 Vice Chancellor's Business

.1 Student Applications

Undergraduate UK/EU applications were up 6% on 2000/2001 figures. This was encouraging as it was ahead of the national figure. There had been a slight drop in applications for engineering programmes but this was in the context of a national decline. The University expected to increase conversion rates in engineering departments to meet intake targets.

International student applications were very encouraging. The undergraduate international market was not booming across the sector. Despite this, the University's applications were up 25% on last year. Postgraduate taught international applications were up 125% and Heads of Departments were being urged to convert applications into admissions.

Council was reminded that the University could only increase income from UK/EU undergraduate students by bidding for additional student numbers. The University had recently been successful in achieving 90% of a formal bid for additional student numbers. Essentially this amounted to a 1% increase in the UK/EU undergraduate student population for the next three years. A member questioned whether the University was reaching its optimum size. It was recognised that this was a significant issue and would need to be addressed in the strategic plan.

Members were informed that the recent bid for additional student numbers was not part of the University's Widening Participation agenda. Further bids to support Widening Participation would be made but government targets in this area could not be met by increasing the number of students on campus. The continued development of partnerships with colleges was an integral part of the University's Widening Participation strategy.

.2 Research

The value of new research grants and contracts gained in the first six months of 2001/2002 was £14.7M. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) reported that, to date, applications awaiting decisions had an aggregate value of £29M.

The University had also been awarded two EPSRC advanced fellowships, one in the Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering and the other in the Department of Mathematical Sciences. Both were highly prestigious five-year appointments and would be noted as badges of quality in the next Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Deans should encourage other departments to apply for similar schemes.

The Funding Council grant letter was due on 6 March 2002. Modelling based on the RAE outcome suggested that the University's grant for research would be broadly comparable with last time.

Based on Funding Council performance indictors for research, the University was ranked 7^th in "Research Fortnight". However, Council was reminded that the University had been ranked 39^th in the Times Higher Education Supplement league table, published immediately after the release of 2001 RAE results.

.3 Sport Fundraising

The English Institute of Sport and National Cricket Academy projects had received over 80% funding from the lottery. The University needed to raise £5.3M to meet the shortfall. A professional campaign had been mounted to raise funds and it was reported that staff in the External Relations Office were working hard to achieve this.

.4 "Right to Read" Campaign

The Vice-Chancellor reported that the University was involved in "Right to Read", a national campaign supported locally by the Leicestershire Education Business Centre and Leicestershire Cares. The aim of the scheme was for staff and student volunteers to help children in a local school to improve their reading skills. To date, 25 staff had volunteered to take part.

.5 Student Behaviour

Following the articles that had appeared in the Daily Telegraph toward the end of last year, the Vice-Chancellor's office had received only one letter since the last meeting of Council. The letter from the parents of a student was very supportive of the University. The Registrar had received a separate letter from a Leicester resident congratulating the University on the manner in which it handled issues relating to student behaviour in town. The University continued to work with local residents on this matter and the Chairman would be meeting with members of the Residents Group that evening.

.6 Sporting Achievements

The University had won 26 of the 40 merit based sporting leagues in which it competed. Other universities were trying hard to match Loughborough University's excellence in sport. Exeter University was offering sports scholarships covering all fees and accommodation costs. Council noted that the national swimming squad would be moving from Bath to Loughborough because the University offered a more flexible and integrated approach to education and sport.

02/5 Capital Programme

.1 Progress Report

COUN02-P1

The Bursar gave a progress report on the Capital Programme as summarised in the Agenda paper. Council was informed that Resources and Planning Committee had referred the following three projects for further review of options:

· Graham Oldham Ventilation Improvements

· Epinal Way Entrance

· Athletics Track Refurbishment

Tenders for the Great Hall Re-furbishment had been received and the Vice-Chancellor had given Stage E (final) approval to the project on behalf of Resources and Planning Committee.

Fire precaution work and re-furbishment of Towers Hall had been added to Stage A of the Capital Programme. This was part of an ongoing programme of fireworks to be completed. Standards continued to rise and the University must respond accordingly.

A member expressed concern that Council did not receive adequate information related to the costs and benefits, particularly in terms of annual operating costs, for some capital projects. Council was reminded that the Treasurer's Committee considered a detailed business case for each project. It was also noted that income and expenditure forecasts were required for each of the new sporting facilities. The Treasurer commented that the University had come a long way in evaluating projects and reminded Council that once a project reached Stage B, it started to incur significant costs and involved working with external agencies.

A member suggested post project completion reviews to monitor whether or not projected benefits had been realised. Performance Monitoring Group would be best placed to conduct such reviews.

It was agreed that the Bursar would consider ways to improve the information that came to Council. The Bursar welcomed advice from members of Council on ways in which the University could improve its capital projects procedures. Action: Bursar

A member expressed concern about the levels of expenditure on capital projects which did not contribute directly to the academic purpose on the University. The Chair of Estates Management Committee responded that recent expenditure on new sports facilities was due, in part, to special opportunities, which had arisen. The University had only funded £4.75M of £25M spent on the development of new sports facilities. As the governing body, it was the responsibility of Council to ensure that an appropriate balance was maintained.

In response to a query, the Bursar reported that three buildings on campus housed a significant amount of asbestos. The University was conducting a survey to meet with the requirement to maintain an up to date register. On a related matter, the Vice-Chancellor informed Council that a former member of staff was seeking compensation for mesothelioma, a medical condition he believed to have been contracted from working with asbestos in the 1970s. The case would be handled by the University insurers.

.2 Sports Development

(i) National Cricket Academy

COUN02-P2 & COUN02-P2A

Council received a presentation from the Director of the Sports Development Centre. Whilst the project had come at a difficult time for the University in terms of resource it presented an opportunity that should not be missed.

Benefits of the project included favourable publicity for the University and a chance to take advantage of the fact that the English and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) would be bringing their best human resources to Loughborough University. In addition, the new facilities would complement sports science research at the University. Despite initial fears, it appeared that there would be no conflict between ECB and University use of the facilities. The University was already committed to build a modest pavilion (estimated cost of £500K) if it wished to retain its place in university cricket. Proceeding with the National Cricket Academy project would mean that the University secured a good indoor facility with reduced capital outlay. The National Lottery would fund £4M of the cost of the project with ECB and Loughborough University each contributing £200K. The Director of the Sports Development Centre believed that the University should take full advantage of the lottery funding as it would not be available again.

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (External Relations) reminded Council that the way in which the University was perceived by the outside world was an important element of the strategic plan. The University was renowned for sporting achievement. Housing the National Cricket Academy was a one-off opportunity to make a statement about how serious the University was about sport. It was commented that facilities in the United States were, on the whole, superior to those in the UK. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (External Relations) felt that investment in high quality facilities could make the University more attractive to international students.

At its last meeting, Council had agreed that the Estates Management Committee should draw up proposals for the project for approval by Council. Estates Management Committee had investigated all options concerning the siting of the building and due to its size, the only logical site was on the edge of the Hazlegrave cricket pitch. As a result of this location, the design brief would lay heavy emphasis on the great sensitivity of the site location toward the surrounding area. From 21 expressions of interest, Estates Management Committee, with the aid of the Campus Consultant, had approved four for submissions of designs. The four designs would be presented at the next meeting of Estates Management Committee to be held on 21 March 2002. All interested parties including ECB would be invited to attend. Once the design of the building had been approved by Estates Management Committee, it would be submitted to Council for final approval.

The proposed site involved building on one of the two greenfield sites identified in the Estates Strategy (approved by Council on 6 April 2001). Council APPROVED the necessary variation in the existing Estates Strategy.

(ii) English Institute of Sport

COUN02-P3

Council received an update on English Institute of Sport (EIS) initiatives from the Director of the Sports Development Centre. During the presentation, Council's attention was drawn to the following:

· The Swimming Pool was due to be completed on time and on cost.

· The Director of the Sports Development Centre reported that the tennis, swimming, badminton and netball projects were all expected to break even in total (on the basis explained to, and approved by, the Treasurer's Committee).

· The John Beckwith (Sports Administration) Building was due to be completed on time and on cost. This building was located in close proximity to the Department of PE, SS & RM and it was hoped to aid integration of research and teaching.

· The water based Hockey Pitch had been completed but the Pavilion was still at tender stage. Budget underestimates had been given to hockey aspects of the EIS project, due in part to poor quantity surveyor work. Underestimates had also been given for Box 100 due to poor Sport England planning. However, there had been an overestimate for athletics which would help to offset the overshoot on other projects.

· Delays on the replacement of the PE Centre artificial surface had meant that a rubber crumb surface could be used, providing an ideal teaching and training facility for football and rugby.

It was reported that each of the EIS facilities could produce significant revenue if student usage were reduced. However, it was the job of the University to ensure that its students had the opportunity to take advantage of top quality facilities. It was reported that students were benefiting from having 39 performance coaches on campus. This represented £350K of additional human resource per annum.

(iii) Athletics Centre

Council APPROVED delegated authority for the Chair to move the Athletics Centre to Stage E (final approval) subject to a maximum commitment of the budget in the Capital Plan plus 1%.

.3 Ashby Road Halls Refurbishment

Council noted the action of the Chair in giving final approval to the Ashby Road Halls Refurbishment Scheme.

02/6 University Challenge Fund

COUN02-P4

Council NOTED that an award of £3M had been made by the Office of Science and Technology for the establishment of a Seed Fund called the Lachesis Seed Fund. The award had been made to a consortium of five East Midlands Universities of which Loughborough was the lead institution. Each University would contribute £200K giving a total fund of £4M. Each of the Universities would be a limited partner in the Limited Partnership with the Venture Capital Group being the General Partner. The liability of each University would thus be limited to their £200K investment. In order to preserve limited liability, none of the institutions would be involved in the management of the partnership.

Quester, the Venture Capital Group would be responsible for managing the investments of the partnership . In addition, a limited company, Lachesis Technologies Limited would act as the Service Company for the operation. The Universities would be able to hire and fire the Fund Manager but would not be involved in deciding which investments should be made.

Council APPROVED arrangements for managing the University Challenge Fund (including the external management by Quester).

02/7 Financial Forecasts: Summary and Statistics

COUN02-P5

Council noted the summary statistics from the 2001 HEFCE Financial Forecasts and received a report from the Bursar and Finance Officer. The Bursar summarised the University’s financial position for 1999/2000 in relation to the sector as follows:

· The University’s total income had been over £106M compared to the sector mean of approximately £80M. The sector median value was just below £63M. Loughborough's position in the top 25% of the sector reflected the inclusion of a number of smaller Higher Education Colleges.

· The University’s operating surplus had been £744K compared to the sector mean of £964K. This was well above the median value for the sector which was £138K.

· The historical cost surplus of £744K was approximately half of the sector mean (£1.5M). However, the median value was £531M suggesting that some institutions in the upper quartile had high historical cost surplus figures.

· Net liquidity had been £29M compared to sector mean of £10.8M. In terms of net liquidity, the University was more than twice as strong as the third quartile (£12M).

· The University’s external borrowing (£24M) was significantly higher than the sector mean (£15K). The University was placed in the top 25% of institutions in terms of external borrowing. In terms of external borrowing as a percentage of total income, Loughborough University (22.5%) was above average (18.8%) but was not placed in the top quarter.

· Annualised service costs of 2.8% of adjusted total income placed the University between the median value (2.3%) and third quartile (3.5%).

· Staff costs of 60% of total expenditure placed the University roughly in the third quartile.

Whilst the indicators gave a broad overview of the University’s position in relation to the rest of the sector, they should not be taken in isolation.

Based on the funding council indicators, the Bursar reported that the University held a reasonably comfortable position within the sector.

02/8 Strategic Plan

Council received a progress report on the Strategic Planning process. Departmental and Faculty strategic plans had been produced. A Senate Strategic Planning Day had been held on 13 February 2002, following which the Executive Management Group had allocated authors to the various sections of the strategic plan:

A template had been produced to record the implications of objectives/targets of each section on other areas. It was hoped that the initial sections of the strategic plan would be drafted by mid March.

02/9 Audit Committee

The Chair of the Audit Committee reported that, at its 39^th meeting held on 14 February 2002, four external audit providers had been interviewed.

Council APPROVED the re-appointment of Deloitte and Touche as the University external auditors.

Secretary's Note: Audit Committee's recommendation to Council was that the appointment be subject to the Chair of Audit Committee receiving an assurance that there would be timely delivery of the end of year audits for the subsidiary companies.

02/10 Hall Fees

COUN02-P6

Council noted that the overall accommodation fees would rise by 6.6%, not 7.6% as stated in the agenda paper.

Council agreed to APPROVE a recommendation for increased hall fee levels for 2002/03 along with the conditions outlined in the agenda paper.

02/11 Membership of Council Committees

COUN02-P7

.1 Further to Minute 01/71.3 of the 278th Meeting, Council noted Chairs Action in making appointments to vacancies on Council Committees and Joint Committees with Senate.

.2 Council noted Chairs Action in approving the co-option of members to certain Council Committees and Joint Committees with Senate.

.3 Council noted Chairs Action in approving nominations by the Students Union to vacancies on Council Committees and Joint Committees with Senate.

02/12 Resources and Planning Committee

COUN02-P8

Council APPROVED a recommendation referred by Resources and Planning Committee at its meeting on 25 January 2002 regarding Revised Notes of Guidance on Capital Procedures

02/13 Common Seal

COUN02-P9

Council ratified the action of the Registrar in affixing the University Seal to the documents

02/14 Policy on Athletic Union Club Social Events

COUN02-P10

Further to minute 01/163, Council received a copy of the Policy on Athletic Union Club Social Events, including "Initiations" produced by Loughborough Students' Union.

02/15 Performance Monitoring Group

COUN02-P11

Council receiveD a report from the meeting of Performance Monitoring Group held on 6 December 2001.

02/16 Reports of Committees

Council RECEIVED reports from the following Committees.

i) Student Services Committee of 7 November 2001

COUN02-P12

ii) Health, Safety and Environment Committee of 14 November 2001

COUN02-P13

iii) Resources and Planning Committee of 25 January 2002

COUN02-P14

iv) Research Committee of 7 February 2002

COUN02-P15

02/17 Dates of Next Meeting

Friday 19 April 2002