The Council

COUN09-M1

Minutes of the meeting of the University Council held on Friday 27 March 2009.

Members:

Sir Bryan Carsberg (Chair); Dr Memis Acar; Dr Jo Aldridge; John Blackwell; Dr Anja Baumhoff; Penny Coates; Professor Ian Davidson (ab); Brian Dent (ab); Gifty Edila; Sir John Gains; Marc Gibson; David Goss; Professor Neil Halliwell; Norma Honey; Sir John Jennings; Jim Murphy; Jim Mutton; Professor Ric Parker; Professor Richard Parry-Jones (ab); Georgie Payne; Professor Shirley Pearce; Simon Proffitt; Professor Ian Reid; Jackie Strong; Nigel Tamplin; Alan A Woods; Dr Dominic Wring.

In attendance:

Professor Morag Bell; Peter Davenport; Professor Terry Kavanagh; Sir Charles McCullough; Dr Jennifer Nutkins; Professor Ken Parsons; Miranda Routledge; Will Spinks; Jon Walker; Caroline Walker; Dr Kathryn Walsh

Andrew Burgess (for item 09/09), Ron Gray (for item 09/12)

Apologies for absence were received from:

Brian Dent, Professor Richard Parry-Jones

                                                                                                                                                     

09/01      Business of the Agenda

Items 21.4 and 21.8  – Estates Management Committee and Student Experience Committee reports were unstarred by the LSU President.

 

09/02      Minutes

Minutes of the Meeting of Council held on 28 November 2008 [COUN08-M9] were CONFIRMED.

 

09/03       Matters Arising from the Minutes

09/03.1     Review of Effectiveness of Council

COUN09-P1

Further to minute 08/128.1, Council REVIEWED progress against the recommendations relating to the Review of Effectiveness of Council.  The following issues were raised:

·         It was REQUESTED that the development of a discussion forum be re-investigated.  Action: Assistant Secretary

·         It was AGREED that computer accounts for lay members be established in advance of the development of the intranet.  Action: Assistant Secretary

09/03.2     Staff Survey

COUN09-P2

Further to minute 08/130, Council RECEIVED an update on actions taken in response to the Staff Survey.  It was NOTED that, in Professor Rothberg’s absence, the Provost would be chairing the Steering Group responsible for driving the project forward.  A number of working groups had been established to look at areas for improvement in more detail and all were due to submit interim reports in June and final recommendations in October.  All groups had been briefed to identify “quick wins” as well as issues requiring longer term implementation.

09/03.3     KLEC (Kuala Lumpur Education City)

Further to minute 08/134.1 (iv), Council RECEIVED an update on KLEC.  The Project Board had met on a number of occasions to consider the offer to establish a campus in Malaysia.  An initial Business Plan had been discussed at Senate and the Director of Internationalisation had engaged in detailed discussions with KLEC representatives.  An Independent Review had also been conducted in line the Major Project Approval Procedures.  The outcome of the various discussions was that it was not appropriate for Loughborough University to proceed with this project.  KLEC’s proposed method of operation, with teaching being an initial priority and research approached as a separate activity, did not fit with the strategic intention to remain a research-led University.  Furthermore, the timescales being set by KLEC were too tight and there was significant  market competition in relevant subjects.  Useful lessons had been learnt from the process,  however. If the University were to consider an international campus in the future, and this had not been ruled out, it would be on the basis of a proactive and considered strategy rather than in response to an initiative driven by a third party.

09/03.4     Other Matters Arising

Further to minute 08/126.1, the LSU President sought reassurance on the process for consulting with stakeholders in relation to the Central Park Master Plan.  It was CONFIRMED that discussions at the Project Management Board were at a very early stage and that Graham Osbourne, Project Manager, would be having individual meetings with the various stakeholders in due course.

 

09/04      Chairman’s Introduction

09/04.1     Council NOTED with regret that Paul Glover had resigned from Council and Audit Committee with effect from February 2009.  Council was grateful to Paul for his contribution in recent years and to Peter Davenport who was serving as Acting Alumni Association President and would be in attendance at Council meetings until a new President was appointed. 

09/04.2     Council NOTED that Professor Ian Davidson would be resigning from Council, Nominations Committee and Treasurer’s Committee with effect from 1 April 2009.  In his absence, Council expressed their thanks for his contributions and wished him well in his new job.

 

09/05       2008 Research Assessment Exercise and Research Excellence Framework

09/05.1     2008 Research Assessment Exercise

COUN09-P3

The Chair introduced the item by reminding Council that the University’s outstanding result in the RAE was a consequence of excellent work and detailed planning across the campus over many years.  In particular, the Provost (previously PVC(R)) had introduced the concept of Personal Research Planning which had helped academic staff to manage their research proactively.  The current PVC(R) had continued this practice and Council wished to record particular thanks to both of them for their contributions to the outcome.  The financial impact for 2009/10 was positive but the Chair warned that this needed to be set in the context of the current economic climate which was expected to impact negatively on the sector in future HEFCE settlements.

The Provost introduced the paper and highlighted the following:

  • The University had returned 94% of its academic staff – this was high compared to many other institutions.
  • Ten departments had a profile of 20% or more of their research judged to be world leading.  Design and Technology had 55% of their research judged to be world leading.
  • 56% of research output was judged to be world leading.

Funding was linked to volume which stood the University in a good position having returned a high proportion of staff.  The ratio of funding by * rating was 7(4*):3(3*):1(2*) giving the University a £6.3M increase in QR funding.  This had improved the University’s ratio of HEFCE Teaching (T) and Research (R) funding from 3(T):1(R) to 1.9(T):1(R) bringing it in line with many Russell Group institutions with medical schools.  The extra funding would continue for 5 years.

Unlike the funding algorithm, the league tables did not take volume into account and were based on grade point average.  Whilst Loughborough had significantly improved its position in the league tables published so far it was generally felt that the position was understated when compared to the detailed results.

09/05.2     Research Excellence Framework (REF)

COUN09-P4

The Provost outlined proposals for the Research Excellence Framework (REF) - the government's new methodology for assessing research in order to allocate QR funding from

2014.  The initial proposals had been significantly revised so that there would be one framework covering all subject areas.  There would be more focus on metric-based measures than in previous exercises but environment, impact and light touch peer review would continue to feature significantly.  The University was well placed in terms of receiving up-to-date information on the proposals as it had five members of staff on the Expert Advisory Group.

The Provost outlined the University's preparations for the new methodology. All research active staff would continue to prepare Personal Research Plans (PRPs) which would be monitored by RPMG.  The Institutional Repository was an essential tool in ensuring that research outputs were widely accessible in order to demonstrate impact factors and increase citations.  Research student numbers would continue to be an important measure of activity and so University investment would remain a priority. 

Several members commented on the need to engage members of staff across the University with the concept of "impact" which was difficult to measure, particularly in some subject areas.  Council was reassured that the PVC(E) was  closely involved in this area.  Significant strides had already been made to ensure that colleagues understood the importance of, and techniques for, demonstrating the ways in which published research had significantly impacted on areas such as other research, government policy, industry and more widely across society.

Despite the excellent RAE results and the advanced planning in place for REF, the Treasurer remained concerned about research grant and contract income which had plateaued a number of years previously.  He reminded Council that the Silver Scenario assumed a 5% increase in research income and wondered to what extent the RAE results would influence this.  The Provost assured Council that the University was not complacent following the RAE results and was putting mechanisms in place to improve the way in which intended research applications (identified in the PRPs) could be tracked and  supported by the Research Office.  The University would continue efforts to improve the quality of research applications in order to increase success rates.

 

09/06       University Strategy/Planning

09/06.1     Human Resources Implementation Plan

Council NOTED that an initial draft of the Human Resources Implementation Plan had been considered by Human Resources Committee and that the final draft was expected for July 2009.

09/06.2     Draft Timetable for the Review of the University Strategy

COUN09-P5: RECEIVED

09/07    Key Performance Indicators

COUN09-P6

The Provost introduced the KPI update.  Only two indicators (other than RAE results which had been reported separately) had changed significantly since the last meeting - both related to student satisfaction. Firstly, international student satisfaction and secondly general student satisfaction - both measured by the Student Barometer Survey.  The University's performance on both indicators had improved.

On a related issue, a member queried progress with the current National Student Survey.  Response rates were slightly lower than at the same point the previous year and the University, in close partnership with the Students' Union, was doing all it could to encourage finalists to respond.  

The Director of External Affairs reported that the indicator for Social Impact and Engagement had changed.  The University had previously taken part in the BITC survey but it was not specifically aimed at higher education and the University had therefore been benchmarked against non comparable institutions making it difficult to interpret results in a meaningful way.  BITC were now working with HEFCE to produce a survey more relevant to the sector titled "Universities which Count".  The University was taking part in the first survey on a voluntary basis and the development of this indicator would be monitored closely.

09/08       University Finance

09/08.1     University Budget 2008-09

COUN09-P7

The Director of Finance updated Council on the 2008-09 budget which was still projecting an overall surplus of £3.8M.  There had been some deterioration in imago's commercial activities, thought to be a consequence of the economic climate.  However, this had been off-set by a decrease in the utilities bill - an area where further savings were expected by the end of the year. Approximately 50% of the University's energy currently came from renewable sources.  The low interest rate meant that the University's earnings from investment had decreased but

this was balanced by reduced payments on loans so the overall impact was broadly neutral.  ELT regularly reviewed the impact of the recession on the University's  activities and would alert Council to any major issues that arose.  In response to a query, it was confirmed that the increase in expenditure by academic departments was due almost entirely to the 5% pay award in October.

09/08.2     HEFCE Recurrent Grant 2009-10

COUN09-P8

The Director of Finance introduced the paper which notified Council of the recurrent grant from HEFCE for 2009-10.  The settlement from HEFCE was good news for the University due to the uplift in QR funds (driven by RAE results).  The additional funding for SIVs had been rolled into the recurrent grant.   However, the Director of Finance warned Council that difficult times lay ahead due to an expected review of public spending which could potentially reduce the public funds available to the sector.  The letter from HEFCE contained hints of this, referring to an absolute cap on student numbers and financial penalties for institutions that over recruited. 

Student applications were high and so recruitment would need to be carefully managed throughout the year to ensure that the University was not penalised for over recruitment.  The University was mindful of the fact that the increase in the budget from HEFCE for 2009-10 was only a short term gain and that prudence was necessary in the medium term.

The HEFCE settlement enabled the University to set parameters for its internal budgets and Council would be asked to approve the 2009-10 budget in July.  Next year's budget would need to be considered carefully against the ambitious capital plan.  HEFCE had brought forward £200M of capital expenditure from 2010-11 to 2009-10 and the University had made three successful bids against the initiative.  However, all expenditure on the projects needed to fall in 2009-10 which could be quite difficult and meant that only relatively modest projects could be funded in this way.

A member queried the extent to which the University's WP strategy might be compromised by the cap on student numbers combined with increased applications.  This balance remained a challenge for the University but the concessions period in August allowed  some flexibility and this was one way in which it had been addressed in previous years.  The University was required to regularly review its WP strategy and HEFCE now required a Strategic Assessment to be submitted by the end of June. Council would receive a copy for information in July.

09/09       Capital Programme

09/09.1     Progress Report

COUN09-P9: RECEIVED

09/09.2     East Park Design Centre

COUN09-P10

The Director of Facilities Management (FM) delivered a presentation outlining plans for the re-development of the East Park.  Whilst the project was still at a relatively early stage of its development, the Chair of Council might be requested to approve some enabling works before the next meeting.  The cost of such work would be within the limits delegated to the Chair.

The project centred around the development of a new Design Centre and the demolition/re-building of existing facilities affecting a number of departments.  The project was ambitious and a phased approach would be adopted with completion expected in 2016. There was a strong case for the project as current accommodation in the East Park was of poor quality and in need of renovation.  There was a compelling academic argument for the creation of a

Design Centre which would bring together  key strands of design activity into one location and create some exciting opportunities.  Enabling works for the Design Centre would begin in August 2009 and completion was planned for 2011.  

This was a very exciting development and had been given top priority amongst major projects.  However, it would be expensive and a project of this size would require careful monitoring against appropriate benchmarks in relation to both cost and environmental sustainability features.  Council would need to be assured that the project remained within a reasonable budget tolerance and to be regularly updated on progress and costs.  The target for construction costs was £2,360 per sq metre which allowed for a healthy contingency and placed the project (in cost terms) somewhere in the middle of recent major projects.  It was noted that a number of construction companies had been badly affected by the recession and the University was putting in place a number of checks to mitigate risk in this area.  Full financial checks would be carried out before interviews commenced.  The contractor procurement route would be two-staged - selecting separate companies for design and build to help protect against over reliance on an individual company.

It was noted that the last three major projects had been significantly affected both in terms of timing and cost due to problems in obtaining planning permission.  The planned works were close to residential properties which could introduce delays and/or complications.  The

Director of FM was trying to mitigate the risks and had already met with the Director of Planning at Charnwood Borough Council (CBC).  Additionally, the University had tested planning strategies with Grimleys and had met with the planners to discuss the project.  Members of the Executive also had regular meetings with the Leader and Chief Executive Officer of CBC.  Council was reassured that the University was adopting a tiered approach to seeking planning approval.

09/09.3     Towers Hall Refurbishment

COUN09-P11

The Director of FM introduced the paper which outlined a proposal for the refurbishment of the Towers Hall of Residence.  This met with imago's long term accommodation strategy and protected some of the catered provision on campus.  If the building was not refurbished it would

deteriorate to the point where it was uninhabitable and demolition would be required.  This would be a costly process (circa £2M) in itself.  The works were expected to be completed during the academic year 2009/10 and be ready for occupation at the start of 2010/11.  De-cant space in the Student Village would be used to house students during the construction period.  This space would still be available to accommodate students in 2010/11 should the project fall behind schedule.  Eventually decisions would need to be taken about what to do with the de-cant space but for the time being it was being used to facilitate the development of other sites.

Council AGREED to DELEGATE AUTHORITY to the Chair of Council to move the project to Stage 3 of the major projects procedure during July/August 2009 at a cost £5.086M with a tolerance of 10% should tender exceed the budget estimate.

 

It was noted that two major developments would be taking place in close proximity to one another at the same time and that this was likely to have a major impact on the surrounding area - not least on Epinal Way.  The University recognised the risk and would need to manage it closely with the contractors and relevant stakeholders.

09/10       Science and Enterprise Park

COUN09-P12

Dr Kathryn Walsh presented the agenda paper which outlined progress on the Science and Enterprise Park to date.  Council was reminded of its decision in January 2008 to seek a development partner for the project.  Planning consent had been granted in February 2009 and the University now wished to move ahead with the process of identifying a suitable partner.  This decision had been debated in detail at both the Enterprise Board and Estates Management Committee in view of the current economic climate. The University had obligations to emda who had given a £5M grant to buy the land and wished the project to move ahead at this time. Specialist legal and commercial advice had been sought and the recommendation was to move forward and identify a partner following a Competitive Dialogue Process.  It was acknowledged that the University was operating in uncertain times and therefore provision would be made to halt the process if necessary.  There was still a lot of detailed work to be done and the University was grateful to all the individuals involved to date.

Council APPROVED the decision to start the formal search for a development partner following the Competitive Dialogue process and AGREED the membership of the Selection Panel. 

Council DELEGATED AUTHORITY to the Selection Panel to sign off the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire, issue the OJEU Notice and Developer Prospectus and manage the next stage of the developer selection process.  

It was expected that a final recommendation on the preferred developer would come to Council for approval in Spring 2010.  Throughout this time the project would be closely managed in the context of the economic climate.

09/11       Audit Committee

09/11.1     Report of Meeting – 3 March 2009

The Chair of the Audit Committee gave a brief verbal report on the last meeting of the Audit Committee.  Satisfactory progress continued to be made in respect of Risk Management, Internal Audit and the VFM agenda.  The University was also making good progress with the final implementation of Agresso.  The Audit Committee had conducted a review of its own effectiveness and would report back to Council in July.  The Chair of the Audit Committee encouraged other committees to do the same.

09/11.2     Appointment of External Auditors

COUN09-P13

Council was reminded that the main function of the external auditors was to certify the annual financial statements/accounts.  HEFCE guidance was that external auditors should be re-appointed every seven years.  The current external auditors - Deloittes - had completed a seven year term but it had been previously agreed by both the Audit Committee and Council that full market testing to find a replacement firm would not be necessary.  Instead, a full performance review of Deloittes had been undertaken in February.  The process included a constructive discussion with Deloittes which identified some areas for improvement.  Deloittes were also rotating partners and this meant that the University's account manager would change which was considered to be consistent with the spirit of the HEFCE guidance.

On the recommendation of the Audit Committee and the Review Panel, Council AGREED to RE-APPOINT Deloittes for three 3 years from April 2009.  Council APPROVED the fee of £44,970 excluding subsidiary companies.

09/12       Centenary Graduation Ceremonies

COUN09-P14

The Director of DARO attended to introduce the item.  The initiative to award Honorary Bachelor Degrees to students from the former constituent colleges was proving immensely

popular.  1300 individuals had currently expressed an interest and the two ceremonies planned for the summer were already over subscribed.  It was hoped that there would be an opportunity linked to the December graduation ceremonies to accommodate the individuals on the waiting list.  The Director of DARO stated that it was the best response he had ever seen to a single alumni relations initiative.  Council congratulated the University for making the gesture which was truly appreciated by the alumni.  Some members queried how this would convert to fundraising.  The impact was difficult to measure and the gesture had always intended to be friend-raising rather than fund-raising.  However 170 donations had been received as a direct result already .  Council placed on record its thanks to DARO, in particular the Alumni Office, who were working hard to make the initiative a success.

09/13       Matters for Report

09/13.1     Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research)

(i)         Research Grants and Contracts

COUN09-P15: NOTED

(ii)        Research Outputs

COUN09-P16: NOTED

09/13.2     Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching)

Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate Recruitment, 2009 Entry

COUN09-P17: NOTED

09/13.3     Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Enterprise)

COUN09-P18: NOTED

09/14       Chairman’s Report

Following the recent Review of Effectiveness of Council, it had been agreed that the Chairman would make a verbal report at each meeting to pick up on relevant issues discussed by Chairman's Advisory Group (CAG) that had not been covered elsewhere on the agenda.  One of the key objectives of CAG was to  provide reassurance to the Chairman that the University's financial controls were operating effectively.  To this end, CAG had spent the majority of its most recent meeting discussing financial matters.  The £6.3M additional revenue from the RAE had been discussed including initial thoughts on how this might influence the 2009-10 budget in the context of the difficult external financial climate.  In particular, CAG had considered:

-          the risk associated with a potential increase in inflation in future years

-          the pressure on the public budget and the assumption that the HE sector might be significantly affected by cuts in public spending.

Loughborough was in a stronger position than most other institutions but the additional income would need to be spent wisely to protect future financial stability.  Various financial simulations would need to be undertaken to model a range of scenarios.

CAG had also considered the Major Projects/Capital Plan and the hosting of an international team for the Olympics.  The University was in discussion with five teams and hoped to reach a final discussion in the next few months.  The decision would be taken in the context of forging a strong long term relationship .

09/15       Vice-Chancellor's Business

09/15.1     Recent Developments at the University

i.           The University was organising a wide range of events in celebration of the Centenary and Council members were encouraged to attend.  As part of the Centenary, a very successful Festival of Science had been held in March.  Professor Ken Parsons was thanked for his contributions to the event.

ii.         UCEA were due to meet with all sector Trade Unions on 30 March to receive their pay claims.  The national position would be clearer after that and Council would be kept informed of significant developments.

iii.        Professor Denis Loveday had been shortlisted in the Financial Times "Climate Challenge".  The winner would be selected via an online voting system which all members of Council were invited to take part in.

iv.       The LSU President reported that Lucy Hopkins had recently addressed the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee which was looking at “Students and Universities".

09/15.2     Policy Developments for HE in the UK

COUN09-P19

Council NOTED the agenda paper.  The VC would be pleased to receive suggestions for areas

of policy that Council members would like to see included in future papers.

09/16     University Ordinances

09/16.1     New Amendments

On the recommendation of Senate, Council APPROVED amendments to:

Ordinance II (Status of Students).

COUN09-P20

Ordinance IV (Titles of Degrees and Conditions of Award).

COUN09-P21

Ordinance XVII (Conduct and Discipline of Students).

COUN09-P22

09/16.2     Confirmation of Amendments

Further to minute 08/129 and paper COUN08-P156, Council CONFIRMED the repeal of Ordinance VIII.

09/17       Senate

COUN09-P23

Council RECEIVED a report of the meetings of Senate held on 28 January and 4 March 2009 and:

09/17.1     APPROVED Programme Proposals.

09/17.2     APPROVED new title and amendments to the departmental structure of the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences.

COUN09-P24

09/17.3     APPROVED the establishment of the Centre for Biological Engineering.

COUN09-P25

09/17.4     APPROVED changes to composition of the Health, Safety and Environmental Committee.

COUN09-P26

09/17.5     NOTED discussions relating to the Design Centre.

09/17.6     NOTED that Student Guidance and Welfare had changed its title to Student Services.

09/18       Student Complaints Annual Report

COUN09-P27: RECEIVED.

09/19       Radiation Protection Officer’s Annual Report

COUN09-P28: RECEIVED.

09/20     Chair’s Action

Council NOTED that the Chair (or nominee with delegated authority) had taken action between meetings to approve:

09/20.1     Access Agreement with OFFA

09/20.2     Treasurer Committee Membership – appointment of Professor John Whittaker with effect from 1 April 2009 (vice Professor Ian Davidson)

09/21       Reports of Committees

Council RECEIVED reports from the following Committees:

09/21.1     Advancement Committee – 11 February 2009 [COUN09-P29]

09/21.2     Audit/Treasurer’s Committee – 13 November 2008 [COUN09-P30]

09/21.3     Enterprise Board – 11 February 2009 [COUN09-P31]

09/21.4     Estates Management Committee – 15 January and 4 March 2009 [COUN09-P32]

This item was unstarred by the LSU President to request a copy of the Space Allocation Sub-Committee minutes. 

09/21.5     Health, Safety and Environmental Committee – 18 February 2009 [COUN09-P33]

09/21.6     Performance Monitoring Group – 2 December 2008 [COUN09-P34]

09/21.7     Research Performance Monitoring Group – 25 November 2008 and 27 January 2009 [COUN09-P35]

09/21.8     Student Experience Committee  – 21 January 2009 [COUN09-P36]

This item was unstarred by the LSU President to highlight to Council members that the Students’ Union were unhappy with the level of hall fees.  Council was reminded that, as part of the funding arrangements (i.e. PFI) for the Car Park 7 development (new residential halls), hall fees were now calculated on a formulaic basis linked to RPI.  The increase of 8.63% was unusual but was due to the high RPI in the month when the fees were set.  This was the consequence of providing new rooms at no capital cost to the University to ensure capital was available for other developments on campus. The implications had been debated at length when the decision to go ahead with the PFI route was taken and LSU had been involved throughout the discussions.  Accommodation on campus was still competitively priced compared to the market place and the Director of imago would be asked to bring forward a summary of provision benchmarked against other providers to a future meeting.  Action: Director of imago

The LSU President also wished to query the policy on extending licence periods to cover the Easter vacation in certain halls.  Students in these halls had no choice but to pay for additional weeks and the Students’ Union had received a number of complaints about this.  imago had reported that there was demand for Easter vacation accommodation and that it was actually over subscribed for 2009-10.  A member of the Access to Learning Fund Panel commented that an increasing number of students were citing accommodation costs as significant contributors to financial hardship.  It was agreed that Council would find a briefing on student finance issues useful.

09/21/9     Costing and Pricing Committee – 17 September 2008 [COUN09-P37]

09/22       Any Other Business

The LSU President raised an issue related to false fire alarms in Unite managed properties.  The University recognised that the false alarms had been problematic and that Unite had been slow to respond to initial complaints.  However, as the halls were managed by a third party,  accountability rested with Unite.  The Director of imago had initiated a process to help to address the issue and LSU were appreciative of the University’s support on the matter.

09/23       Date of Next Meeting

Thursday, 9 July 2009 (2.15pm) 

                                                                                                                                                    

Author – Miranda Routledge
Date – April 2009
Copyright (c) Loughborough University.  All rights reserved.