INFRASTRUCTURE DUAL ASSURANCE MEETING: 20 November 2012
Present:
David Allen (Chair)
Andrew Connolly
Peter Lacey (Lay Lead)
Hugh McCann
Michele Shoebridge
Sally Wilcox
Lynne Tucker
In attendance: Jean Lloyd (Secretary)
Maintenance Expenditure Paper
An excellent paper, however some comparisons should be included in the presentation to
Council.
Table 5.1 detailed least space per fte.
Helen Greenbeck, a former architect, has recently joined the University with a remit to
include cultural change issues and how we improve the environment. Helen would be
attending the Council Away Day at the end of November.
Hugh McCann indicated that recent discussions seem to indicate that College Managers
were coming onboard with the issue of cultural change.
Queens Building – 5% return on capital. How do we use the space so make a contribution?
With more student numbers and staff for research, we need to get the right balance.
Cellular libraries were a big issue.
The following issues were discussed:
 2.5% building cost benchmark. It was suggested that a fixed percentage might be good
as a comparison. How valuable was this based on condition of current stock? A
percentage assumes that the Estate is in A1 condition. Consideration should be given to
an analysis of Russell Group Universities – Edinburgh and LES were the closest to
Exeter. It was noted that historically maintenance has been under-invested.
 The Financial Strategy would be focussing on the level of Tranche 3. With regards to
capital, we needed to set a target for increasing our rate of earnings and ensuring an
allowance for infrastructure investment. There were pressures. Our earnings target
needed to be set at a realistic rate. We were in the infancy of the new planning process
and it would be a challenge to meet our recurrent means.
 IT – should this be split between capital and recurrent. Lynne Tucker would look at
reprofiling. Currently £26.5m had been allocated. Should we be looking at 1/3-1/2
revenue and 2/3rds capital. Agreed that we would allocated 50/50 between revenue and
capital until outcome of profiling.
 It was noted that classroom teaching will have a high return, research less. Overall the
University was looking for a 5% return on any package.
 How do we get projects from the ‘blue’ zone into ‘green’ zone? What were the
expectations of Colleges? Any additions will need to be externally funded or held back
until the next round.
 It was noted that there was a challenge in allowing a risk allowance of 10%. It was
suggested that projects should include within their budget a contingency but that this
should contain the 10% risk allowance and that at the end of the project, the risk
allowance should be returned to the central funds. However, it was agreed that for the
present things would be left as it, but that thought should be given to reducing the risk
allowance. We should also look to being more flexible with risk allowance on a project by
project basis.
 Bio Medical Facilities Service. This has been a difficult process, especially in terms of
requirements from the Home Office and the principal investigators. A meeting had been
convened to ensure that everyone was signed up. VCEG were content. The University
would like to have another MRC Group. Professor Randle has confirmed he will want to
remain in Hatherly. Apart from £0.5m already spent rest, the remaining funds would
come from the split of PCMD. Since there is an issue with Hatherly being locally listed,
Exeter City Planning only want a temporary construction. The University was still
awaiting an historical report on the building. It was possible to plan to depreciate the cost
of the temporary building over 4 years rather than depreciate all in one year. This would
not impact on our earnings or EBIDTA. Although it could be difficult as the temporary
building would be bespoke, there was a need to look at trying to sell this off at the end.
 It was noted that every new project coming forward had a higher utility requirement that in
the past; it is becoming increasingly difficult to meet targets. Should the University be
looking to include some sort of carbon off-setting when appraisals are prepared?
 Decamping of staff needs to be factored in as some of these plans could be as long as 5
years. Some of the projects, eg Queen’s and Amory will to be multi-phased.
 With regards to the Forum Building and the future design of buildings, it was observed
that the more space available, the more people would start to work and network in such
an area. The Forum Building appeared not to have enough seating/place areas; extra
communal space was required in order to encourage different styles of working.