UNCONFIRMED DOCUMENT BEC40/10-11
UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD
BUILDINGS AND ESTATES COMMITTEE
Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 February 2011
Present:
Professor JRT Greene ( in the Chair), Dr RW Clarke,
Professor PD Coates, Ms S Congdon, Mr D Ewen, Mr A Fitzpatrick,
Professor G Layer, Ms SL Marsh, Mr D Martin
Apologies:
Mr P Jagger, Mr RC Wilson
In Attendance:
Ms JR Hills, Mrs F Robertson, Ms T J Spencer, Mr R Thrush,
Mr B Tongue
Before proceeding to the formal business of the meeting the Chair welcomed Mr D Norman,
lay member of Council, to his first meeting of BEC.
25.10-11 Declaration of Interest
None
26.10-11 Minutes.
CONSIDERED: Document BEC 20/10-11, the minutes of the Meeting held on 12
October 2010.
NOTED: That the School of Computing Informatics and Media would be
contributing financially to the new Media studio. (M9.7)
27.10-11 Action Tracker
RECEIVED: Document BEC21/10-11.
28.10-11 Membership
CONSIDERED: Document BEC22/10-11.
NOTED:
28.1
That the committee needed to appoint a deputy chair.
28.2
Mr D Ewen was replacing Dr G Slater as UCU representative.
29.10-11 Schedule of Business
RECEIVED: Document BEC23/10-11.
30.10-11 Estates and Facilities Annual Report
CONSIDERED: Document BEC24/10-11.
NOTED:
30.1
Highlights of the Estates and Facilities year including the following:

Greening the campus
1

Awards received

New build

Carbon reduction

Ancillary services

Combined heat and power (CHP)
30.2
That the Chair expressed thanks to Estates and Facilities on the positive
achievements.
30.3
That consideration was being given to how to present the University’s
achievements in the area of the sustainable estate at the forthcoming
British Science Festival.
30.4
That members would welcome some yardstick of Bradford’s sustainability
performance to help comparison with the claims of other institutions.
31.10-11 Polyclinic
CONSIDERED: Document BEC25/10-11.
NOTED:
31.1
That since the last meeting of BEC plans for the provision of health facilities
had developed and two possible options were now being considered for the
multi-disciplinary health centre (polyclinic): a developer-led approach on
the Listerhills triangle as previously discussed or an on-site self-funded
model based in Phoenix South West.
31.2
That the document set out the advantages and disadvantages of each
approach.
31.3
That there were concerns as to whether a licence would be granted for a
Pharmacy, especially in the Phoenix location, and what impact failure to be
granted a licence could have on the whole project.
31.4
That advantages of the Phoenix location included: reducing the
University’s space footprint and not losing revenue to a third party.
31.5
That a project group was working on a business case which would be
presented to ASPC and Council in April.
31.6
That BEC was not able at this stage to express a preference for one
location over the other since the business case would be crucial to the
decision making.
32.10-11 STEM
CONSIDERED: Document BEC26/10-11.
NOTED:
32.1
That the facility would be a base on campus for school children taking part
in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)- based
activities and the paper set out alternative proposals for its location.
2
32.2
That the options were either a new building sited between the Green (SSV)
and the Sustainable Enterprise Centre (SEC) or to house the facility in an
extended and refurbished block of Kirkstone Hall.
32.3
That the Kirkstone option would contain extra space and allow for the
inclusion of a Peace Gallery, which would bring external funding, as well as
a University Life Museum.
32.4
The suggestion that advice should be sought as to whether the proposed
accommodation on Kirkstone would be suitable in health and safety terms
for use by school children.
32.5
That on the basis of the current information BEC would prefer the Kirkstone
option.
33.10-11 New Projects and Business Cases
CONSIDERED : Documents BEC27/10-11,BEC28/10-11 and BEC37/10-11.
33.1
Renovation of Horton D and Chesham Buildings
NOTED:
33.1.1 That Horton D and Chesham Buildings suffered badly from
extremes of temperature and were in need of renovation, including
new windows, insulation and cladding.
33.1.2 That funding totalling nearly £1.9M had been identified from the
Long Term Maintenance (LTM) budget comprising £748K from
2010/11 and £1,129K from 2011/12.
RECOMMENDED: (To ASPC and Council)
33.1.3
33.2
That approval be given to proceed with the Horton D and Chesham
refurbishments to be funded from Long Term Maintenance (£748K
from 2010/11 and £1,129K from 2011/12)
Works to JBPL Extension Level 0
NOTED:
33.2.1 That as part of the relocation of the School of Health Studies to City
Campus the School’s Library in Unity Building would be moving to
the JB Priestley Building.
33.2.2 That the proposal was for structural strengthening and
refurbishment in order to enable the move.
33.2.3 That the plans included a raised floor area as this was the best
option for dealing with the structural issues.
33.2.4 That funding for this project was included in the University’s
investment plan.
RECOMMENDED: (To ASPC and Council)
33.2.5
That approval be given to the works to JBPL Extension Level 0 at a
cost of £600K to be funded from the investment plan.
3
33.3
GTA Works
NOTED:
33.3.1 That approval was being sought under the BM Lite Process for this
year’s programme of upgrades to General Teaching Area (GTA).
RECOMMENDED: (To ASPC)
33.3.2 That approval be given to the 2011 GTA works at a cost of £208K
to be funded from Long Term Maintenance.
33.4
Chemical Engineering Laboratory
NOTED:
33.4.1 That this facility was needed to meet the requirements for
accreditation for the new Chemical Engineering degree course.
33.4.2 That funding was to be found from the School of Engineering
Design and Technology surpluses.
RECOMMENDED: (To ASPC)
33.4.3 That approval be given to the Chemical Engineering Laboratory
project at a cost of £230K, subject to confirmation that the School
was able to fund the laboratory from its surpluses and to equip it.
33.5
Proposals for obtaining Feed in Tariffs
NOTED:
33.5.1 That Feed in Tariffs (FiTs) were a government initiative to
encourage renewable electricity generation through a favourable
tariff for electricity exported to the national grid.
33.5.2 That the current incentive was available until 2012, by which time
contracts need to be drawn up and installations in place, so there
was some urgency.
33.5.3 That the proposal, which had already been agreed by ASPC, was
for the University to work with a third party who would provide the
installation and would take the government feed in tariff.
33.5.4 That the advantage to the University would be the free electricity
and the strong visual eco message.
33.5.5 That tenders had been sought and it was now being recommended
that the University enter into partnership with Community Energy
Solutions (CES) a government-backed organisation which had
provided the most advantageous proposal.
33.5.6 That concern was expressed for a variety of reasons over the long
period of the proposed arrangement (25 years) and that an exit
route should be made clear in the contract.
4
33.5.7 That further negotiations would take place with British Gas (who
had also tendered) and CES regarding the provision of photovoltaic
car ports.
RECOMMENDED: (To ASPC and Council)
33.5.8 That Community Energy Solutions are appointed as the University’s
strategic partner for FiT and Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI.)
33.5.9 That Heads of Terms are agreed and signed at the earliest possible
opportunity to enable work to commence as soon as possible.
33.5.10 That separate negotiations are held with both British Gas and CES
with a view to procuring PV car ports on the most advantageous
terms.
33.6
Investment Plan
NOTED:
33.6.1 That Document BEC27/10-11 included a list of Estates priority
projects for the University investment plan and that the top priorities
had now been further broken down into priority 1 and 2.
33.6.2 That funding was not available for all these projects.
33.6.3 That BEC welcomed the opportunity to make an input to the
prioritisation.
33.6.4 The view that the proposed location for the faith facility seemed
rather small.
33.6.5 That the CHP for the Library was priority 2, largely because of the
extent of the infrastructure required.
RESOLVED: That BEC support the prioritised list of Estates projects,
subject to funding being available to undertake them.
33.7
Sustainable Enterprise Centre (SEC) Update
NOTED:
33.7.1 That the tenders for the SEC had come in over budget and that
ASPC at its last meeting had agreed proposals for funding the
additional cost.
33.7.2 That since the meeting of ASPC the University had been informed
that as the tender figure was above the OJEU threshold (£3.7M) it
was required to undertake a full OJEU procurement process.
Consequently the project would need to be re-tendered and the
profiling of funding had been extended.
RESOLVED: That this item be closed from publication under the Freedom
of Information Action for a period of 6 months.
33.8
Items approved by ASPC
NOTED:
5
33.8.1 That since the last meeting of BEC, ASPC had approved School of
Management Car park improvements at a cost of £70K and energy
saving works at a cost of £220K, both to be managed under BMLite.
33.9
BM-Lite
NOTED:
33.9.1 That the document reported on a number of existing BM-Lite
projects.
34.10-11 Project Tracker
CONSIDERED: Document BEC29/10-11.
NOTED:
34.1
That all projects were currently within budget though the Student Central
project was likely to need to call on the contingency.
34.2
That an issue raised about a sub-contractor would be clarified with the
Director of Estates.
35.10-11 Project Review
CONSIDERED: Document BEC30/10-11.
NOTED:
35.1
That the Emm Lane project had been submitted for a sustainability award.
35.2
That the CHP project was late because of a delay in the receipt of specialist
equipment.
35.3
That construction at Horton A had been delayed by the severe weather.
36.10-11 Sport Update
CONSIDERED: Document BEC31/10-11.
NOTED:
36.1
That work was continuing to develop the preferred option for playing field
provision at the Sedbergh site in conjunction with Bradford Metropolitan
District Council (BMDC), desirably to be available from September 2012.
36.2
That, in the meantime, temporary venues were being used for sports
fixtures following the fire at Woodhall.
36.3
That it had been agreed to undertake some work at Woodhall to provide
reasonable interim accommodation but that now that the plans had been
assessed the costs appeared disproportionate in the light of the probable
only short term future of the facility.
RESOLVED: That a review take place urgently including Estates, Student Union,
Sports Facility Mangers and Finance to ascertain the most appropriate way
forward with the short term position of Woodhall.
37.10-11 Estate Management Statistics
CONSIDERED: Document BEC32/10-11.
6
NOTED:
37.1
That the Estates Management Statistics (EMS) were now submitted to
HESA annually.
37.2
That the document summarised the EMS data that had been used as
evidence in the University’s Capital Investment Framework (CIF)
submission to HEFCE in 2010 and covered a number of areas including
37.2.1 Condition and functional suitability
37.2.2 Space Efficiency
37.2.3 Carbon Reduction
37.2.4 Environmental Performance
37.2.5 Affordability
37.2.6 Institutional Sustainability.
38.10-11 The Green Stakeholders meeting
NOTED:
38.1
That Block J was complete and a show unit was available.
38.2
That handover of the facility was due in August.
38.3
That the University was considering undertaking the facilities management.
38.4
That Ben Tongue would be working with the Student Union to increase
awareness of the facility.
39.10-11 Campus Space Management Sub-Committee
CONSIDERED: Document BEC33/10-11.
39.1
That the sub-committee and its sub-groups had all met.
39.2
That the poor condition of the lifts in the JBP building might be a matter for
the Accessible Estate Steering Group.
39.3
That it was confirmed that there were two academic members on the GTA
working group.
40.10-11 Integrated Transport Policy Group
CONSIDERED: Document BEC34/10-11, the minutes of the meeting of the group
held on 24 November 2010.
NOTED:
40.1
That attempts were being made to encourage sustainable travel.
40.2
That the move of the School of Health Studies onto City Campus would be
a test of the University’s decision not to increase numbers of car parking
spaces.
41.10-11 Information Systems Committee (ISC)
CONSIDERED: Document BEC35/10-11, a summary of items considered at the
meeting of ISC held on 12 October 2010.
7
NOTED:
41.1
That there were potential areas of overlap between the work of BEC and
ISC.
41.2
That the question of home working in particular raised issues for both
bodies.
42.10-11 Sustainability Report
CONSIDERED: Document BEC36/10-11.
42.1
That a decision had been taken to discontinue eco campus accreditation for
the environmental management system.
42.2
That a new waste contract should simplify sorting of waste and enable
recycling targets to be met.
42.3
That communications exercises were aiming to produce behaviour change
and estates briefing papers would be produced to raise awareness of
sustainability issues.
43.10-11 Energy Update
CONSIDERED: Document BEC37/10-11.
NOTED:
43.1
That the delay in CHP coming on line would increase energy costs this year.
43.2
That the Climate Change Levy would be coming into effect.
43.3
That the issue of whether energy re-charging might be introduced in order
to encourage behaviour change could be referred to the energy task group.
44.10-11 Legionella update
CONSIDERED: Document BEC38/10-11.
NOTED:
44.1
That the revised policy sought to align with best practice in Legionella
management and to recognise a sharing of responsibility between Estates
and end users.
44.2
That item B) in the scheme for risk assessment should be reworded to
make it clear that any contractor was required notify Estates and Facilities
of any untoward findings.
44.3
That the policy was subject to approval by the Health and Safety
Committee.
45.10-11 Any Other Business - Estate Strategy
NOTED:
45.1
A proposed amendment to page 35 of the Estate Strategy document to
amend the provision on legal compliance to read “It is noted that the
University is obliged to fund work to ensure the University is legally
compliant.”
8
45.2
That Mr Martin wished to record his appreciation of the improvements that
had take place on campus since he had last visited it regularly.
46.10-11 Date of Next Meeting
10 May 2011
FR 2.2.11
9