Text only

VC's Office | University | Search | News | A-Z Index | Contact VC's Office 

Executive Committee

Summary notes of the Executive Committee held on 20 October 2004

1. Outcome of the Wiltshire and Swindon Structural Plan

   A report just issued by the planning inspectors appointed to examine the Wiltshire and Swindon Structural Plan had concluded that development of a new campus, together with housing and employment land and the expansion of the Great Western Hospital, would be appropriate for Gateway/Coate site. Swindon Borough Council and Wiltshire County Council were now considering the report, and a further round of consultations could be expected before formal adoption of the Structural Plan in 2005. Assuming this took place, the Structural Plan would then provide a framework for preparation of the Swindon Local Plan and for consideration of any specific planning application submitted at a later date by the University.
   

2. National Prevention Research Institute

   An outline plan had been received from the National Cancer Research Institute to establish a National Prevention Research Initiative. This proposed joint funding of circa £10 million over five years from a variety of governmental and research bodies (DH, MRC, ESRC, Cancer Research UK), to support cancer-specific primary prevention research and research aimed at addressing the common risk factors associated with other major preventable diseases. An announcement launching the initiative was expected before the end of the month, with proposal outlines being issued in January 2005. Grant applications would be invited shortly thereafter. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor believed that this initiative offered an excellent opportunity to build multidisciplinary research programmes in some of the University's existing and developing areas of strength.

   Agreed: That the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, together with the Acting Head of the School for Health and the Director of Sports Development, should confer to identify one person who could 'champion' this initiative across the University and then convene an internal meeting of all interested parties.

3. A Strategy for Oakfield: Focusing on issues of widenting participation through non-traditional routes in the region

   The Director of Lifelong Leaning/Oakfield Campus reported that, with the agreement of the Vice-Chancellor, an Oakfield Executive Group had been convened for the principal purpose of devising and implementing a strategy for that campus. A three-pronged strategy had now been formulated that sought to make the campus a centre for work-based learning, for community provision, and for regional development and economic regeneration.

   Agreed: That, subject to comment by the Strategic Planning Group, the strategy could be approved in principle.

4. University Risk Register: Progress report on improvement actions
   

The Executive Assistant reminded the Committee that, in line with the procedure agreed by Council, the University Risk Register specified improvement actions for series of risks, and allocated responsibility and timescales for implementing those actions. Accordingly, a summary was given of reports on the improvement actions due by September 2004 under the following headings:

Vice-Chancellor's Office

RP1 - Improvement Action: Increased horizon scanning activity
RP2 - Improvement Action: Improved co-ordination of HESA returns and strengthening of competitor analysis
RE1 - Improvement Action: Introduction of systematic monitoring of performance indicators

Department of Human Resources (Staff Development Unit)

HR1 - Improvement Action: Enhancement of planning and management skills

University Research Committee

RE1 - Improvement Action: Greater central co-ordination of research investment
RE2 - Improvement Actions: Review of central research support provision and organisation, and development of internal system for enhancing quality of grant applications.

The Director of Finance commented that, in addition to describing action taken to date with respect to a particular risk, it would be useful for progress reports to describe any planned future action, given that most risks were continuous rather than discrete in nature. Furthermore, the annual review of the University Risk Register, for which the Committee had operational responsibility, provided an opportunity to add major new risks as well to reconsider existing ones. Assessment at this institutional level was linked to what was intended to be a parallel process at departmental level via the new Annual Planning Cycle. This provided a channel for departments to flag-up significant risks. The annual review would also be the opportune time to consider suggestions such as the introduction of a 'traffic light' system to make the scoring of risks more explicit and to review the allocations of responsibilities for improvement actions to particular departments or specific individuals.

Top of page