No 6202
Wednesday 10 November 2010
Vol cxli No 6
pp. 141–180
23 November, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House.
|
Discussions at 2 p.m. |
Congregations |
|
23 November |
27 November, Saturday at 2 p.m. |
|
7 December |
The Vice-Chancellor announces that the following candidates have been duly nominated in accordance with Statute A, IV, 2 for election to the Council in classes (a), (b), and (c), and that it has been certified to him that each candidate has consented to be nominated in the class shown:
Class (a)
|
Candidate |
Nominated by |
|
Professor Francis Patrick Kelly, CHR |
Professor M. J. Daunton, TH, and Professor R. D. Lethbridge, F |
|
Professor Robert David Lethbridge, F |
Professor M. J. Daunton, TH, and Lord Wilson of Dinton, EM |
Class (b)
|
Candidate |
Nominated by |
|
Dr Christopher John Burgoyne, EM |
Professor Dame Ann Dowling, SID, and Professor R. J. Mair, JE |
|
Dr Michael Ronald Clark, DAR |
Professor J. F. Kaufman and Professor R. W. Farndale, F |
|
Professor Nicholas John Gay, CHR |
Professor G. I. Evan and Dr C. E. Bryant, Q |
|
Professor John Michael Gray, HO |
Professor A. M. Gamble, Q, and Dr K. B. Pretty, HO |
|
Professor Andrew Hopper, CC |
Professor Lord Rees of Ludlow, T, and Professor C. M. Andrew, CC |
|
Professor Duncan John Maskell, W |
Professor R. J. Evans, W, and Professor C. A. Gilligan, K |
Class (c)
|
Candidate |
Nominated by |
|
Dr Nick Bampos, TH |
Dr J. H. Keeler, SE, and Professor P. J. Ford, CL |
|
Dr Jude Browne, K |
Professor Dame Athene Donald, R, and Dr J. M. Whitehead, W |
|
Dr Stephen John Cowley, SE |
Professor C. F. Forsyth, R, and Dr M. D. Potter, F |
|
Mr Ian Mark Le Mercier Du Quesnay, N |
Professor W. M. Beard, N, and Dr S. E. Lintott, DOW |
|
Mr Jack Lang, EM |
Professor R. J. Anderson, T, and Dr R. J. Barnes, EM |
|
Dr Susan Marian Oosthuizen, W |
Dr D. W. B. MacDonald, W, and Dr J. P. Spencer, SID |
|
Dr Paul Andrew Robertson, DAR |
Professor Dame Ann Dowling, SID, and Professor W. I. Milne, CHU |
No other persons having been nominated, the candidates named above in class (a) are duly elected.
An election is necessary to select two members in class (b) and four members in class (c). The election will be by postal ballot, under the Single Transferable Vote regulations. Voting papers will be distributed, together with the statements provided by the candidates, not later than Monday, 15 November. The last date for the return of voting papers will be 5 p.m. on Thursday, 25 November.
This Notice replaces that published on 3 November 2010 (p. 114).
The Vice-Chancellor announces that he has received the following nominations, in accordance with Statute A, VII, 3, for election to the Board of Scrutiny, and that it has been certified to him that each candidate has consented to be so nominated:
Mr Mervin Bruce Beckles, K, is nominated by Dr R. A. W. Mee, M, and Ms K. M. Jeary
Dr Mohammad Munawar Chaudhri, DAR, is nominated by Professor M. Jones, DAR, and Dr E. S. Leedham-Green, DAR
Mr Paul Charles Warren, CC, is nominated by Mr P. ffolkes Davis, TH, and Professor R. J. Bowring, SE
An election is necessary to select one member in class (c)(ii) to serve until 30 September 2011. The election will be conducted by postal ballot under the Single Transferable Vote Regulations. Voting papers will be distributed, together with the statements provided by candidates, not later than Monday, 15 November. The last date for the return of voting papers will be 5 p.m. on Thursday, 25 November.
The Vice-Chancellor announces that no nominations for election to the Committee of Management of the University Combination Room have been received. Regulation 2 for election to the committee (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 147) provides that, if insufficient nominations are received, the Council shall appoint as many members as may be necessary.
Grace 9 associated with the Second Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on new pay and grading arrangements for non-clinical staff (Reporter, 2004–05, p. 745) provides for the Council to publish at least annually (i) anonymized statistical information about the number of non-clinical staff on each step of the single spine, for the institution as a whole, and by School (or equivalent), according to staff category, grade, and gender; and (ii) anonymized information by School (or equivalent), according to staff category, grade, and gender, of additional payments made under the regulations for payments additional to stipend, but excluding payments for clinical responsibility.
Accordingly, the Council now publishes information for 2009–10 showing in the tables below the payments that have been made. All data are to 31 July 2010.
Tables 1–9 show the number of non-clinical staff on each step of the single spine by grade and gender for (a) academic, including research staff, and (b) academic-related and assistant staff. Table 1 shows the data for the institution as a whole; Tables 2–9 show the data by School (or equivalent). In each table, contribution points on the single spine are shaded.
Table 10 shows (a) pensionable and (b) non-pensionable payments made under the regulations for payments additional to stipend for each School (or equivalent) according to staff category (academic and non-academic) and by grade and gender. The Council has also agreed to publish information about recipients of bonus payments (Reporter, 2008–09, p. 962). Such information is included in Table 10(b).
Under the arrangements introduced by the Second Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on new pay and grading arrangements for non-clinical staff (Reporter, 2004–05, p. 745), market supplements may be made to secure the recruitment or retention of an individual member of staff.
Grace 7 associated with the Second Joint Report provides for the Council to publish anonymized statistical information on all awards of market supplements at least annually by staff category, grade, gender, and School (or equivalent).
Accordingly, the Council publishes below information for 2009–10 on the market supplements that have been made. Table 11(a) shows the total number of staff in receipt of market supplements; Table 11(b) shows the number of awards made between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2010.
In order to improve scrutiny, accountability, and transparency in the award of market supplements, the Council has established a Remuneration Committee (Reporter, 2007–08, p. 282) which considers, as part of its remit, the determination of market supplements over 10% for professorial and equivalent staff.
1. In June 2010 the Council published a Green Paper on the North West Cambridge Project (Reporter, 2009–10, p. 1009).
2. The Green Paper described the needs that had triggered the proposals for the potential development of the University’s land at North West Cambridge, together with the current position regarding the development and the way in which it was envisaged that decisions within the University would be taken. The Paper invited feedback on the proposals being developed and was discussed on 12 October 2010 (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 72). The Council has taken note of the comments received during the period of consultation as well as those made at the Discussion. Its responses are included in this Notice.
3. The Council is not immediately setting out formal proposals with respect to planning applications and governance arrangements for the Regent House to approve, as it considers it appropriate first to determine the best reaction to the government announcement of the cancellation of the A14 upgrade project, which alters the context of all planning applications in this general area. However, as much of the proposed development is intended to reduce rather than increase traffic volumes, the Council intends to bring forward formal proposals as soon as possible.
4. Nine formal responses to the consultation have been received. The responses are available on the NW Cambridge website (http://www.nwcambridge.co.uk/PDFs/responses-11-10.pdf). The following are the main points raised, together with responses. (Those which overlap with points made at the Discussion are dealt with below.)
5. It is agreed that the proposed double sets of lights on the Madingley Road must not cause considerable extra traffic hold-ups, and the Highways Agency and the County Council will be insistent upon this to minimize the impact of queuing traffic on the M11 slip roads. Providing that these lights are properly designed and are set to operate as a network, the two lights would act together to provide a ‘green wave’ and to minimize the red times endured by the main flows of traffic. Technology will enable them to identify approaching buses and adapt their green times to minimize delays for buses, as already happens at the Park and Ride site junction and the Bridge Street rising bollards. There is also a significant tidal flow to the Park and Ride which means that it will be easier to manage traffic in this vicinity.
6. The proposal to combine the traffic flows from the Park and Ride site and the NW Cambridge site into a single junction is considered, in traffic engineering terms, to be more likely to result in additional congestion and would require an agreement from the County Council, the long-term leaseholder of the Park and Ride, to any changes to the existing vehicle access arrangements. While such an arrangement would improve accessibility to the Madingley Road Park and Ride site, it could also increase rat-running through NW Cambridge.
7. It is agreed in the Area Action Plan that there should be very good pedestrian and cycle links between the Park and Ride site and NW Cambridge, not only to assist movements of passengers, but to facilitate the use of the on-site foodstore for patrons of the Park and Ride site and to increase the potential for extending journeys from the Park and Ride site by using additional bus services. For these reasons, a footway/cycleway link is planned.
8. The current public transport strategy is looking at how best to utilize the current Uni 4 service that calls at the Park and Ride site, in order to provide for the orbital link around Cambridge. It is currently proposed to run the service directly across Madingley Road into the new access road, provide stops adjacent to the Park and Ride site, and thus to enhance further pedestrian access to and through the site.
9. The Council has been advised that disposals by way of 999-year leases as opposed to freehold sales, as proposed in the Green Paper, would have very little effect on the capital value of the properties to be sold. However 50-, 99- or 150-year leases for family housing development would have a significant downward effect on value and would make the development of market housing much less attractive or even unsaleable to house-builders and house buyers. Houses for sale on the NW Cambridge site will come ‘on stream’ at the same time as several other developments in Cambridge, where purchasers will be offered freeholds with few covenants or restrictions compared to the NW Cambridge development. This is a key consideration since maximizing revenue from the land sales is important in delivering housing for University/College employees at affordable rents. The sale of land for commercial research development would also require lease terms of at least 200 years to secure investment finance. Rents from such leases would be nominal, typically a peppercorn in the case of commercial leases or approximately £100 a year (subject to review every 25 years) for apartment leases.
10. The University is appreciative of the constructive input of the Nineteen Acre Field Residents Association, and their input has played an invaluable role in refining and improving the proposals. Throughout this project the University has been keen to engage with local residents in order to create a new neighbourhood that integrates seamlessly with its neighbours. In particular the masterplan conforms with suggestions made for development on the shared boundaries along Huntingdon Road and Storey’s Way. The tranquillity of the Ascension Burial Ground will be maintained.
11. The University is committed to high quality design and construction, as well as high levels of sustainability, and the Association’s views on the form of brick and the limitations of pre-fabricated buildings have been noted and will be included in discussions on these issues with the town planners.
12. The University has responded to the local authorities’ retail public consultation (a copy of which is available on the NW Cambridge website) and believes that the supermarket should be of a sufficient size to provide all of the grocery needs of shoppers so that local people do not have to travel to existing stores further afield, particularly on strategic roads. By way of example, this would be smaller than the Waitrose on Trumpington Road. The University does not support proposals for a large regional supermarket. The University will work with the supermarket operator to ensure that it contributes to the achievement of overall sustainability goals for the site, including Green Travel Plan targets, by seeking to reduce car use.
13. The release of land from the Green Belt was to meet the University’s future needs for housing for staff and students and for academic and research requirements. The driving factor is not financial gain. Nonetheless, the development of the site will be appraised against the financial goals proposed in the Green Paper. It is agreed that the financing of the project should be structured so that the initial cost of the development of NW Cambridge will not adversely affect the resources available for the future academic activities of the University.
14. The Council agrees with this and the Project Board has sought to reach as wide a community as possible in public consultation exercises which have complemented the ones within the University.
15. The Council agrees with this: in addition to the publication of this Notice, responses will also be made available on the NW Cambridge website (http://www.nwcambridge.co.uk/).
16. Whilst the University has held some preliminary discussions with the Police on the possibility of a new headquarters building being located at the northern end of the site, these are at a very early stage and do not form part of the proposed planning application.
17. The needs of the existing academic community on the site will be fully considered through consultation and through the composition of the proposed Syndicate.
18. Dr De Lacey commented on the need for an update on changes to the plans as a result of a possible delay to the A14 upgrade. The Council recognizes that any delay to the A14 upgrade will have consequences for the development of NW Cambridge. Following cancellation of the upgrade proposals, the Council will reassess the position and will report to the University about the future of the project as soon as possible.
19. Dr De Lacey also commented that there was no specific reference to Girton Parish. Although no specific reference to Girton Parish was made in the Green Paper, local community groups including the parish councils have been the object of a programme of community engagement (see paragraph 139 of the Green Paper).
20. Dr De Lacey commented on potential noise and air pollution, especially in the corner near to M11/A14/Huntington Road. A survey of noise pollution and air quality at the site has been carried out and data from the survey establish that except for a small area the levels are within the statutorily acceptable limits. Measures are proposed to mitigate the levels in the area affected (see paragraphs 39 and 42 of the Green Paper). The primary school is not in this area but is located in the central area of the site.
21. Dr De Lacey asked how committed the University was to sustainability and made reference to Professor Mackay’s views on CHP (Combined Heating and Power) in his book Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air. The reference to all homes being ‘zero carbon’ after 2016 is partially due to the building regulations that will become mandatory at this time. However it is expected that very low carbon homes will be built on the site before this date (as far as possible to the maximum level technically possible). The move to full zero carbon will effectively be achieved through off-site solutions which may be an offset fund or CO2 reductions elsewhere.
22. Professor David Mackay’s book takes a long-term view (to around 2050) of energy supply and distribution. Combined heating and power (CHP) and district heating are treated as an integrated whole in the book but are a combination of generation (CHP) and distribution (district heating). By proposing gas CHP in the short term the project managers are selecting a lower carbon technology which is proven, commercial, and will deliver high carbon savings through its lifetime. The inclusion of a district heating network allows for alternative future forms of heat generation and is therefore very flexible, opening up forms of future heat generation which could not be used without such a network.
23. Dr De Lacey asked about the position of the secondary school and other facilities to the north of Huntingdon Road. The University will be required to make a financial contribution to the local education authority (LEA) under s106 agreements towards secondary school provision, relative to the anticipated increase in demand for school places generated by the development on the NW Cambridge site. The secondary school is currently expected to be situated on the NIAB development, but if that development does not go ahead, the LEA will be responsible for providing places at existing schools through extension or redevelopment. The University will engage with the LEA about the best alternative provision (which might be to increase the number of places in existing neighbouring schools). The other shared community facility that is currently proposed for the NIAB site is a library. The University would consult with the County Council about an alternative site if this became necessary.
24. It is accepted that there will need to be appropriate access on foot, by bicycle, and by vehicle between the University and NIAB sites and this will be subject to consideration by the local authorities
25. All other community facilities required for the NW Cambridge development will be provided on site.
26. Professor Anderson was concerned that the project, conceived before the credit crunch, by using land for housing would remove the potential for alternative uses by the University and suggested that there were other ways of supporting new staff. The release of land from the Green Belt through the Area Action Plan (AAP) is to meet the University’s future needs for housing for staff and students, and for academic and research requirements. The AAP requires the University to provide a balanced and sustainable community which mitigates journeys to work. This can be achieved through a mix of housing and work places on the site. Providing more salary to staff to afford housing currently available in Cambridge will not address the problem of the current shortage of good quality homes for the target groups of staff, and will not address the objective of creating a balanced and sustainable community that will serve the University’s interests over the next several decades. If staff housing is not provided on site, journeys to work would also not be mitigated, with consequent adverse traffic impact on the surrounding road network.
27. Professor Anderson was concerned that post-doctoral staff living on the site might feel marginalized, and that perhaps the site should be used to create a new kind of College. This idea is already being explored. The form that any collegiate presence might take is not yet fixed – any development will depend on proposals from the Colleges and future funding opportunities.
28. Professor Maskell considered that there was a compelling academic and strategic case to move forward to outline planning application. The project would support opportunities to recruit high-quality staff and research students. He further commented that it is essential that the project is well-governed and the proposed Syndicate gives the right balance between accountability to Regent House and delegated powers. The Council notes his comments and support for the proposals.
29. Dr Ash was concerned that not enough consideration had been given to risks (such as noise and access for emergency services) – and the consequent reputational risk to the University. With reference to Dr Ash’s specific comment about fire safety, the site will be designed to meet all statutory requirements, and consultations have been held with the local emergency services (see paragraph 138 of the Green Paper). The Council agrees that it is important that this high-profile project meets high design credentials. The Sustainability Panel chaired by Professor Mair will challenge the evolving designs (paragraph 83 of the Green Paper).
30. Dr Kuhn asked about the opportunity to buy land and self-build. The Council considers that a noteworthy number of ambitious self-build projects, privately undertaken by staff with related research interests, would help to make the site a showcase for advanced and sustainable design that would ‘do the University proud’. The Council is sympathetic to the desires of members of staff to buy land and build their own houses. There are some administrative and other costs associated with ensuring compliance with the Design Guidelines, in selling individual plots of land, but the possibility to provide such plots will be kept under review.
31. Professor Thompson was concerned about appropriate housing design. There are a series of interrelated mechanisms to enable the University to maintain a high quality of environment across the site. The outline planning application establishes the core parameters in which future development must come forward. Following submission approval of the outline planning application, the University will agree with the Local Planning Authorities a set of design guidelines that will be used by the University to bring forward development proposals across the site and to select developers for the market housing. The Design Guidelines will also be used by the Local Planning Authorities as a material consideration in approving reserved matters applications.
32. Professor Thompson and Mr Taylor were concerned that the relatively short-term tenancy of University staff housing would lead to lack of community cohesion, for example for schools. The short-term nature of the tenancy agreements reflects the University’s needs to make housing available for qualifying new staff. Most of the key workers who have been identified as being eligible for University housing on the site will have short-term contracts of one to three years and are less likely to have children of school age. For staff who remain in the University for longer periods the University’s equity share scheme will be available to help them to purchase market homes either on the NW Cambridge site or elsewhere in Cambridge.
33. Professor Thompson asked about the size of the supermarket. The local authorities have carried out a consultation exercise on the preferred basis of provision for a supermarket, to which the University has responded. This is reflected in the size of the supermarket commercial site proposed in the Green Paper (see paragraph 12 above and http://www.nwcambridge.co.uk/).
34. Professor Thompson asked in relation to faith provision whether advice would be taken from knowledgeable local bodies. Consultation has already been carried out with local faith groups and these will be involved in further planning for community faith provision on the site.
35. Mr Taylor appreciated the thrust of the project but was concerned that the community centre should be built at an early stage. The Council agrees that it is important to create a sustainable community at an early stage of the project and it anticipates that the local centre, with some community facilities and community provision, will be built as part of the first phase. Additional community facilities will be provided in line with the level of occupancy of the site at each subsequent stage.
36. Mr Taylor also asked about the community mix between University and non-University. The Council confirms that a mixed community is a main objective of the project.
37. Mr Taylor urged flexibility during the development to meet the changing demands of the University. The Council agrees that throughout the development of the project, assessment of the changing needs of the University will be necessary.
38. Mr Taylor was concerned about retention of historic buildings on the site. The Council has been informed that no buildings of architectural merit are on the site. It is not proposed to retain any buildings except for those currently in use by academic institutions.
39. The intention is to make an outline planning application for the whole site, based on the North West Cambridge Easter Term 2008 Emerging Master Plan, for which Regent House approval will be sought. Once an acceptable outline planning permission for the overall site has been secured there will be no obligation to proceed immediately and it is anticipated that the consent will be valid for ten years. The Easter Term 2008 Emerging Master Plan was published in the Reporter on 28 October 2009 (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2009-10/weekly/6163/section1.shtml#heading2-5); other Plans were included in the Green Paper (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2009-10/weekly/6194/) (see also the NW Cambridge website: http://www.nwcambridge.co.uk/index.php).
40. The Government has recognized the need for improvements to be made to relieve traffic congestion in the A14 growth corridor, but has decided that the current scheme is not a cost-effective way of achieving this. It has therefore cancelled the current scheme. Alternative solutions are already being considered by the Highways Agency and County Council in co-operation. It is recognized by the Highways Agency and the County Council that the University has a strong track record in delivering sustainable development and that the NW Cambridge development is not a traditional development that would attract high numbers of car journeys. The University has already successfully implemented travel plans for its sites and has the ability to deliver area-wide travel planning throughout the University estate.
41. A traffic assessment for the North West Cambridge project is required as part of the planning application, and re-assessment of the traffic impact on the strategic road network will now be required, as work to date has been based on the Highway Agency’s traffic model that included the improvement works. The transport consultants for the project are in discussion with Cambridgeshire County Council and the Highways Agency on how this may best be achieved in order that the planning application may be brought forward with the minimum of delay. It is anticipated that a County Council traffic model without A14 improvements can be updated and utilized in this process.
42. Work to date indicates that the development proposals will have limited impact on the relevant parts of the strategic road network due to the anticipated low car ownership/usage by University employees (many of whom will work on site or at West Cambridge), no car parking provision for students, and, in the case of the supermarket, existing locally generated trips on the strategic road network will be converted to local trips. Discussions with the relevant authorities will explore the potential for mitigation of adverse traffic impact through additional on-site measures such as enhancement of the Green Travel Plan, as well as off-site works.
43. The Green Paper also set out in broad terms proposals for the establishment of a new Syndicate (paragraphs 111–16), which received support from speakers at the Discussion on 12 October. The Council will take careful note of the detailed comments made and bring forward formal proposals at the same time as authority is sought for the submission of an outline planning application.
In its Report to the University of 29 May 2006 (Reporter, 2005–06, p. 683), the Council proposed the incorporation of Cambridge Enterprise as a limited company. One of the recommendations of the Report was that Cambridge Enterprise should be reviewed after five years to assess its performance against certain criteria set out in the Annex B to the Report. A Review Committee has now been established to undertake that review. The Committee has the following membership:
Professor Sir Tom Blundell (Chair)
Dr Mike Clark (Department of Pathology)
Michael J. Cleare (External member: Associate Vice Provost for Research and Executive Director of Technology Transfer, University of Pennsylvania)
Professor Lynn Gladden (Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research)
Professor Andy Hopper (Head, Computer Laboratory)
Dame Mavis McDonald (External member of the Council)
Professor Jeremy Sanders (Head of the School of the Physical Sciences)
The Committee now invites members of the University to submit written evidence for consideration by the Committee. Whilst any and all comments will be considered, the Committee has agreed that it wishes in particular to consider the following questions:
•What financial returns has Cambridge Enterprise generated for the University, the region, and the UK?
•In light of the fact that five years is a relatively short period for generating income from IP, and in light of the fact that economic growth has been slower than may have been expected five years ago, are those returns adequate?
•Is the investment that the University makes in Cambridge Enterprise getting smaller or larger? Is the rate of change acceptable? (The calculation should include any ‘in-kind’ benefits.)
•What contributions do the activities of Cambridge Enterprise make to the University’s general income, e.g. through the measurement of ‘impact’ in the REF and its implications for core research funding.
•Over what period should the University continue to invest in Cambridge Enterprise?
•In what ways should the University invest in Cambridge Enterprise (e.g. though continued subsidy, or through revision of the reward to inventors policy).
•What is best practice in commercialization in the UK and internationally? How does Cambridge Enterprise differ from or lead best practice?
•What distinct roles does Cambridge Enterprise play – e.g. consultancy, research contract negotiation, spin-outs? Is Cambridge Enterprise the right vehicle to perform all of these roles? Are there other roles which it should perform?
•Are there compliance roles, which it plays for the University, for which it should be directly resourced?
•Are there ‘boundary’ issues with the Cambridge Research Office which need to be addressed in order to ensure best practice?
•What are the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining Cambridge Enterprise as a Company, as opposed to an office within the University?
•What models of IP ownership are available? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the current model?
•Have there been more start-ups, licenses, and consultancies than there would have been without Cambridge Enterprise?
•Can the University afford not to have a commercialization vehicle?
•What is the ideal size for the activity? Should income and growth be allowed to grow freely, or be capped?
Submissions should be addressed to the Secretary of the Committee, Dr Malcolm Edwards, at the School of Clinical Medicine, Box 111, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0SP. Submissions by email to mse1000@medschl.cam.ac.uk are also acceptable. Submissions should arrive no later than 5 December 2010.
USS Ltd has published their Report and Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2010. The trustees have issued a short report to all members giving details of the information contained in the full Report and Accounts, and this will be circulated to all members. Copies of the full Report and Accounts can be obtained on request from the Pensions Office, Human Resources Division, 10 Peas Hill, Cambridge, CB2 3PN, and are available on the USS website (http://www.uss.co.uk/SchemeGuide/publicationspresentations/Pages/default.aspx).