Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences

FACULTY LEADERSHIP TEAM (FLT) 5 March 2015

Present: Professor Stephen Flint (in the Chair) Professor Ann Webb Professor Tim O’Brien Professor Stephen Yeates Dr Louise Walker Professor Mike Sutcliffe Professor Richard Winpenny Professor Jim Miles Professor Hugh Coe Professor Tony Brown Professor Paul O’Brien Professor Peter Duck Professor Andy Gibson Professor Steve Watts Rachel Brealey Sue Field Nicola Cosens (for Pauline Morgan) Ian Bradley Pia Pollock (Secretary)

In attendance: Catherine Davidge (for item 1) Rob Derbyshire Tanya Aspinall Steve Blatch

Apologies: Pauline Morgan

1. HEALTH AND SAFETY

RECEIVED:

An update from the Faculty Safety Coordinators was received and the following items were discussed in detail:

i) Other significant events Regarding point 2a in the Safety Services Report, the importance of evacuating a students (staff or others) when the intermittent building alarm changed to a continuous alarm was reinforced and Heads of School were asked to remind relevant staff of their responsibilities in any such events, irrespective of the perceived cause. It was reported that the incident had been taken forward formally.

Another significant incident relating to circular saw usage (point 2b) had occurred. The investigation had shown that a risk assessment was in place but that it had not taken sufficient account of the presence of apprentice technicians. Heads of Schools were asked to ensure that all risk assessments in workshops (and laboratories) were up to date [AP40: HoS]. It was requested that Colin Baines as the Faculty Technical Resource Manager would be included to the list of Faculty contacts regarding any future incidents.

ii) Fire Evacuation Marshal (FEM) co-ordinator for Sackville St Building It was felt that the Sackville Street Building did not have a sufficient number of fire evacuation marshals and, moreover, it was requested that a staff member would be appointed in the Faculty to liaise with all FEMs in Sackville Street Building and the

Minutes page 1

University Fire Evacuation Coordinator in arranging evacuations. It was reported that additional colleagues had indeed been appointed to the marshall role a while ago but due to the nature of work of these colleagues, they had been elsewhere at the time an evacuation was needed. However, it was agreed that the Director of Faculty Operations would take this forward with the Faculty's Safety Advisor [AP41: DoFO]. iii) MECD workshop It was reported that the workshop and related exercises, which had included discussions on experiences around considerations of safety critical implications, had been very useful. iv) Evacuation of Alan Turing Building The HoS for Mathematics raised an issue about the evacuation during a fire alarm and the need to ensure that the traffic would be stopped on the west side of the building which was close to the assembly point and had to be crossed to reach it. During recent evacuations delivery and service traffic had continued to access the area where large groups of people had been evacuated plus if there was a fire then the University would be putting the drivers in danger. It was requested that traffic was stopped in this, and any similar, areas in such instances. It was agreed that the Safety Coordinators would take this forward [AP42: Safety Coordinators]. v) Student illness and ambulance service to find the building The HoS for Computer Science reported that a student had taken seriously during a laboratory in the Kilburn Building and it had taken about 40 minutes for the ambulance service to arrive due to the difficulties in finding the building. It was suggested that instructions on finding exact locations would be reviewed. The Head of School was asked to highlight the incident to the University’s First Aid Co- ordinator (Janet Makin) [AP43: HoS Computer Science]. vi) Major incident in Pariser building on 4 March A major incident had taken place in the Pariser Building due to a mixture of chemicals being left in a lab. Some of the chemicals had started to crystallise which had the potential to cause an explosion and therefore the building and its adjacent buildings had been evacuated. A controlled explosion had been carried out in a safe setting away from the main buildings of the University.

The HoS of the School concerned (MACE) apologised for the disruption this had caused and reported that the coordination of the events by the Estates had worked well. A risk assessment had been in place but it would now be reviewed. It was noted that communication to and between staff in a situation like this would also be reviewed. It was noted that the incident did not appear to require any follow up from the Police and was not RIDDOR reportable.

The group discussed the management of the event such as this one and who was "in charge" of the events and therefore entitled to speak to the police. It was noted that an Emergency Incident Manager should be in place and that they were required to attend the incident at any date and time when on duty. It was agreed that the Emergency Incident Plan should be circulated to FLT members [AP44: Secretary]. Colleagues were also reminded that to report an incident they just needed to call Security (note: the telephone number is on the staff card). Heads of School should have received training on/around the Emergency Incident Plan on/around their appointment and this would be checked with the Risk & Compliance Office [AP45: Secretary].

It was noted that the general staff were sent only one email about the incident and it was suggested that the communication to the staff would be reviewed and consideration given as to what other topics should be covered, for example the use of car parks [AP46: DoFO].

Minutes page 2

A question was asked about the University’s responsibility of classifying and packaging materials that the University sent to companies involved in the projects with the University. It was reported that the requirement only applied to materials with a "hazard" symbol.

2. MINUTES

2.1 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING

RECEIVED:

Minutes of the last meeting held on 5 February 2015.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes were approved.

2.2 MATTERS ARISING

NOTED:

a. AP31: Nominations for the University’s USA Strategy Group Nominations had been previously called for the EPS USA Strategy Group and it was reported that nominations had now been received and the first meeting was currently being set up. It was reported that the EPS has two representatives on the University’s USA Strategy Group which was being chaired by Professor Keith Brown. It was noted that The University of Manchester had significantly less students from the USA than some of our competitors and that the University’s branding was being looked at in order to raise its profile. It was also suggested that Schools should consider exhibiting at large international conventions and conferences in the USA. For example, the annual Geology conference attracted c.7000 attendees (cost of a stand was c. £2000) and it was estimated that this had provided a few MSc students for the School. A copy of the picture of EAES exhibition stand would be circulated electronically [AP47: Secretary]. It was agreed that Schools would look into options such as this.

b. AP32: Faculty of EPS Teaching and Research Strategic Fund The group was informed that each HoS had been sent information on applications for the fund in their area.

c. AP33: Research: Post-REF assessment The University had previously requested that Schools would undertake the calibration exercise of RRE against the REF results and it had been suggested that a similar methodology of that developed in Physics & Astronomy would be used in EPS. It was reported that the AD for Research was working with Research Directors on the calibration, RAE rating and monitoring how the outputs should be taken forward.

d. AP34: Teaching & Learning: Distance learning It had been previously agreed that the each School would provide a brief summary of their position on Distance Learning, including programmes that had the potential to be delivered by DL and a timescale for introducing Distance Learning on these programmes. It was reported that only a couple of responses have been received so far although some had gone directly to the Chair of the Project Group.

e. AP35: Reports from the Heads of School: Chemistry Regarding the item on the ‘Compliance event’, it was noted that the event had been found unsatisfactory for most part other than the last session involving information on legal matters. It was noted that the Director of Faculty Operations had given feedback to the relevant central University colleagues and it had been reported that

Minutes page 3

the Registrar and the Head of Compliance and Risk would review the content of the event.

f. AP36: Reports from the Heads of School: Mathematics It had been reported that the School had a number of open academic positions and had had numerous queries from applicants who had experienced difficulties with the Jobtrain system. It was reported that the information had been referred on to relevant colleagues within HR and that some issues still persisted with the system, namely with multiple document upload. The group was informed that a new system would be put out to tender shortly as the contract of the current system ran out in 10-12 months, and that consultation for the tender would take place prior to this.

g. AP37: Faculty Strategic Priorities for eLearning Group members had been asked to provide any feedback on the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences eLearning strategy action plan and a reminder was sent around to all Heads of School but there were no additional comments. The priorities/plan for the remainder of 2014/15 and 2015/16 were now confirmed and would be implemented accordingly.

h. AP38: Annual Performance Review Action Plan Colleagues had been asked to consider whether any other activities/tasks should be added to the action plan and a couple of final small changes had been made to the report which was then submitted as required.

i. AP39: AOB: Henry Royce Institute for Materials Research It was requested, and agreed, that a business plan for the Henry Royce Institute for Materials Research centre would be put in place in due course (although it had been noted that conversations with BIS were still ongoing). It was noted that the Head of Faculty Finance would pick this up in the next meeting [AP39: HoFF].

3 REPORTS FROM THE FACULTY

3.1 REPORTS FROM THE VICE-PRESIDENT AND DEAN

RECEIVED:

An oral report from the Acting Vice-President and Dean.

NOTED:

i) FLS Review It was reported that the review of FLS was underway and a number of group members had met with the review team. A Research mapping exercise was taking place and it was not thought to be too onerous an exercise. The Chair of the review group, Professor Keith Brown, had been invited to attend the IFLT meeting in March.

ii) Appointment of Vice President & Dean for the EPS It was noted that an offer had been made to a candidate to become the next Vice President & Dean for the Faculty and that an announcements should be made soon.

iii) Board of Governors Conference 24-25 March It was noted that Board of Governors Conference would take place on 24-25 of March and that the VP & Dean would give a presentation to the conference. The slides would hopefully be circulated to the group members in advance for comments.

iv) North China Electric Power University (NCEPU) It was reported that the School of EEE and others had successfully secured an expanded 2+2 contract with NCEPU. Preparations were being made for the proposal to be submitted to the Ministry of Education in China shortly. It was also noted that

Minutes page 4

the EU Office in Beijing had been visited by the VP & Dean and HoS for EEE and that it had been useful in increasing the understanding on the relationship between the EU and China in relation to research funding. The EU Project Officer in China had been invited to visit The University in Manchester when next in the UK.

v) Budget meetings It was noted that the budget meetings would start next Friday 13 March. Several new posts were being proposed by Schools and it was noted that appointments would be made where the posts met the Faculty’s strategic objectives.

vi) Decrease of units at MACE The group was informed that the School of MACE had successfully identified 30 units of its current of teaching load (135 units) that would be cut over the next 4 years. The School of Materials had also carried out a similar exercise recently.

vii) Staff Survey 2015 It was noted that the Staff Survey 2015 would go live on Monday 9 March and staff should be encouraged to complete it.

viii) Newton Fund The group was informed that opportunities continued in the first round of the Newton Fund which would span over 5 years. The first year might be expected to be mainly relationship building, with larger funding applications coming at a later stage.

ix) Internationalisation strategy for The University of Manchester The group was reminded about the invitation of views to the Internationalisation Strategy which was being developed by Professor Colin Bailey. Individual responses should be sent directly to Colin but copying in Steve Flint for the Faculty response.

3.2 REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR OF FACULTY OPERATIONS

RECEIVED:

Report from the Director of Faculty Operations

NOTED:

i) Barnes Wallis Building It was noted that the Barnes Wallis Building refurbishment was running slightly behind the schedule but it should be open around Easter. Marketing material would be sent to Schools for informing students and promoting the building/facilities.

3.3 REPORT FROM THE HEAD OF FACULTY HR

RECEIVED:

A report from the Head of Faculty HR

NOTED:

i) Management of Absence Absence of staff had been looked at as part of the APR process and action should be taken when needed. The role of the Occupational Health unit was being reviewed. Several colleagues reported that the service and support provided by the Occupational Health had been very good especially in relation to chronic issues but improvements could be made in the way crisis situations were approached and to improve the responsiveness. It was noted a meeting can be arranged with the Occupational Health to discuss specific issues as part of the referral reports if needed.

Minutes page 5

ii) Developing a ‘NAP type’ training for academic staff (action from the IFLT meeting on 19 February) The group discussed how best to take the above action forward and some initial questions had been sent to Heads of School. The following feedback was provided:

(a) Supporting staff whose first language was not English: Language could be a barrier specifically in a classroom situation where staff whose first language was not English taught students whose first language was not English either. The pronunciation had especially been noted to be a problem. The Head of Faculty HR would develop an action in this area [AP48: HoFHR].

(b) Becoming more familiar with the UK HE system: It was suggested that a workshop/training would be arranged for staff who had no previous teaching experience in the British higher education system to provide support in setting in and becoming more aware of the intricacies of the UK HE system and the objectives for teaching and learning at The University of Manchester. This would be followed up through the NAP [AP49: AD(T&L)]. [Note: Aspects of this were already included].

(c) Requirements for learning: It was agreed that in many programmes the amount of content given to students exceeded that which can be adopted by students. Students were noted to be constantly overloaded and over-assessed. This was also noted to overload staff.

(d) Study skills: Questions were raised as to whether most students took notes in lectures, engaged with the learning material provided and were proactive and whether students discussed what they had learnt and asked questions when something was unclear. It was agreed that students should be encouraged to discuss the topics more and share knowledge. It was asked as to whether there was a cultural difference in the educational approach between staff and students and whether staff knew how to coach students on how to study and learn more effectively.

(e) Effectiveness of teaching: A question was raised as to whether the learning outcomes were made clear to students and whether the assessment was based on the learning outcomes. It was also noted that students engaged less in formative assessment as they felt over assessed through summative methods.

It was suggested that the questions in teaching assessment questionnaires should be changed more towards what the problem was, for example what was good in lectures and what was not. A question was raised whether the current online questionnaires defeated the purpose and did the technology support the process or had it made it weaker.

(f) The plan for the training: It was agreed that any training around this should be made available for all academic staff. The purpose of it would be to offer information and practical tips on ensuring lectures were effective and involved at least some of the current teaching methods. Staff could register on the training themselves, as a recommendation by their line manager or be asked to participate by their line manager/HoS as a means of additional professional development as identified in the P&DR. It was noted that the Peer Review College could also be utilised to support part of the delivery at a later stage as well as helping to identify those who might benefit from the training. Some form of mid career review may also be helpful [AP50: HoFHR].

3.4 REPORT FROM THE HEAD OF FACULTY FINANCE

NOTED:

No additional comments were made.

Minutes page 6

3.5 REPORT FROM THE HEAD OF FACULTY INFORMATION SYSTEMS/IT PARTNER

NOTED:

No additional comments were made.

3.6 REPORTS FROM THE ASSOCIATE DEANS

RECEIVED:

Reports from the Associate Deans.

NOTED:

a. Graduate Education

i) China Scholarship Council (CSC) nominations It was noted that 3 students were to be nominated from the EPS (10 in total from the University) and they would need to receive a guaranteed fee waiver. A question was asked as to whether the funding should be dealt with by the proposing Schools or by the Faculty collectively. A question was raised about the small number of nominations that had been made by the Faculty. It was noted that the Schools in the Faculty were already funding more than 3 CSC students and that this should be promoted more effectively. It was agreed to continue to manage the fee payments at a School level.

ii) Graphene NOWNANO CDT It was noted that a memorandum on the funding arrangements had been circulated for Heads of School for approval by the CDT Director. It was not thought to be necessary at this time as the information had already been discussed and approved. It was agreed that Steve Watts would meet with the Director to discuss and feedback the comments from the group.

b. Internationalisation

NOTED:

No additional comments were made.

c. Research

i) Research Applications and Awards It was noted that the value of applications had increased by 50% (01/08/2014 to 26/02/2015) on the same period in 2013/14. It was noted however, that applications had been down on the previous year this time last year which made the figures now look better.

ii) EPSRC: Engineering Grand Challenges call In terms of the ongoing EPSRC call, it was noted that each institution was limited to lead only one programme in each challenge heading (Water, Atoms to Applications and Future Cities) but could be involved in many bids led by others. The Associate Dean was liaising with potential bid leaders. In terms of the ‘Future Cities’ area, it was noted that the University had a group undertaking research in this area, notably in Humanities. It was agreed that more information would be found out about this along with contacting relevant colleagues [AP51: AD(SR)].

Minutes page 7 d. Social Responsibility

NOTED:

i) Manchester Science Festival The group was reminded about the Manchester Science Festival taking place from Thursday 22 October – Sunday 1 November 2015. The deadline for proposals was on 24 April at 4 p.m.

ii) European City of Science 2016 It was noted that further information had been requested about the City of Science scheme but it had not been forthcoming and clarity had not been received on who is leading on the proposal within the University. It was noted that Vicky Rosin, who was involved in the scheme and external to the University, should be invited to visit the Faculty to provide further information at some point. Also, Sandra Crosbie, Business Engagement Manager, would be asked to include information about this in her presentation in the next IFLT meeting [AP52: HoAS]. e. Teaching and Learning

NOTED:

i) Teaching space in MECD It was reported that the plans for the large teaching space within the MECD were taking shape. There were still questions about smaller teaching spaces and how the current use of offices for small group teaching would be replaced in the MECD.

A question was raised as to whether teaching would still take place in a similar way as to current methods when we move to MECD. It was responded that flexible teaching spaces were being looked at for the MECD for this particular reason. Also, more students were expected to access online learning material as opposed to attend lectures which was thought could change the way teaching would be delivered in the future.

ii) Audio Visual facilities in Renold C16 The AV in Renold building had been noted to be a major problem at present and the repair/replacement was being delayed until non teaching time. AV service were agreed to be part of the University’s service function and therefore needed to be responded to in a business critical way and it was agreed that this would be fed back to the SLT as already raised at TLG [AP53: VP&Dean].

iii) FLS Review and teaching It was reported that a meeting had taken place with Clive Agnew, Vice President for Teaching, Learning and Students, who had noted that in terms of teaching it might not be expected to split FLS subjects as it functioned well at the moment. It was noted that a significant part of teaching in Biology was currently shared with the MHS as it forms a large part of the Medical programme.

iv) Tuition fees during for a year in industry A question was asked about the fees payable for students during a year in industry. These were currently fixed at 20% of the standard fees for home students (constrained by the Government) and 50% for international students. This difference let to some students to call for changes although it was noted that some Schools had very different practices in place whilst students were in industry (e.g. some provided taught course units) and some already have scholarships in place. The main issue seemed to be in Computer Science and this would be followed up at their forthcoming budget meetings.

Minutes page 8

3.7 REPORTS FROM THE HEADS OF SCHOOL

RECEIVED:

Reports from the Heads of School:

NOTED:

a. CEAS A building they were using for a UCAS Visit Day had had to be evacuated due to the incident in Pariser but it had been handled well to minimise disruption.

b. Chemistry Regarding the refurbishment of Centre for Radiochemistry Research (CRR), it had been agreed with Estates that this should be taken forward.

c. EAES The group was informed of an additional award for Professor John Lloyd.

4 FACULTY OPERATIONAL PRIORITIES

NOTED:

The EPS Operational Priorities mid-year review had been submitted to the PSO on 20 February. The Operational Priorities for 2015/16 were being looked at and Schools were expected to prepare their versions for submission to the Faculty.

5 TUITION FEES

NOTED:

Schools would be asked shortly to provide their proposals for fees for 2016/17. It may be requested if the deadline can be pushed back slightly so that the documentation can be brought to the FLT meeting for approval.

In relation to increasing discretionary income (as part of what had been referred to as "Project 33"), some Schools should consider whether tuition fees for students could be increased without adversely affecting the numbers of registrations.

6 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business.

7 DATE OF NEXT MEETINGS

7.1 FLT Meeting – Thursday 23 April, 09:00–11:30, Council Chamber, Sackville Street Building.

7.2 IFLT Meeting – Thursday 19 March, 12.00-14.00 hosted by the School of Materials, Council Chamber, Sackville Street Building to include:

• Introduction from Head of School (including UMI3 and exploitation) • Employability (Paul Redmond) • Business Engagement (Sandra Crosbie)

Minutes page 9

Faculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences Faculty Leadership Team Actions List

Ongoing actions from previous meetings

Action Recent From Action point Actum AP39: AOB: Henry Royce Institute for Materials Research 5 Feb AP39 It was requested, and agreed, that a business plan for the Henry Royce Institute for Materials Research centre would 2.2.i 2015 be put in place in due course (although it had been noted that conversations with BIS were still ongoing). It was noted that the Head of Faculty Finance would pick this up in the next meeting [AP39: HoFF].

Actions arising from 5 March 2015

Action Actum Action Point AP40: Health and Safety: Other significant events A significant incident relating to circular saw usage (report point 2b) had occurred. The investigation had shown that a risk AP40 1.i assessment was in place but that it had not taken sufficient account of the presence of apprentice technicians. Heads of Schools were asked to ensure that all risk assessments in workshops (and laboratories) were up to date [AP40: HoS]. AP41: Fire Evacuation Marshal (FEM) co-ordinator for Sackville St Building It was felt that the Sackville Street Building did not have a sufficient number of fire evacuation marshals and, moreover, it was requested that a staff member would be appointed in the Faculty to liaise with all FEMs in Sackville Street Building and the AP41 1.ii University Fire Evacuation Coordinator in arranging evacuations. It was reported that additional colleagues had indeed been appointed to the marshal role a while ago but due to the nature of work of these colleagues, they had been elsewhere at the time an evacuation was needed. However, it was agreed that the Director of Faculty Operations would take this forward with the Faculty's Safety Advisor [AP41: DoFO]. AP42: Evacuation of Alan Turing Building The HoS for Mathematics raised an issue about the evacuation during a fire alarm and the need to ensure that the traffic would be stopped on the west side of the building which was close to the assembly point and had to be crossed to reach it. During AP42 1.iv recent evacuations delivery and service traffic had continued to access the area where large groups of people had been evacuated plus if there was a fire then the University would be putting the drivers in danger. It was requested that traffic was stopped in this, and any similar, areas in such instances. It was agreed that the Safety Coordinators would take this forward [AP42: Safety Coordinators]. AP43: Student illness and ambulance service to find the building The HoS for Computer Science reported that a student had taken seriously during a laboratory in the Kilburn Building and it had AP43 1.v taken about 40 minutes for the ambulance service to arrive due to the difficulties in finding the building. It was suggested that instructions on finding exact locations would be reviewed. The Head of School was asked to highlight the incident to the Minutes page 10

University’s First Aid Co-ordinator (Janet Makin) [AP43: HoS Computer Science].

AP44: Major incident in Pariser building on 4 March The group discussed the management of the event such as this one and who was "in charge" of the events and therefore AP44 1.vi entitled to speak to the police. It was noted that an Emergency Incident Manager should be in place and that they were required to attend the incident at any date and time when on duty. It was agreed that the Emergency Incident Plan should be circulated to FLT members [AP44: Secretary]. AP45: Major incident in Pariser building on 4 March Colleagues were reminded that to report an incident they just needed to call Security (note: the telephone number is on the AP45 1.vi staff card). Heads of School should have received training on/around the Emergency Incident Plan on/around their appointment and this would be checked with the Risk & Compliance Office [AP45: Secretary]. AP46: Major incident in Pariser building on 4 March It was noted that the general staff were sent only one email about the incident and it was suggested that the communication to AP46 1.vi the staff would be reviewed and consideration given as to what other topics should be covered, for example the use of car parks [AP46: DoFO]. AP47: Nominations for the University’s USA Strategy Group Regarding the University’s aim to increase activity with the USA, it was suggested that Schools should consider exhibiting at AP47 2.2.a large international conventions and conferences in the USA. For example, the annual Geology conference attracted c.7000 attendees (cost of a stand was c. £2000) and it was estimated that this had provided a few MSc students for the School. A copy of the picture of EAES exhibition stand would be circulated electronically [AP47: Secretary]. AP48: Developing a ‘NAP type’ training for academic staff: (a) Supporting staff whose first language was not English AP48 3.3.ii.a Language could be a barrier specifically in a classroom situation where staff whose first language was not English taught students whose first language was not English either. The pronunciation had especially been noted to be a problem. The Head of Faculty HR would develop an action in this area [AP48: HoFHR]. AP49: Developing a ‘NAP type’ training for academic staff: (b) Becoming more familiar with the UK HE system It was suggested that a workshop/training would be arranged for staff who had no previous teaching experience in the British AP49 3.3.ii.b higher education system to provide support in setting in and becoming more aware of the intricacies of the UK HE system and the objectives for teaching and learning at The University of Manchester. This would be followed up through the NAP [AP49: AD(T&L)]. AP50: Developing a ‘NAP type’ training for academic staff: (f) The plan for the training: It was agreed that any training around this should be made available for all academic staff. The purpose of it would be to offer information and practical tips on ensuring lectures were effective and involved at least some of the current teaching methods. Staff could register on the training AP50 3.3.ii.f themselves, as a recommendation by their line manager or be asked to participate by their line manager/HoS as a means of additional professional development as identified in the P&DR. It was noted that the Peer Review College could also be utilised to support part of the delivery at a later stage as well as helping to identify those who might benefit from the training. Some form of mid-career review may also be helpful [AP50: HoFHR]. AP51: Research: EPSRC: Engineering Grand Challenges call AP51 3.6.c.ii In terms of the ‘Future Cities’ area, it was noted that the University had a group undertaking research in this area, notably in Humanities. It was agreed that more information would be found out about this along with contacting relevant colleagues Minutes page 11

[AP51: AD(SR)].

AP52: Social Responsibility: European City of Science 2016 It was noted that further information had been requested about the City of Science scheme but it had not been forthcoming and clarity had not been received on who is leading on the proposal within the University. It was noted that Vicky Rosin, who was AP52 3.6.d.ii involved in the scheme and external to the University, should be invited to visit the Faculty to provide further information at some point. Also, Sandra Crosbie, Business Engagement Manager, would be asked to include information about this in her presentation in the next IFLT meeting [AP52: HoAS]. AP53: Teaching & Learning: Audio Visual facilities in Renold C16 The AV in Renold building had been noted to be a major problem at present and the repair/replacement was being delayed until AP53 3.6.e.ii non-teaching time. AV service were agreed to be part of the University’s service function and therefore needed to be responded to in a business critical way and it was agreed that this would be fed back to the SLT as already raised at TLG [AP53: VP&Dean].

Minutes page 12