Oxford University Gazette

General Resolution: report of the Working Party on University Sites

Supplement (1) to Gazette No. 4471

Wednesday, 29 April 1998

To Gazette No. 4472 (30 April 1998)

To Gazette Home Page

University Agenda

CONGREGATION 19 May 2 p.m.

Voting on General Resolution concerning the Report of the Working Party on University Sites

Explanatory note

In 1995 Council established a working party, under the chairmanship of the Master of Balliol, `to review the requirements for, and the availability of, sites for development by the University, and to propose ... an outline development plan for the next twenty years ...' The report of the working party was published at the beginning of Michaelmas Term 1997 (Supplement (1) to Gazette No. 4448, 8 October 1997, p. 77) and was sent for comment to colleges, faculty boards, and other university bodies, comments also being invited from individual members of Congregation.

All the comments received have been considered by the Buildings Committee, and that committee has in turn reported to the Resources Committee, which has noted that the general response has been to welcome the report and the broad strategy recommended in it, although there are certain points where respondents have questioned particular recommendations.

The Resources Committee has recommended, and Council and the General Board have agreed, that the report should be seen as providing a framework for strategic planning with detailed decisions on the future locations of departments and faculties being reviewed on a rolling basis as circumstances change, and accordingly: (i) that the Report of the Working Party on University Sites be submitted to Congregation for approval without amendment but with the Building Committee's comments on points of detail, as appended at I below; (ii) that the Report of the Working Party on University Sites be not taken as prescriptive, but be regarded as a general framework within which to consider individual moves of university departments and faculties when decisions need to be taken on such moves; (iii) that the Buildings Committee be invited to review and update the working party's report every three years or whenever there is a significant change in the availability of sites or in the University's requirements for space.

Council therefore submits to Congregation the following general resolution, which endorses the working party's conclusions on the basis that these should not be taken as being prescriptive but should serve as a general framework for the future development of the University's estate, subject to regular review.

Text of General Resolution

That this House endorse the Report of the Working Party on University Sites (Supplement (1) to Gazette No. 4448, 8 October 1997, p. 77) as a general framework within which to consider individual moves of university departments and faculties when decisions need to be taken on such moves, on the understanding that the Buildings Committee will be invited to review and update the working party's report every three years or whenever there is a significant change in the availability of sites or in the University's requirements for space.

APPENDIX I

Report of the Working Party on University Sites: comments of the Buildings Committee

The Buildings Committee was requested by Council to circulate the Report of the Working Party on University Sites to all major interested parties with a specific invitation to comment. The report was sent to all colleges, faculty boards, and inter-faculty committees. Departments were invited to comment through the appropriate board or committee but could if they wished submit comments directly. Twenty submissions were received from faculties, faculty boards, and committees, six from departments, and three from colleges.

The committee has reviewed all the comments received and considers that there is broad support for the strategy recommended in the report. The committee adds its support, but wishes to emphasise that it considers that the report should be seen as a framework for strategic planning with the decisions on the future locations of departments and faculties being reviewed as circumstances change.

Comments relating to the recommendations of the Working Party's Report are summarised in the table at Appendix II below. The committee considers that the submissions are in general supportive of the report though in some cases there is disquiet as to whether some of the buildings suggested as future accommodation are large enough for the department or faculty concerned.

The Buildings Committee draws attention to the following comments as conflicting with the recommendations of the report (details of the recommendations themselves are given in Appendix II).

Recommendations Seven and Twenty-two

Having seen the proposed site in West Oxford, the Department for Continuing Education and Kellogg College consider it unsuitable and ask that the option of the listed buildings on the Radcliffe Infirmary site be kept open, if necessary challenging the department to find money for refurbishment. The committee accepts that these buildings are more attractive to potential donors than a site in West Oxford, and that Continuing Education has close links with other academic departments for which a central site would be an advantage. However, the committee recognises that the needs of English and History are such that these two faculties should have first call on the Radcliffe Infirmary site. While this decision should be kept under review in the light of changes in the availability of sites, the committee considers that it would be inappropriate for Continuing Education to approach potential donors for funding for the Radcliffe Infirmary site. The committee recommends that further discussions be held with the department to explore other options for its future accommodation.

Recommendation Eight

The Libraries Committee would wish to use space freed in the New Bodleian building to improve reader facilities rather than to provide space for developments in the humanities, and suggests that the office areas of the old Indian Institute building be used for the latter purpose. Literae Humaniores initially wished to see the institute used for a Philosophy Faculty Centre and Library but now believes the institute not to be suitable. Oriental Studies considers that the building should be used for its original purpose as an Institute and Library for South Asian Studies, though the Director of Library Services advises that it could not house the current stock of South Asian books. The Buildings Committee understands from the Libraries Committee that the Faculties of Modern History and English would put a higher priority on improving and increasing reader facilities around the New Bodleian bookstack than on office space for new developments. It also noted the Surveyor's concern that use of office space out of hours could increase the risk of fire in the building and it therefore supports the Libraries Committee's proposal for the New Bodleian building. The committee recommends that, as the claims from Philosophy and Oriental Studies are based on factors relating to library use, further discussions be held with the Libraries Committee nearer to the time when the old Indian Institute building is likely to be available for reallocation. The committee also understands that Hertford College believes it has a long-standing claim on this building, but that investigation of the correspondence in the University Archives has not supported the college's case.

Recommendation Nineteen

The Theology Faculty considers that the library space in 10 Merton Street is insufficient and would wish to move to the Mathematical Institute when this is vacated. The committee notes that the institute would be available for reallocation if Mathematics is concentrated on a new site (Recommendation Twenty-eight), but is not persuaded that Theology could justify such a large increase of space. This recommendation should be reviewed when the Mathematical Institute building becomes available, but for the present the committee would recommend the alternative option of moving out the Theology Library, either to join with the History and English Libraries or into space vacated in the Radcliffe Camera.

Recommendation Twenty-nine

The committee considers it unlikely that English will have vacated its space on the St Cross site in time for the International Development Centre to move from Queen Elizabeth House if, as expected, the lease can not be extended beyond 2005. The centre's concern as to whether the space can be adapted to its needs will be addressed during discussions to be held with English Heritage over the proposed conversion of Economics and Statistics space for English and Law. The request from Law for more space, and hence for the centre not to come to the St Cross site, is to be considered by the committee at a later stage, but the committee does not recommend that the housing of the Oxford Institute of Legal Practice in the St Cross Building be given a high priority. The committee considers that attention should also be drawn to the comments below which do not relate directly to the recommendations of the report.

(1) The general comment from the sciences on the need for a social centre for postdoctoral researchers and the requirements for a site for this close to the Science Area. The committee endorses this requirement and recommends that a site for such a centre be identified. [Note. Council and the General Board have endorsed the Resources Committee's view that this proposal must be considered in conjunction with plans to redevelop the University Club, and that the aim must be to create a single social centre to meet the needs of non-academic staff.]

(2) The comment from the Libraries Committee that the remainder of the Natural History Museum forecourt should be reserved for a possible expansion below it of the Radcliffe Science Library. The committee recommends that this be agreed.

(3) The need of the Environmental Change Unit for about 750m2 of floor space. The committee recommends that this requirement be accepted and notes that is compatible with paragraph 12 (ii) of the report. [Note. Council and the General Board have agreed that they cannot at the present stage enter into any commitment to provide the additional space requested by the unit. The General Board will return to this request when it has considered the long-term plans of Geography.]

(4) The request from the Committee for the Museums and Scientific Collections that the proposal in the report to establish a central storage and conservation facility at Osney Mead should become a recommendation, which the Buildings Committee supports in principle. However, the committee feels unable to recommend a change to the recommendations in the report and suggests that it should instead make clear its endorsement of the proposal and include it in its planning.

(5) The Buildings Committee notes that the proposal for a central teaching facility is strongly supported by Chemistry, Biochemistry, and the Physiological Sciences. Discussions are ongoing between Chemistry and the other departments as to whether the proposed Chemistry Teaching Centre could be expanded to provide such a facility. The committee will be asked to consider this proposal when the consultants examining the review of Chemistry present their conclusions. The committee also notes the requirement for a Pre-clinical Teaching Centre, if the number of students rises to 150. Further discussion is required to determine whether this centre should be combined with clinical teaching in Headington or with the proposed Chemistry/Bioscience Centre, or be a stand-alone facility. The committee feels unable at this stage to recommend a possible site for this facility. [Note. Council and the General Board have noted that, since the Buildings Committee considered this matter, it has been agreed that it would be desirable for there to be a Pre-clinical Teaching Facility in South Parks Road in association with Chemistry and Biochemistry. The Resources Committee will give consideration to possible funding strategies for a development of this size.]