Dear Mr Thomas,

Thank you for your correspondence dated 27 September 2026, regarding mobile telephone reception and your proposal for a mast in the field behind the Chapel of St Letus Salata.

Before we can take your enquiry further, please confirm whether you have discussed the proposed use of the field with its owner, Mr Christopher Dunn.

The material supplied describes the field as empty and identifies several positions in which a mast might be placed. It does not establish that Mr Dunn has agreed to any of these positions, or that he is aware his field is the subject of the campaign.

Please provide:

1. Written confirmation from Mr Dunn that he is willing for his land to be considered as a possible mast site.
2. His contact details, supplied with his permission.
3. A plan identifying the land under discussion, including the proposed means of access from the road.

At this stage, we are seeking confirmation that the landowner is willing to discuss the proposal. We are not asking him to authorise construction, and no such authorisation should be inferred from this request.

We have also noted the demonstration held in the field. We have been unable to locate any correspondence concerning arrangements for this event. Please confirm whether the landowner gave permission for those present to enter the land, and provide a copy of any written agreement.

I have retained a copy of the photograph published on your website, in which you appear alongside the other attendees. This will be held with the correspondence should the circumstances of the event require investigation by proper authorities.

Please also confirm whether a telecommunications provider has expressed an interest in using the site. If none has yet been approached, please state this in your response.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel D'Fourskein

Planning and Infrastructure Enquiries
East Thameside Council

Dear Mr Dunn,

I am writing on behalf of the Chapel Committee following correspondence from East Thameside Council concerning the proposed installation of a 5G mast in your field behind the Chapel of St Letus Salata, on Chapel Lane.

The Council has asked me to obtain written confirmation that you are willing for your land to be considered as a possible site. I am therefore contacting you to secure the permission required for the matter to proceed.

The proposed location would serve the Chapel and surrounding houses, where residents have reported considerable difficulty obtaining a reliable signal. The Council requires confirmation of your position before taking the enquiry further.

Please provide a signed letter confirming your agreement in principle. I will forward this to the Council with the site information they have requested.

This would not authorise construction or commit you to accepting a particular mast. The precise location and access arrangements would remain subject to further discussion and technical assessment. No telecommunications provider has yet been identified, but obtaining your agreement now will help avoid delays once that stage is reached.

The Council has also requested your contact details and a plan showing access from the road. Please confirm which contact details I should supply and whether there is a particular entrance you would prefer us to mark on the plan.

There is a separate question concerning the demonstration held in the field on 10 October. The Council has asked for confirmation that permission was given for those present to enter the land. I was occupied with ensuring the safety of participants and understood that access permissions were being dealt with separately.

Please include written confirmation that you were content for the field to be used on that occasion, so that I can advise the Council that this part of their enquiry has been resolved.

A prompt response would assist me in completing the Council’s requested paperwork.

Yours sincerely,

Geoff Thomas
Caretaker and Committee Secretary
Chapel of St Letus Salata

Dear Geoff,

Thank you for asking whether the proposed tea bags can be served at the Hatch. I have now read the minutes of 26 October.

I can put hot water on most tea bags. If that was the only question, there was no need for a meeting.

Whether people will want to drink the result is another matter. I have not seen or tasted the tea, and would like to do so before my lack of a practical objection is recorded as support for changing it.

I was particularly interested to read that you did not wish to trouble me with an unresolved matter. I would have preferred to be troubled while there was still something to discuss.

The saving may well be worth making. However, if the tea takes longer to brew, I will be the person explaining why people are waiting. If it is weak, I will be asked for another bag. If they do not like it, they will tell me. None of these people will be taking their cup to the Committee.

Will it be suitable for all three types of tea I serve: Standard, Builder's and Fine China? These are questions that could have been asked before the meeting.

Please let me have enough of the proposed tea to make a pot. I suggest that a few of us try it alongside the current tea, without being told which is which. There is no need to buy several boxes of everyone's favourite brand. Two pots will do.

Until then, I would be grateful if you would describe this as the Committee's proposed change, rather than a change agreed with my Hatch.

I will continue using the tea we already have.

Jean Hutton

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing on behalf of the Committee of the Chapel of St Letus Salata, an established community institution with a regular programme of meetings, social events and computer activities. We maintain our own premises, website and extensive administrative records, and believe we have much to offer an association with a larger institution such as yours.

The Committee has authorised me to enquire whether the Monastery of St. Blamensir offers patronage, affiliation or protection to other chapels, and whether you would consider us suitable.

Our immediate interest concerns an application to the Council for a 5G mast. Mobile reception around the Chapel is inadequate, affecting both ordinary communication and the work of our Computer Club. The Council appears to regard us as a single building used by a relatively small number of people. While this describes certain physical aspects of the Chapel, we do not consider it a sufficient assessment of our importance.

We believe monastic backing might help the Council appreciate the wider significance of our communications requirements. Please could you advise whether, under an agreed arrangement, we would be permitted to describe the Chapel as being under the protection of St. Blamensir, and whether you would be willing to support our request for improved mobile connectivity through a dedicated mast.

We would also need to understand any obligations involved, including any changes to the present Committee. Our programme is non-religious and we would wish it to remain so. The existing Committee would like to continue to manage the Chapel and its events independently if possible. Two committee members have specifically asked me to make clear that they are not prepared to become monks. This should not be taken as a lack of interest in your institution. Members of our congregation have not been consulted as they are unlikely to meet the requirements of monk-hood.

A reasonably prompt response would be appreciated. A neighbouring group at Wrinhale is also pursuing a mast, although we understand that the Council has yet to receive their application. We would prefer our own position to be strengthened while this remains the case.

This letter is an enquiry only. Any proposed arrangement would need to be brought back to our Committee for approval before we could accept obligations, incur expenditure or claim an affiliation.

Thank you for considering the Chapel. I look forward to hearing what protection would involve in practical terms.

Yours faithfully,

Geoff Thomas
Caretaker and Committee Secretary
Chapel of St Letus Salata

Minutes of the meeting are available here.

Dear Geoff,

Were you really in such a hurry last night, or did I frighten you off?

I was ready for you; but you left as quickly as you came.

I hope you know that I was quite the catch a few years ago. I still am, if you ask the right people.

You looked rather nice with your sleeves rolled up. I wanted to tell you, but you were halfway through explaining something and I didn't want to spoil your flow. Yet.

Come round on Friday. About seven. I’ll cook, we’ll open a bottle. I’ll wear that blouse you keep looking at. Don’t pretend you don't.

You can peck me on the cheek when you arrive, if you like? That might get the awkward bit out of the way. I’d rather you did that than just wait in the porch asking where you should put your shoes.

I’m putting this in writing because apparently sitting close to you and touching your knee isn't clear enough.

Love,
Mary
P.S. Ring the bell properly. Or come straight in.

Dear Mr Thomas,

We are writing on behalf of the Wrinhale Community Action Group to express our considerable anger at your continued attempts to secure a 5G telecommunications mast for the field behind your Chapel.

We wish to make it absolutely clear that we are not opposed to 5G technology. We are opposed to the suggestion that your small rural community should receive it before Wrinhale, a substantially more important settlement with considerably greater commercial requirements.

Wrinhale has shops, businesses, public facilities and a population that contributes significantly to the local economy. Your community has a chapel, a few houses and, from what we understand, a computer club. We fail to see how these are comparable.

Many of our members have lived in Wrinhale for their entire lives and have been waiting patiently for improved mobile coverage. It is therefore particularly insulting to discover that a group of people who have deliberately chosen to live in the countryside now expect to receive infrastructure before those of us who have remained in a proper town.

You cannot reasonably expect to enjoy the peace, open space and reduced traffic of rural living while simultaneously demanding the telecommunications facilities of a developed urban area. There must be some consequences to choosing to live where you do.

We were particularly disappointed by your recent demonstration, which several of our members attended in order to make their objections known. We understand that you have subsequently included our members in your attendance figures and used the resulting total as evidence of widespread public support.

We regard this as a deliberate misrepresentation of the strength of your campaign. Nearly half the people present were there specifically to oppose you. You cannot simply count everyone standing in a field as agreeing with you.

We have also been made aware that your Chapel conducted what it described as a scientific survey of mobile reception, during which participants walked around looking at the number of bars displayed on their telephones. We would question whether this constitutes a sufficiently rigorous technical assessment to justify public infrastructure expenditure.

Furthermore, we understand that some of your complaints about slow internet performance have subsequently been traced to problems with your own website. This raises serious questions about the reliability of your earlier claims.

We are now considering submitting a formal objection to East Thameside Council. Our position is that no application for improved telecommunications infrastructure in your area should be considered until Wrinhale's requirements have been fully satisfied.

We are not suggesting that your community should never receive a mast. We are suggesting that it should receive one after us, which is a considerably more reasonable position than the one you have adopted.

We expect written confirmation that you will suspend your campaign pending a full review of regional telecommunications priorities. If this is not forthcoming, we reserve the right to organise further opposition, including demonstrations at future Chapel events.

We would strongly advise you not to interpret the attendance at those demonstrations as support.

Yours sincerely,

The Wrinhale Community Action Group Committee
Wrinhale

Issued with the unanimous agreement of those committee members present at the meeting.

Dear Geoff and Committee,

Thank you for the notice regarding the proposed Parking Plan.

I understand that parking has become more difficult since the car park was introduced, and that members should park sensibly, avoid blocking access, and show consideration to neighbours, visitors, gates, turning areas, and one another.

I do not object to orderly parking in principle.

However, I am concerned that the proposed allocation may not reflect the ordinary needs of the congregation.
In particular, reserving Bays 1-8 for Committee members only gives the impression that Committee convenience is being placed ahead of those who may genuinely need the nearest or easiest spaces. This includes older members, anyone with mobility difficulties, or those bringing heavy equipment. I should also note that there are only three people on the committee, one of whom does not drive (Stephen).

I also query the category “VIP visitors.” It is not clear who qualifies as a VIP, who decides this, or whether a regular member who has attended for many years but holds no office is considered less important than a visitor with a title, lanyard or clipboard.

The proposed system of reminders, formal warnings, temporary bans, indefinite bans, and external inspection also seems excessive and legally questionable.

May I suggest that the Committee reconsider the plan and consult the congregation before adopting it. A fairer arrangement might reserve only a small number of spaces for genuine access needs, loading, and pre-arranged visitors, with the remaining bays available on a sensible first-come, first-served basis. Any persistent problems could then be dealt with by speaking to the person concerned, which has generally been sufficient for most Chapel matters to this point.

I hope this can be taken in the constructive spirit intended. The car park was created to make Chapel use easier and reduce obstruction on Chapel Lane, not to introduce a new hierarchy among those attending.

Yours sincerely,
Margaret Albasson

Geoff,

I have read the notice about the new parking arrangements and I am absolutely outraged.

I will not be treated as a second-class Chapel member so that the Committee can reserve the best spaces for itself. I have attended this Chapel for years, donated a kettle, and I will not now be herded into Bays 17-26 like an afterthought.

I am therefore boycotting the car park entirely. From now on I shall attend by push bike, weather permitting or not, and the Committee may inspect that for conformity if it wishes.

Please record this as my formal objection unless you can confirm that as the leader of the Chapel Computer Club I am entitled to park in the committee member spaces, or the VIP spaces?

If that is the case, then I rescind my objection to the proposed plan.

Tony Whitlesay

Dear Geoff,

Thank you for the notice regarding the new parking arrangements.

As you know, I do not drive to the Chapel, as I live nearby and can easily walk. However, I am concerned about what effect the designated loading and unloading bays will have on my motorhome, which is currently stored in that area long-term.

If I am no longer permitted to leave it there, I will have no option but to park it on Chapel Lane. Given its size, this would block the lane completely, meaning no one would be able to reach the car park at all.

This would seem to render the whole parking situation a moot point.

I would therefore be grateful if the Committee could confirm whether my existing, albeit informal, arrangement may continue?

Yours sincerely,
Mary Jackson

Dear Council,

I am writing on behalf of concerned residents following the recent Plain Speaking event at the Chapel, where the matter of poor mobile telephone signal and inadequate internet connectivity was raised with some force.

Residents of all ages reported unacceptable difficulties with modern communications, including dropped calls, failed messages, unreliable online services, and excessive lag during gaming. One attendee stated that she lost a championship title in the final minute of a match when her screen froze, which the meeting accepted as a serious example of the present situation.

Now that the Chapel Computer Club is up and running, the need for proper digital connectivity has become more urgent. Residents are being encouraged to use online services for banking, council forms, appointments, learning, family contact, and other legitimate purposes, but this is difficult when the local signal cannot be relied upon.

We therefore ask the Council to support the installation of one or more 5G masts in the empty field behind the Chapel, or in another suitable nearby location if the Council has a better one. The field is presently empty and without many interesting structures, whereas a mast would provide clear public benefit and help bring the area into line with modern expectations.

This request is made peacefully and constructively. Residents are not opposed to progress. On the contrary, we are asking for it.

Please confirm what steps the Council can take, which department is responsible, and whether Stephen Shurman’s attendance at the Plain Speaking event counts as prior consultation.

Yours faithfully,

Geoff Thomas
Caretaker
Chapel of St Letus Salata

Updates: October 2026

Notice of demonstration
Letter received from Wrinhale
Photo taken during demonstration
Personal apology for slow connectivity

Health and Safety Inspection Notice

Chapel of St Letus Salata

14 September 2026

Dear Mr Thomas,

Following an unannounced visit to the Chapel of St Letus Salata in May 2026, we are writing to draw your attention to two matters requiring prompt action.

First, the guttering to the south-west side of the chapel appears to be defective. Water is not being carried away from the building as intended, and there is evidence of overflow during periods of rain. This may present a slip hazard near the exterior wall and may also contribute to damp conditions within the chapel if left unresolved.

Second, the internal temperature of the chapel is inadequate during ordinary use. While we appreciate that the building is of historic construction and may be difficult to heat, the heating should be set at a level suitable for visitors, particularly during services and meetings. This is especially important during periods of cold weather regardless of whether or not cushions are provided.

Please arrange for the guttering to be inspected and repaired, and for the heating to be adjusted accordingly.

Failure to address these matters may result in further inspection.

Yours sincerely,

Mr F. Romeers (original signed)

Health and Safety Compliance Office
Public Buildings and Community Use Division
--ENDS--

Dear Geoff,

I am writing to apologise for the manner of my last message, and for the upset it caused. I was frustrated at the time, but that does not excuse putting private matters, including the website password, where everyone could see them.

I also want to say that the new website is looking very good. You have clearly got to grips with it far more quickly than I ever did, and I admire the way you have taken it on. I know I gave the impression for many years that I understood what I was doing, but the truth is that I mostly did not. I was frightened to ask for help because I am meant to be an IT professional, and admitting that I was essentially making it up as I went along felt worse each year.

That is the main reason updates took so long. It was not always pressure of work, although I may have said that more than once. Often I simply could not remember where things were, what password I had used, or why pressing one button caused three new problems to appear.

I am sorry that you are now having difficulty editing or deleting some of the old posts, particularly the one containing the login details. I would offer to help, but in view of the above it would probably be kinder to everyone if I did not.

What I would like, if you feel able to allow it, is to return to the Chapel simply as a member of the congregation. I miss everyone more than I expected, and I would very much like to attend the September Showdown. It has always been my favourite event of the year, and something I genuinely look forward to.

Please accept my apologies. I hope we can put this behind us in time, and that I might see you and the others again soon.

Yours sincerely,
Simon Potts
--ENDS--

To: Mr T. Whitlesay

Tony,

The receipt confirms that you purchased the kettle at the time. It does not establish current ownership and does not trump the chapel asset register.

Yours sincerely,

Geoff

To: Mr T. Whitlesay

Dear Mr Whitlesay,

Thank you for your note regarding the chapel kettle.

For the avoidance of doubt, the kettle was gifted by you to the chapel on 30 May 2024. At that point it became chapel property, was entered onto the asset register and was assigned an asset reference number.

The fact that you originally purchased the kettle does not therefore mean that it remains your personal property.

I understand you feel that the Committee was too harsh in providing guidance on the use the folding chairs, but threatening to take the kettle back does not affect the Committee’s position on that matter.

You are correct to say that the kettle has a blue handle and that this makes it readily identifiable as the kettle you donated, but that does not alter its status.

Yours sincerely,

Geoff

To: Mr T. Whitlesay

Thank you for your email regarding the folding chairs.

For clarity, the Committee considers the chairs as “first come, first served”. They have not been, and never will be, assigned to specific members.

You are also asked not to move them into a preferred arrangement before the service begins. The fact that you have done this for several years does not make it a committee approved practice.

Please leave them where they are.

Geoff

Following consideration of the application submitted by the Committee of the Chapel of St Letus Salata, permission is hereby granted for the formation of a car parking area on land owned by the Chapel and situated off Chapel Lane.

The approved parking area is intended to provide an orderly place for vehicles attending services, meetings, events, and other authorised Chapel activities. The purpose of the development is to reduce obstruction on Chapel Lane, improve access for residents and visitors, and prevent the continued informal parking of vehicles in unsuitable positions along the highway.

The Committee has satisfied the Planning Authority that the proposed use is appropriate to the character of the land, proportionate to the needs of the Chapel, and preferable to the present arrangement whereby vehicles may be left on or near the lane in a manner liable to cause inconvenience, confusion, or obstruction.

Permission is granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The land shall be used only for parking connected with the Chapel of St Letus Salata and associated activities.
2. The parking area shall remain modest in scale and shall not be enlarged without further permission.
3. No commercial parking, overnight storage of vehicles, or unrelated use of the site shall take place.
4. The entrance shall be kept clear at all times and shall not be obstructed by gates, bins, notices, chairs, cones, etc.
5. Any works to the surface shall be carried out in a manner sympathetic to the rural character of Chapel Lane.
6. Existing boundary trees and hedgerows shall be retained wherever practicable.
7. The Committee shall be responsible for ensuring that users of the car park are informed that the Chapel is a short walk away and that parking outside the Chapel itself is prohibited.

This permission does not remove the responsibility of drivers to park sensibly, avoid blocking Chapel Lane, and show consideration to neighbouring properties, gates, driveways, and turning areas; and the Planning Authority reserves the right to install double yellow lines along the entirety of Chapel Lane should this car park not fulfil its intended purpose.

Issued this day on behalf of the Parish Planning and Highways Sub-Committee.

To: Council Property and Community Buildings Office

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your letter dated 6 June 1997 regarding the Chapel of St Letus Salata.

We do not accept that the Chapel has been abandoned, nor do we accept that those currently using it are doing so without proper authorisation.

The Chapel’s previous arrangements for worship have lapsed, as you know. However, the building was never handed over to the Council by the people using it, and no clear instruction was given to members that they should stop maintaining the building or using the premises for ordinary Chapel purposes.

In the absence of clergy or appointed religious leadership, former members and local users have continued to keep the Chapel in use as far as they reasonably can. This has included Sunday gatherings, meetings, seasonal events, cleaning, building checks and refreshments.

We enclose a statement of long-term occupation setting out the position in more detail.

For clarity:

1. The Chapel is being used.
2. The Chapel has been used over a prolonged period.
3. Keys have remained in the hands of authorised members of the congregation.
4. The building has been checked, opened, aired, cleaned, and maintained by those users.
5. The Chapel continues to provide community benefit.
6. The users do not accept that their prolonged use should be treated as if it began only when the Council noticed it.

You have asked for evidence of use. We are gathering this from attendance notes, refreshment records, cleaning notes, keyholder recollections, notices, and minutes. Some of these records are informal because nobody told us in 1993 that future use of the Chapel would depend on producing a file for Council review.

The users are willing to improve record keeping and to maintain clearer arrangements for keys, access, notices, and public conduct. We are not unwilling to be sensible. We are unwilling to be removed from a building we have continued to use, care for, and rely upon.

If the Council has concerns about safety, we will consider them properly. If the Council has concerns about paperwork, we will produce paperwork. If the Council has concerns about whether the Chapel remains useful, we invite the Council to attend on a Sunday and see for itself.

We therefore ask that the Council does not proceed with possession action and instead recognises the Chapel’s continuing community use.

Yours faithfully,
Geoff Thomas
For and on behalf of the Chapel users of St Letus Salata
Enclosed:

• Statement Of Long-Term Occupation.
• Available attendance notes.
• Keyholder list.
• Notes of cleaning and maintenance.
• Extracts from refreshment records.

To: The Occupiers and/or Persons Present at the former Chapel of St Letus Salata

The Council has been made aware that the premises known locally as the Chapel of St Letus Salata have recently been entered and used by persons who may not hold formal authority to occupy or manage the building.

The Council’s records indicate that the Chapel ceased to operate as a place of worship some years ago and that no recognised body has since been identified as having continuing responsibility for ordinary occupation.

The Council is concerned that:

1. The premises may not be insured for public use.
2. The building may not have been inspected for safety.
3. Access arrangements are unclear.
4. Keys appear to be in circulation without a current register.
5. Public gatherings may be taking place without an identified responsible body.

The Council therefore gives notice that it is reviewing the position and may seek possession of the premises if satisfactory evidence of lawful occupation, safe management, and continuing community benefit is not provided.

Any person or group claiming a right to remain in occupation should provide written evidence of:

• The basis on which they occupy the premises.
• The length and continuity of occupation.
• The nature of current use.
• Arrangements for safety, access, insurance, maintenance, and public conduct.
• The names of persons responsible for opening, closing, and record keeping.

This letter should not be taken as accepting that any such right exists.

A response is requested within 28 days.

Council Property and Community Buildings Office

Copy retained in Chapel records with envelope.
Handwritten note at foot:
Geoff to draft reply. Jean says do not ignore. Glyn says ask what they have ever done about the roof.