1. Proposed saving

Geoff reported that he had identified an alternative tea bag which, at the present rate of consumption, would save the Chapel approximately £13.80 per year.

Glyn asked whether this was per box and whether the calculation allowed for delivery.

Geoff confirmed that it was the annual figure. He said small savings were often overlooked by people, who would then ask at an AGM what the Committee was doing about curtailing expenditure. This would be a perfect response in that situation. Geoff said he would collect the tea bags during his normal shopping. No special journey was required, provided the shop continued to stock them.

2. Suitability

Glyn asked whether anyone had tried the proposed tea.

Geoff said he had drunk a cup at home and found nothing that would prevent it being served at the Chapel.

Stephen asked whether this amounted to a recommendation.

Geoff said he was recommending that we buy it. He noted that the packaging described the product as suitable for everyday use. This was considered consistent with the Chapel’s requirements.

3. Consultation with Jean

Stephen asked whether Jean had been consulted, given her responsibility for preparing and serving refreshments.

Geoff said he had intended to give her a definite decision rather than trouble her with an unresolved matter.

Glyn suggested that Jean might nevertheless have a useful view on the tea, as she has been making it for decades.

Geoff agreed to ask her, but requested that the question be confined to whether it could be served. He did not want a general discussion about everyone's favourite brand, as this would leave the committee open to buying several different boxes and losing the saving entirely.

It was agreed that Jean would be invited to raise any practical concerns before the first purchase.

4. Price and strength

The Committee agreed that the saving would be retained by the Chapel. No change to the published price of tea was proposed.

Glyn asked whether the new tea required two bags to achieve the same strength as the existing tea. Geoff said he had only used one bag at home.

Glyn asked whether he had left it in any longer than normal, as this would have consequences for throughput at the hatch.

Geoff said he didn't think so, but hadn't timed it in any official way.

5. Decision

The Committee approved the purchase of one box, subject to consideration of any practical concerns raised by Jean. Existing stock would be used first.

Geoff asked whether the £13.80 could be entered immediately as an annual saving in the next report.

Stephen advised that it should be described as a projected saving until the new tea had been purchased and its use assessed.

Actions

1. Opening Remarks

The meeting was called at short notice following receipt of a formal complaint from Sybernetics.

Geoff outlined the complaint, which concerned the failure to award Official Chapel Approved status to Ichomancer, despite his ongoing provision of accommodation for Brian the fish.

The Committee noted with concern that the matter had reportedly caused arguments, periods of silence and general pain and suffering between the parties.

2. Review of the Original Decision

The Committee reviewed the circumstances surrounding the award of Chapel Approved status to Sybernetics. This was found to be fair and within the spirit of the Chapel approvals process.

It was established that Ichomancer’s website had also met the necessary criteria for approval and that this should have been recognised during the initial correspondence about rehoming Brian the fish.

Following examination of the available correspondence, the Committee accepted that the omission had been an administrative error.

Geoff apologised on behalf of the Committee and confirmed that no adverse assessment of Ichomancer’s website had taken place.

3. Restrictions on Retrospective Approval

The Committee considered whether the error could be corrected by issuing Ichomancer with the standard Chapel Approved badge.

Unfortunately, attention was drawn to the Chapel’s longstanding policy permitting only one Chapel Approved badge per household.

As Sybernetics had already received the household’s allocation, a further badge could not be issued without breaching this restriction.

Glyn pointed out that it was not known whether the proprietors of Sybernetics and Ichomancer currently shared a household. He considered it reasonable to assume that they would do so in future, as the Committee lacked the resources to monitor their domestic arrangements indefinitely.

Members discussed whether an exception could be made, given that the original omission was entirely the Chapel’s responsibility.

It was agreed that making an exception would undermine the purpose of having a restriction.

The Committee therefore concluded that, although the original decision was incorrect, it could not now be corrected.

4. Brian the fish

The Committee considered the implications of Brian the fish being accommodated on a website without full Chapel Approved status.

Members acknowledged that Ichomancer had provided excellent accommodation to date and agreed that Brian the fish should remain in his present accommodation. His welfare should not be adversely affected by the administrative status of his landlord or an oversight by Geoff.

5. Creation of Associate Chapel Approved Status

To address the recognised injustice without contravening the one-badge-per-household restriction, the Committee proposed the introduction of a new category of recognition:

Associate Chapel Approved Member

This status will be available to websites that would otherwise qualify for full Chapel Approved status but are prevented from receiving it by existing administrative restrictions.

Associate members will be entitled to display a separate Associate Chapel Approved badge.

It was further agreed that Associate status should carry substantially the same recognition as full approval. If challenged, however, the proprietor must clarify that approval is by association only.

Ichomancer was unanimously approved as the first Associate Chapel Approved Member.

6. Reported Relationship Difficulties

The Committee expressed regret that the original administrative error had caused difficulties between Sybernetics and Ichomancer.

The Committee hoped that the new Associate badge would assist in restoring normal relations.

7. Complaints Procedure

The Committee acknowledged the complainant’s difficulty in identifying the correct procedure for submitting a formal complaint.

Following discussion, it was confirmed that no formal complaints procedure currently existed, despite everyone thinking that there definitely was one.

Members agreed that this was unsatisfactory and that a suitable procedure should be established.

A new form will be added to the downloadable forms section of the website.

A proposal to establish a Complaints Subcommittee was deferred until the Committee had received sufficient complaints to justify one.

8. Closing Remarks

Geoff thanked members for their attendance and expressed satisfaction that the Committee had acknowledged the administrative error without requiring any amendment to the original decision.

The meeting closed with members content that both parties now held different forms of Chapel recognition, neither of which should be regarded as inferior to the other, notwithstanding the terminology.

There being no further matters, the meeting closed at 2:25 PM.

1. Global situation

Geoff reported that serious vulnerabilities had been discovered in PHP, which was used by the Chapel’s content management system. Government departments and other organisations had taken websites offline as a precaution while security updates were applied.

He said that, as a nationally important institution, the Chapel needed to consider its position without delay.

Glyn asked whether the Chapel had been contacted by the authorities.

Geoff said the warnings had been issued publicly, which was the quickest way of reaching institutions such as ourselves.

2. East Thameside Council

Stephen confirmed that East Thameside Council was concerned about the potential disruption to online services and the protection of information held by organisations in the area.

Geoff thanked Stephen for conveying the Council’s concern about the Chapel.

Stephen clarified that he was describing the Council’s general position. The chapel wasn't mentioned specifically.

Geoff said it was nevertheless useful that the Council had foreseen in advance the need to have a representative in the room.

Glyn asked Geoff whether the Chapel had been identified as a target.

Geoff said the warnings did not name individual institutions, presumably for security reasons.

3. Potential consequences

Geoff explained that an affected server could be taken over without the attacker having an account. This could allow unauthorised alteration of notices, interference with records and disruption to the events programme.

Glyn asked whether anyone had attempted this.

Geoff said no attempt had been brought to his attention, but it was important not to wait until someone had actually changed the milk register or worse.

He added that the Chapel’s growing public profile needed to be considered. It now also maintained the chapel library book register, a lively events programme and a system for approving of other websites.

Stephen said granting approval to another website did not make the Chapel responsible for its security.

Geoff said he was referring to the confidence people placed in us. How could they trust us if we approved of a site that wasn't even online?

4. Whether to take the website offline

The Committee considered whether the Chapel should follow the precautionary closures being undertaken elsewhere.

Geoff said he was reluctant to withdraw another important source of information at a time when other institutions were already reducing their online presence.

Glyn asked what information visitors would be unable to obtain.

Geoff referred to the forthcoming events and current parking requirements.

Stephen said the decision should depend on whether the relevant security fixes were installed.

Geoff agreed that the technical position should also be taken into account.

5. Technical position

Geoff reported that the system showed a PHP version that already included the fixes for the two reported vulnerabilities.

Glyn asked whether Geoff had installed the update.

Geoff said he had established that it was installed and considered this part of the overall work of securing the website.

Glyn asked whether it had already been installed before Geoff checked.

Geoff said the important point was that he had checked.

Decision: It was agreed that the website could remain available on the basis of the reported patched version.

6. Public assurance and actions

Geoff proposed a notice confirming that the Chapel had remained operational throughout the international incident.

Stephen advised that it didn't need a separate notice as the minutes would state that the Chapel had checked its PHP version and that it already included the relevant fixes.

The meeting closed with the Chapel website remaining available to national and international visitors.

1. Opening

Geoff stated that he had convened an extraordinary meeting of the Committee following a development on the Neocities website platform which required a decision regarding the Chapel’s authority to approve external websites.

The meeting was called at short notice, as the individual concerned was awaiting a response.

2. Background

Geoff reported that the Chapel’s Neocities account had recently followed a website operating under the name irrelevantreviews.

The website’s proprietor had subsequently published a message expressing surprise at being followed by a chapel and asking whether this entitled them to describe their website as officially approved by the Chapel of St Letus Salata.

Geoff confirmed that no formal application for approval had been submitted. However, the question had been raised publicly, and he considered that a failure to respond might create uncertainty regarding the Chapel’s position.

The Committee agreed that the matter should be considered.

3. Authority to Approve External Websites

The Committee discussed whether the Chapel possessed the authority to approve websites over which it had no operational responsibility.

It was observed that no existing Chapel regulation expressly prohibited such approvals.

Geoff further noted that the Chapel was not proposing to assume responsibility for the website, merely to approve of it by way of gentle nod.

Stephen asked whether the Committee had inspected the website. Geoff confirmed that he had visited it, although no formal inspection report had been prepared.

The Committee agreed that a formal inspection would introduce an unnecessary delay.

It was therefore resolved that the Chapel was competent to issue approval to external websites, provided that such approval did not involve the transfer of funds, property or administrative responsibility.

4. Consideration of irrelevantreviews

The Committee considered the website irrelevantreviews.

Geoff reported that the website was accessible through Neocities, and had not caused the Chapel any known difficulties in the past.

No objections were raised.

The Committee agreed that the website had demonstrated sufficient suitability for approval, particularly given that its proprietor had specifically requested it.

Decision: The website irrelevantreviews was granted official approval by the Chapel of St Letus Salata, effective immediately.

5. Evidence of Approval

Geoff raised the question of how the website proprietor might demonstrate that approval had been granted.

It was agreed that a verbal assurance would be insufficient, particularly where third parties might question whether a chapel had the necessary authority to issue such an approval.

The Committee therefore authorised the creation of an official approval badge.

The badge would be made available for display on the approved website, together with an explanation of the entitlements associated with it.

There was a brief discussion regarding whether an expiry date should be included.

It was agreed that no expiry date was necessary, as this would create additional administrative work.

Action: Geoff to issue the badge and publish the accompanying guidance.

6. Future Applications

The Committee acknowledged that other website proprietors might seek similar approval once the arrangement became known.

It was agreed that any such requests would be considered individually, although the Committee did not consider it necessary to establish a standing approvals subcommittee at this stage.

Geoff was asked to retain a record of approvals issued.

A suggestion that the Chapel might eventually require an application form was deferred pending evidence of demand.

7. Communication of Decision

Geoff was authorised to respond publicly to irrelevantreviews, confirming that the Committee had considered the matter and granted approval.

The response was to include the location of the badge and an explanation of how it could be used.

8. Close

There being no further business, the meeting was closed.

The Committee expressed satisfaction that the matter had been dealt with promptly and without the need for refreshments.

Minutes prepared by: Geoff

Status: Decision implemented; no further Committee action required.

1. Proposal

Geoff proposed approaching the Monastery of St. Blamensir to establish whether the Chapel might come under its protection.

He explained that an association with a larger institution might strengthen the Chapel’s application to the Council for a 5G mast. At present, the Council appeared to regard the Chapel as a single building occupied by a relatively small number of people.

Glyn asked whether this was incorrect.

Geoff said it was an unnecessarily narrow way of looking at the Chapel.

2. Potential benefit to the mast application

Geoff suggested that, if the Chapel formed part of a larger and more influential institution, the Council might take a different view of its communications requirements. A chapel with monastic backing could reasonably require its own mast for any additional responsibilities that might entail.

Stephen asked what wider responsibilities Geoff anticipated.

Geoff said these would depend on the association, but would presumably involve some correspondence.

Stephen noted that correspondence with a monastery would not, by itself, establish a requirement for a dedicated 5G mast.

Geoff said the Committee should avoid dismissing potential benefits before it had established whether the monastery even wanted to be associated with us.

Glyn asked whether the monastery already had their own mast.

This was not known but that wasn't really the point.

3. Position regarding Wrinhale

Geoff emphasised that the enquiry should be made promptly, with the aim of strengthening the Chapel’s application; before Wrinhale obtained their mast first.

Stephen advised that the council has not yet received a mast application from Wrinhale, despite their instance that they posted it.

Geoff said waiting for Wrinhale to get their act together, would defeat the purpose of acting first.

4. Scope and obligations

Stephen asked what Geoff understood by coming “under the protection” of St. Blamensir.

Geoff said this was one of the matters the enquiry would establish. He envisaged nothing actually changing with regards to existing Committee and events programme. But there must be many benefits of being part of a larger institution.

Glyn asked whether financial assistance with the building might also be available?

Geoff thought it was a bit cheeky to ask about that in the first letter.

The Committee discussed whether this agreement would come with a renewal of religious obligation. Geoff explained that the Chapel had an established non-religious programme and that the monastery would need to respect that.

Glyn and Stephen both wanted to put on record that they are not prepared to become monks.

5. Authorised enquiry

It was agreed that Geoff could write to the monastery to establish:

1. Whether it offered patronage, affiliation or protection to other chapels.
2. Whether the Chapel could describe itself in correspondence with the council as being under monastic protection of St. Blamensir.

4. Whether the monastery would be willing to support the Chapel’s request for improved mobile connectivity and a 5G mast.
5. Whether any changes to the current Committee would be required.

Stephen requested that the letter explain the Chapel’s interest in support for the mast application directly.

Geoff agreed, while noting that the opening paragraph should allow the monastery to form a favourable impression of the Chapel first.

6. Limits of authority

The Committee authorised an enquiry only.

No affiliation has been agreed. No authority is being transferred. No expenditure is approved.

The Chapel must not describe itself to the Council or elsewhere as being under monastic protection unless an arrangement has been expressly agreed and subsequently approved by the Committee.

Any response must be brought back to the Committee before further action is taken.

Actions

1. Letter from the Wrinhale Community Action Group

The Committee considered the letter dated 16 October concerning the Chapel’s campaign for improved mobile reception.

Geoff read the letter aloud. Glyn asked whether it was necessary to read the paragraph about Wrinhale being a substantially more important settlement twice. Geoff said he wanted to ensure that the tone had been properly recorded.

The Committee rejected the suggestion that poor telephone reception should be accepted as a consequence of living in the countryside.

Stephen advised that the provision of infrastructure was not ordinarily determined by which settlement considered itself more important. He could not, however, confirm what method was currently being used.

It was agreed that the Chapel would not suspend its campaign.

The Committee further agreed that it had no objection to improved reception in Wrinhale, provided that this did not require everyone else to remain without a mast until they learn how to organise a successful campaign themselves.

2. Attendance at the Demonstration

The Committee reviewed the recorded attendance of 103 at the demonstration on 10 October.

Geoff confirmed that this figure included the Wrinhale counter-demonstrators. He maintained that all 103 had attended, and that excluding people because he disagreed with them would have been inappropriate.

Stephen explained that attendance and support were different matters.

Geoff accepted this distinction but asked that it also be applied consistently when the Council used Chapel attendance figures to assess whether the building remained a community asset.

Glyn said that this was a separate discussion.

It was agreed that:

• The attendance figure of 103 would remain.
• No precise number of supporters would be published, as this had not been recorded separately.
• Photographs supplied to the Council would be described as showing the demonstration and counter-demonstration.

Geoff asked whether people who had come only to see what was happening should form a third category.

Stephen said they should, if known.

Geoff noted that future demonstrations would require a more substantial registration process.

3. Scientific Evidence and Website Performance

The Committee considered Wrinhale’s criticism of the Community Signal Walk.

The walk had recorded weak or intermittent reception across four providers, including failed calls. The Committee agreed that these observations remained relevant, although they did not constitute a professional telecommunications survey.

Stephen recommended describing the results as community observations submitted in support of a request for technical assessment.

Geoff asked whether this meant removing the word “scientific”. Stephen said that it would help.

The Committee also acknowledged that the Chapel website’s former loading difficulties had contributed to complaints about internet performance. It was agreed that fixing the website did not establish that local mobile reception was satisfactory.

Action: Stephen to seek clarification from the Council about how local coverage concerns should be assessed and which organisation would be responsible for any subsequent infrastructure proposal.

4. Agreed Response to Wrinhale

Geoff was instructed to prepare a written response confirming that:

• The Chapel’s campaign would continue.
• The signal-walk findings would be presented as community observations.
• The Chapel supported improved reception in both communities.
• Wrinhale was welcome to discuss a joint request for better coverage.

Geoff proposed requesting a list of the shops, businesses and public facilities referred to in the letter, so that their importance could be compared with the Chapel’s. The Chair declined this proposal.

The Committee noted Wrinhale’s intention to attend future Chapel events in opposition.

It was agreed that attendance at such events would not be represented as support for the mast; and the group members would not be allowed to apply for parking badges.

5. Outcome of Geoff’s Complaint

The Committee noted that the complaint had already been considered and that Geoff’s apology had been accepted, with no further sanction proposed.

This item was only added to this meeting agenda to close the paperwork trail.

Stephen reaffirmed their previous instruction that everyone must leave the premises immediately in the event of a fire. Publication of a website notice must not precede evacuation.

Geoff asked whether he could publish the notice from outside.

Stephen said this could be considered after the immediate emergency had been dealt with.

6. Traffic Cones and Breef Airfield

The Committee reviewed the actions arising from the meeting of 13 October.

The published record did not yet establish who had placed the cones or why. No conclusion about their connection with Breef Airfield or the parking scheme could therefore be drawn.

Geoff was asked to hasten a response from Conespiracy before preparing further conclusions.

Regarding Breef Airfield, Stephen’s outstanding action remained to identify the appropriate Council department.

Geoff asked whether a welcome sign could be prepared in the meantime.

It was agreed that wording could be considered, but nothing should be ordered with a flight number on it.

7. Clock Synchronisation Exercise

The Committee reviewed the arrangements for Monday, 19 October, at approximately 2pm.

The five-stage procedure was noted, including the final consultation of an independent external time reference.

The Committee agreed to retain the published sequence.

Action: Geoff to confirm that the external time reference is valid before the exercise.

8. Phone Box Library and Milk Register

The Committee noted an apparent inconsistency between the library’s normal exclusion of children’s books and its opening stock, which included The Secret Garden, The Railway Children and Black Beauty.

Glyn said the books had been purchased as respectable classics.

It was agreed that they would remain available and that Geoff would clarify the wording in future correspondence.

The Committee then went off track and noted that dates described as Sunday services in the milk register fell on Mondays.

Action: Geoff to correct the dates and notify those allocated. No person was to be recorded as having failed a milk duty solely because they followed the published register.

Stephen requested that these corrections be completed before any new registers were introduced.

9. Computer Club Wiki Party

The Committee had received a report of the Wiki Party held last week.

Jean’s winning score of 89 was noted, together with the Club’s recommendation for a further event within six months.

Geoff raised the unequal difficulty of the articles and asked whether his Norwegian film title had been adequately reflected in the scoring.

Glyn said the report had addressed this at some length.

It was agreed that the Computer Club should settle the arrangements for future scoring before the next event. Existing results would stand.

The Committee’s thanks to the Club for its assistance with the website were also recorded.

10. Close

The Chair requested that the reply to Wrinhale be circulated to all three Committee members before being sent.

The meeting closed.

Glyn → Stephen

Stephen, have you seen Geoff’s complaint about himself? He sent it to me last night, then sent a second email this morning asking why the subject of the complaint hadn't been informed yet. I said I assumed he already knew. Apparently this isn't good enough and we should follow the proper processes.

Stephen → Glyn

Yes, I’ve read it. I think we should deal with this before doing anything else. You can call him to warn him that someone has raised a complaint about him; then I will call him to thank him for bringing this matter to our attention and outline how we intend to deal with his complaint.

Glyn → Stephen

Right. Well, the website loads really quickly now. I tried it over breakfast and got straight into the notices section with almost no delay at all. I don’t particularly want a disciplinary meeting about something that’s already working; and if we suspend him, one of us will have to do the website. I assume you don’t want to?

Stephen → Glyn

No, and I couldn’t do that in my Council capacity as it would be a conflict of interest. My main concern is the paragraph about the fire. Do you remember approving a procedure where we put it on the website first? I only remember attending a pre-meeting and subsequent proper meeting that agreed a procedure should be written. That’s quite a different thing to actually agreeing on the procedure itself.

Glyn → Stephen

I don’t remember seeing it. He did send something with “urgent” in the subject, but that was the same week he wanted our inside leg measurements for the high-visibility trousers. I must have assumed it was more about that. We should just tell him he can leave immediately if there’s a fire. There's no need to wait for the notice to be published.

Stephen → Glyn

Yes, although we should state that everyone can leave. Otherwise he may take that as a specific exemption attached to the caretaker’s role. I’d also avoid the word “can”. We should probably say “must”.

Glyn → Stephen

Fine. Everyone must leave if there’s a fire. On the complaint itself, if we just thank him for bringing it to our attention and say we’ve spoken to the person responsible. Can we just leave it at that?

Stephen → Glyn

Yes. Are you able to ring him briefly now? Tell him we’ve received the complaint and give him an opportunity to respond. Then I’ll ring him about whether he’s satisfied with the response.

*Following Glyn’s telephone call with Geoff;

Glyn → Stephen

I spoke with him, he understands everyone must leave immediately if there’s a fire. He’s going to put that on the website. It's your turn to call him now.

*Following Stephen's telephone with Geoff.

Stephen → Glyn

Right, I’ve spoken to him. I told him we considered the apology sufficient and didn’t propose any further action. He was quiet for a bit, then asked whether that was the decision of the whole Committee? I said I’d discussed it with you and you agreed with me. He said that he should vote too because all committee members were needed to make a decision of this magnitude. He voted in agreement that the apology was sufficient as it was his first offence, but next time it would be different.

What did you actually agree about closing the complaint from the subject's side?

Glyn → Stephen

He asked me to send these voice notes which he will use to write a letter to himself explaining the committee's decision. He’ll send us a draft first. Apparently he then needs to be given fourteen days to appeal, even though he’s already told me he won’t.

Stephen → Glyn

Did he seem reassured?

Glyn → Stephen

I think so. He asked whether the letter could say we’d taken the matter seriously. I said yes. Then he asked how seriously, because he’d need that for the heading.

Stephen → Glyn

Just “Outcome of Complaint” will do. We shouldn’t be grading how seriously we’ve taken it. Did you mention the Computer Club’s help? It would be appropriate to acknowledge that.

Glyn → Stephen

Yes. He’s grateful to them, although he said we should bear in mind that they’d been using the website for months without reporting anything.

Stephen → Glyn

Yes, well. Just send me the draft when it arrives and we can close this. I don’t think there’s anything here that needs referring to the Council.

Glyn → Stephen

Fine. He’s also said he will transcribe the voice notes as they will provide an accurate record of our deliberations.

Stephen → Glyn

That's fine. If he wants me to sign a waiver allowing their publication get him to send a blank form across. I need to go now.

Glyn → Stephen

Will do. I'll also ask him to add a downloadable waiver form to the forms section. Thanks for your help, have a good evening.

1. Traffic Cones Around The Chapel

Geoff opened the meeting by drawing attention to several traffic cones which had appeared around the Chapel entrance, yesterday, including one inside the yard. Click here for more information.

It was noted that the cones were not present when Geoff arrived at the chapel that morning, and no person had knocked on the door or otherwise made themselves known. Unfortunately there was no charge on the doorbell camera so it didn't capture any footage.

Glyn inspected the cones visually and believed that they were standard traffic cones.

No explanation had been forthcoming at the time of the meeting to support any explanation as to why the cones were there.

2. External Advice

Geoff reported that he had identified a specialist website called Conespiracy, which describes the unexpected appearance of cones, and their habits, in considerable detail.

Geoff stated that, based on the information provided, the cones are of the Novoconus luteus variety. It shows that they have all the recognisable markings and are behaving in a way which appears consistent with the website's description, namely remaining still for long periods while giving the impression that they have been arranged very deliberately.

Geoff explained that the collective noun is either a cluster, or a stack, of cones; and further noted that clusters often begin with three or four cones but this number can increase substantially without warning. This means the Chapel may already have the start of a cluster, although Geoff stressed that he was awaiting expert confirmation from the owner of the website before alerting East Thameside Council that the chapel was suffering from a cone 'infestation'.

Action: Geoff to await advice from Conespiracy before contacting East Thameside Council about next steps.

3. Present Position Of The Cones

The meeting recorded the current cone arrangement as follows:

• two cones standing by the gate (unstacked);
• one cone inside the Chapel yard;

Geoff stated that the cone inside the yard appeared to be sleeping, although he could not confirm this without disturbing it.

Glyn violently objected to any suggestions that cones were sentient beings despite evidence to the contrary being readily available on the aforementioned site.

4. Likely explanations

The meeting discussed several reasons why the cones might have been placed around the chapel. The most likely explanations were:

The cones are connected with the redevelopment of Breef Airfield

Mary suggested that the cones could be connected to the recent interest in developing Breef Airfield and the possibility of future visitors coming from America or elsewhere. Click here for more information.

Glyn stated that if international visitors were expected, it would be reasonable to assume that some sort of traffic management might be required.

Geoff stated that he had received no formal notification of any international arrivals. In fact, communications with Pan-continental airport had dried up completely for the time being. Whilst this is an exciting prospect, the airfield isn't ready to receive commercial airliners at the moment so they would need to come up with a plan to turn the aircraft away before it attempts to land.

Geoff will check his messages again, including the spam folder, for correspondence from the airport manager, and/or details of any flights due to arrive at Breef from Los Angeles.

The cones are connected with recent vehicle control measures

Glyn suggested that the cones could be an unofficial attempt to reserve a parking space, noting that the Chapel parking badge scheme had been live for the past week and was drawing criticism from some members. Click here for more information.

Geoff stated that this was a very plausible explanation, but that it would be unacceptable for members to take parking space reservation matters into their own hands.

5. Meeting outcomes

It was agreed that the traffic cones are presently unexplained.

Until further information is received, the cones are to be left in position and be treated as if they are meant to be there.

Geoff will continue to frequently check around the chapel grounds to ensure that the cones aren't multiplying.

The meeting closed at 18:37.

Present

• Geoff Thomas
• Glyn Huffmorton
• Tony Whitlesay
• Mary Jackson
• Jean Hutton
• Henry Spackmore
• Gayle Spackmore
• Stephen Shurman (council representative)

Apologies

• Margaret Albasson

1. Opening Remarks

Geoff opened the meeting by explaining that the group had been formed in response to the significant opportunity presented by possible international air travel links between Los Angeles, California and the local area.

It was noted that recent overseas interest in the Chapel had demonstrated the need to think beyond ordinary village-scale transport operations. Geoff stated that the Chapel should not be caught unprepared if American visitors started to arrive en-mass and we weren't quite ready for them.

2. Purpose of the Group

The meeting agreed that the Community Action Group would exist to:

• Support the development of Breef Airfield into a suitable arrival point for international visitors.
• Ensure East Thameside Council understands the economic benefits available to everyone concerned.
• Promote the Chapel as a destination of cultural, spiritual and historical interest.
• Identify practical improvements required before any Los Angeles arrivals.
• Prevent the opportunity from being lost through lack of ambition.

Stephen asked whether the group had any formal agreement from the Council.
Geoff replied that this was exactly the sort of matter the group had been created to establish.

3. Current Condition of Breef Airfield

Members discussed the present state of Breef Airfield. It was understood to be located approximately six miles north of Breef and currently suitable only for emergency grass landings.

Concerns were raised about the absence of:

• A proper runway.
• A terminal building.
• Customs facilities.
• Baggage handling.
• Public toilets.
• Public transport connection to the Chapel.
• A refreshments kiosk.

Mary said that if people were coming all the way from America they would expect somewhere to sit down and a proper cup of tea before being transported to the chapel.

4. Pan-Continental Airport Contact

Geoff reported that he had been in consultation with Andy Z of Pan-Continental Airport and understood there to be definite interest in establishing a direct route between Los Angeles and the nearest available airfield.

The meeting agreed that this was encouraging and should be treated as a serious external validation of the Chapel's growing profile.

Stephen asked whether this had been confirmed in writing, to which Geoff showed him a post on the chapel's neocities.org activity feed.

5. Council Engagement

Stephen was asked to raise the matter with East Thameside Council as soon as possible.

Stephen said he could mention it, but could not promise that the Council would be able to authorise the conversion of an emergency grass airstrip into an international airport without a proper funding plan being developed.

Geoff stated that this was understood, but that Stephen's role was to open the correct channels and avoid the matter being dismissed before the Council had properly considered the wider economic benefits.

Action: Stephen to identify the appropriate Council department for airfield, transport, infrastructure, tourism, planning, inward investment, highways, emergency access, and signage matters.

6. Transport Between Breef Airfield and the Chapel

The meeting discussed possible onward transport for international visitors.

Suggestions included:

• A shuttle minibus.
• Taxi vouchers.
• A signposted walking route.
• A Chapel welcome vehicle or bus.

Gayle noted that six miles was too far to expect visitors to walk after a long-haul flight, especially if they had luggage. Geoff countered that they might appreciate being given multiple options so the suggestion was retained.

Tony suggested that a web page could be created titled "Arriving by International Air." Geoff agreed this would be useful once the basic facts had been settled.

7. Visitor Reception

It was agreed that any American visitors should receive a proper welcome.

Possible arrangements included:

• Tea and biscuits.
• Printed visitor guidance.
• A short introductory talk by Geoff, to include health and safety guidance.
• Opportunity to view the Chapel.
• Donation plate placed somewhere visible.
• Clear instruction that the Chapel is not currently able to provide accommodation.

8. Name of the Group

Several names were considered:

• Breef Airfield Development Group
• Friends of Breef International
• Chapel Airport Link Committee
• Los Angeles Arrival Working Party
• Community Action Group for Breef Airfield Development

It was agreed that 'Community Action Group for Breef Airfield Development' was the best option but that it should be abbreviated to the Community Action Group for B.A.D. for ease of correspondence.

10. Any Other Business

Mary asked whether the Chapel had any American flags. Geoff said he would check the storage cupboard.

11. Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting will be arranged once Stephen has made initial contact with the Council or once Pan-Continental provides further route information, whichever happens first.

The meeting closed at 12:06pm.

Actions Summary

• Stephen to identify the correct Council routes for raising Breef Airfield development.
• Geoff to prepare a public statement on the formation of the group.
• Geoff to check whether any suitable American-themed welcoming materials exist in the cupboard.

1. Opening

Glyn opened the meeting and confirmed that the purpose was to consider a raft comments received on this day following the publication of the new parking arrangements.

Three letters had been received, from Mary Jackson, Tony Whitlesay, and Margaret Albasson.

2. Parking Plan Confirmed

The Committee agreed that the original bay allocations were correct and necessary.

The allocation remains:

• Bays 1-8: Committee members only.
• Bays 9-12: VIP visitors only.
• Bays 13-16: Loading and unloading only, maximum stay 10 minutes.
• Bays 17-26: General parking.

It was agreed that these categories were chosen to support Chapel business and operational needs.

3. Correspondence Received

Mary's letter
The Committee noted Mary Jackson’s comments regarding her motorhome. It was agreed that the existence of a motorhome already occupying part of the car park does not mean the Parking Plan should be arranged around it, particularly where the vehicle is not being used for attendance at the Chapel and is instead being stored there on what now appears to have been an informal and possibly over-generous basis. The Committee further agreed that long-term storage is not loading or unloading, even if the vehicle in question is capable of containing things. Mary’s suggestion that the motorhome may otherwise have to be placed on Chapel Lane was not accepted as a reason to amend the plan, as the possibility of causing a larger obstruction elsewhere cannot sensibly be used to justify a smaller obstruction here.

Tony's email
The Committee noted Tony Whitlesay’s objection. It was agreed that Tony’s position was difficult to treat as a principled objection, since he appeared prepared to withdraw it if he personally received a higher parking category. It was also felt that sending an objection by email was worth less than sending it by proper letter. The Committee confirmed that Chapel Computer Club leadership is not as good as being in the Committee or a VIP, and does not entitle him to any automatic right to be placed nearer the entrance than other ordinary people. His contribution to club activity was acknowledged as being helpful, but the Committee agreed that if every person who had helped with a Chapel activity were given special parking, the special parking would quickly just become general parking. Tony should be strongly encouraged to attend by bicycle as that will be best for everyone.

Margaret's letter
The Committee noted Margaret Albasson’s suggestions. It was agreed that Margaret had written in a more balanced and constructive manner than the other correspondents, and that her letter showed some understanding of the difficulty the Committee is trying to manage. However, the Committee remained satisfied that the published allocation is fair, practical, and necessary for the proper running of Chapel business. Her concerns regarding older members, access needs, and the appearance of hierarchy were considered, but it was agreed that these matters are better handled through a clear application system rather than by abandoning the bay categories altogether. No changes to the bay allocation were approved.

4. Parking Badge Scheme

The Committee agreed that the best way to avoid further confusion is to introduce a Chapel Parking Badge Scheme.

Parking badges will confirm which bays a person is permitted to use. Badges will be available by application only. No person should assume entitlement to a badge simply because they have attended regularly or parked somewhere before the system was introduced.

Applications will be considered by the Committee.
The following badge colours were agreed:

• Platinum: Committee parking, Bays 1-8.
• Gold: VIP parking, Bays 9-12.
• Silver: Loading and unloading, Bays 13-16, maximum stay 10 minutes.
• Brown: General parking, Bays 17-26.

It was agreed that the badge must be displayed clearly while parked. Failure to display the correct badge may result in a reminder, formal warning, or withdrawal of parking permission.

5. Status Colours

The Committee discussed whether the word “status” should be used in public wording.

Stephen advised that while the colours plainly reflect parking status, it may be better to describe them as “parking categories” to avoid unnecessary upset.

Geoff noted that if people are upset by being brown-badged, they may apply for a different status badge if they believe they qualify.

Glyn confirmed that brown is a perfectly ordinary colour and should not be treated as insulting.

6. Applications

It was agreed that applications should include:

• Name.
• Usual reason for attending the Chapel.
• Badge requested.
• Reason the badge is required.
• Vehicle registration, if applicable.

The Committee may ask for further information before deciding.

False or exaggerated applications may result in no badge being issued.

7. Actions

• Geoff to prepare a notice confirming the Parking Plan remains in force and that a badge scheme will be introduced.

• Glyn to check whether badges can be laminated using remaining pouches.

• Geoff to prepare a downloadable application form. Completed. Form TC-F-008

8. Close

There being no further business, the meeting closed.

Geoff raised the question of responsibility for switching off the chapel lights in the evening.

It was agreed that the last person to leave the chapel in the evening is responsible for turning the lights off.

Glyn noted that this seemed obvious; and stated he did not consider that the conversation needed minuting and asked Geoff to put his chapel-branded notebook away.

Geoff recorded an action to check the matter with Stephen.

Stephen later advised that even though this was a chance meeting at a local supermarket, because a decision had been made the conversation counted as an official meeting and should be minuted.

Decision: The last person to leave the chapel in the evening is responsible for turning the lights off.

Actions: Geoff to check with Stephen whether the discussion required formal minutes (Completed).

1. Opening

Glyn opened the meeting and thanked those present for attending at short notice.

The Chair confirmed that the purpose of the extraordinary meeting was to review outstanding matters from the meeting of 6 July 2026, consider the recent Health and Safety letter, and decide whether Simon Potts should be permitted to return to the Chapel community.

Geoff distributed each member a copy of the agenda and a pack of dry roasted peanuts.

2. Matters Arising

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 July 2026 were noted as having since been published on the Chapel website.

Geoff reported that several actions from that meeting had now been completed or substantially progressed.

The front door was now back in ordinary use following the filling of the pothole outside the entrance.

Glyn’s inspection of the yard had been completed and is available for public perusal.

3. Chapel Access And Yard Surface

Geoff reported that Tony had admitted the pothole was probably caused by his grandson playing in the yard with a shovel while adults were otherwise occupied. The Committee accepted that this explanation was sufficient and defensible.

It was agreed that the pothole matter could now be treated as closed, subject to no further complaint from Mary Jackson.

Stephen noted that no further Council action appeared necessary in relation to the yard surface at this stage.

4. Health And Safety Letter

Geoff reported that a letter had been received from Health and Safety following an unannounced visit in May 2026.

The meeting noted that this appeared to confirm the identity of the unidentified man seen on CCTV in the fifth row during the May service.

The letter raised two matters requiring action:

• Repair of the south-west guttering.
• Adjustment of the heating to a level suitable for visitors.

Stephen confirmed that the Council had not yet provided a formal position regarding the south-west gutter.

It was agreed that the guttering matter should remain open and that Stephen would seek clarification from the Council regarding responsibility for repair.

It was further agreed that the heating should be turned up for services and meetings, subject to the system not making any unusual noises.

5. Website And Notices

Geoff reported that the website was now being updated regularly and that notices, records, services, and visitor information were being published online.

The meeting noted that the old post containing password details remained visible on the website.

Geoff confirmed that he was still unable to edit or remove the offending post, though he had now added an extra 4 to the login password to ensure that the credentials published were no longer correct.

6. Simon Potts

The Chair introduced the main business of the meeting: whether Simon Potts should be permitted to return to the Chapel community.

Geoff read aloud the letter received from Simon, in which Simon apologised for the manner of his resignation, the publication of private website details, and his general handling of the website.

The meeting discussed Simon’s conduct, including the public disclosure of login details, the delay in updating the old website, and his previous refusal to assist with charitable donations.

Stephen stated that the apology appeared sincere, though poorly timed given the proximity of the September Showdown.

Glyn noted that Simon had always been fond of the September Showdown and that excluding him at this point might create more difficulty than allowing him to attend under observation.

Geoff reported that no blackballs had been found in the foyer bag by the stated deadline.

It was therefore agreed that Simon Potts may return to the Chapel as an ordinary member of the congregation, with immediate effect.

It was further agreed that Simon should not be given website access or any practical responsibilities until he is judged to be dependable.

7. Actions Agreed

• Geoff to record that the pothole matter is closed unless further complaint is received.
• Stephen to seek a Council position on the south-west guttering.
• Geoff to arrange for the heating to be turned up during services and meetings.
• Geoff to continue attempting to remove or edit the public password post.
• Simon Potts may return as an ordinary member only.
• This point was left intentionally blank.
• Health and Safety matters to be reviewed again after the September Showdown.

There being no further business, the Chair closed the meeting at 7:10 PM.

The Chair reminded those present that all drinks taken in the Red Lion Hotel were not to be charged to Chapel expenses.

Next meeting: TBC.

1. Opening

Glyn opened the meeting and welcomed those present.

The Chair confirmed that the purpose of the meeting was to review current Chapel matters, including access arrangements, the condition of the premises, forthcoming events, website and notice arrangements, and matters raised by members of the public.
Geoff noted that Simon Potts has resigned from the Committee (with immediate effect).

2. Matters Arising

The Chair noted that minutes from the previous meeting were not available for approval.
It was agreed that clearer records should be maintained for future meetings.
Geoff asked for permission to leave the meeting a returned shortly afterwards with a pencil and paper.

3. Chapel Access

The meeting reviewed the current access arrangements.
Geoff reported that the side door remained the ordinary point of entry for visitors. The front door is out of bounds due to the ongoing pothole situation.
It was noted that there had been some recent confusion regarding the gate and visitor access. Geoff agreed to prepare a further notice clarifying the correct access arrangements.

4. Condition Of The Premises

Stephen asked for an update on the south-west gutter.
Geoff reported that the gutter remained under observation and that the bucket in the nave should remain in place until the issue had been reviewed further.
The meeting noted ongoing maintenance issues including the damp issue and general upkeep of the yard and interior.
It was agreed that Glyn would inspect the pothole in the yard and identify any other areas requiring further repair.

5. Upcoming Events

The meeting discussed forthcoming Chapel events, including the proposed September Showdown.
It was agreed that further details would be confirmed once the format, date, and practical arrangements had been settled.
Refreshments and volunteer support were discussed as part of the planning process.

6. Website And Notices

Geoff reported that he had taken over day-to-day management of the Chapel website from Simon.
The committee welcomed the increased use of the website for public notices, opening information, service details, and records.
It was agreed that important notices would continue to be displayed physically at the Chapel where appropriate, in addition to being published online.
It was agreed that Geoff would be reimbursed for the £2.99 he spent on laminating pouches from B&M.

7. Public Concerns

Tony raised concerns regarding the tone and content of some recent notices published on the website, including password details to the site.
The Chair noted the concerns and confirmed that future notices should remain clear, factual, and appropriate for public display.
Geoff is still trying to edit or delete the offending posts but has been unsuccessful thus far.

8. Actions Agreed

1. Geoff to prepare a clearer notice regarding Chapel access arrangements.
2. Glyn to inspect the yard and identify any areas requiring repair.
3. Stephen to confirm whether the Council has any formal position regarding the south-west gutter.
4. Geoff to continue updating the Chapel website.
5. Tony to submit any further concerns in writing.

9. Close

There being no further business, the Chair closed the meeting.

1. Purpose of meeting

A meeting was called to consider new artwork options for the frames on the vestry walls. It was initially understood that the frames would remain where they were and that any expenditure would principally concern their contents. The existing pictures of a vase of flowers, a sheep and the words 'Live, Life, Love' had become outdated and needed a refresh.

2. Suggestions received

Suggestions included local landscapes, photographs of the Chapel and a portrait of the Chapel cat, Mr Banks.

It was felt that any local landscape paintings might risk capturing the Wrinhale tower blocks in the distance, so that was quickly ruled out. There was considerable support for a painting of Mr Banks, who was considered recognisable enough to regular visitors and was unlikely to divide opinion.

During discussion of the proposed portrait, a member suggested Mr Banks' painting could be in a style inspired by a famous artist, such a Michelangelo who is best known for his fresco in the Sistine Chapel. It might have Mr Banks as the centre point, with smaller figures and decorative borders arranged around him.

Mary Jackson asked which of the existing frames would accommodate this. It was acknowledged that none would do so satisfactorily.

3. Proposed location

The main Chapel ceiling was suggested as a more suitable surface if we wanted to replicate the fresco by Michelangelo. Members noted that this would allow the design to be viewed by a greater number of people and would avoid the need to purchase a larger frame.

Mary was concerned that painting the ceiling would likely cost more than replacing a picture, which was what the committee had previously authorised.

Geoff said that the meeting could consider a wider proposal provided the change was voted on and that it was officially recorded.

It was therefore agreed to include the ceiling scheme as an option in the public ballot.

4. Public vote

Each person present was issued with one voting slip. The options and results were as follows:

The ceiling proposal was declared carried.

The meeting confirmed that the vote was legally binding so must be carried out, on the condition that the surrounding artistic treatment would not confer any religious office or status upon Mr Banks.

5. Arrangements

Geoff was asked to approach several artists in the local area, however the only one to return an estimate was Breef Fine Decorating Ltd on Green Lane. The estimate included preparation, scaffolding, protection of the pews, materials and any research considered necessary to reproduce the intended style.

6. Vestry frames

The existing frames were to remain in place pending a further discussion about suitable pictures.

Minutes recorded by Geoff Thomas.

**UPDATE: June 2022
The ceiling works have finally been completed. The timings slipped due to COVID.

Purpose: To discuss whether the Chapel of St Letus Salata should be opened again for ordinary use by former members and neighbours.
Location: Chapel yard, moving indoors once the side door was made to open.

Present:

• Jean Hutton
• Geoff Thomas
• Mary Jackson
• Henry and Gayle Spackmore
• Glyn Huffmorton
• Two others who did not sign the sheet but assisted with chairs

Apologies:

• Simon Potts, who had another commitment but sent word that a website may be possible in due course.

1. Opening Of Door

The side door was opened at approximately 14:05 after some difficulty with the lower part of the lock.

It was agreed that this did not constitute forced entry because a key was used, even though it had to be turned while the door was being pushed from the other side.

2. Condition Of Building

Those present noted:

• Dust on pews and windowsills.
• Evidence of damp near the west wall.
• Two hymn books swollen by moisture.
• A bucket under the nave roof, containing rainwater and dead insects.
• Vestry door stiff but openable.

Glyn advised that whilst the building was not in a good condition it was “better than leaving it shut”, which was accepted by those present as a professional survey and not, as Glyn later clarified, a passing comment.

3. Future Use

It was agreed that the Chapel should resume ordinary use where safe to do so, including:

• Sunday gatherings.
• Seasonal events.
• Tea and refreshments.
• Meetings about the Chapel.
• Cleaning and maintenance sessions.
• Occasional talks, readings, and local matters.

It was noted that no clergy or authorised religious leader was present. Therefore, any gathering should avoid presenting itself as formal worship, instruction, doctrine, or prayer-led activity unless and until proper authority is restored.

4. Refreshments

Jean proposed that refreshments should resume as soon as practicable because this was the part people had mentioned most often.

It was agreed:

• Tea may be served if the kettle is safe.
• Milk should be brought fresh and not kept in the vestry.
• Biscuits should be plain to begin with, pending clarification of existing funds.

5. Keys

Known keys were held by:

• Jean Hutton.
• Geoff Thomas.
• Glyn Huffmorton.

It was agreed that keyholding should be reviewed at a later meeting.

6. Decision

Those present agreed that the Chapel should be opened again for limited ordinary community use, subject to safety, common sense, and the building not getting worse as a direct result.

Decision carried by general agreement.

Meeting closed at 15:18.

Recorded retrospectively from notes and memory.