Agenda and minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Zoom Webinar. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services Team 

Media

Items
No. Item

35/20

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors Cooper, Keating, Still and M Taylor.

36/20

Declarations of interest

Minutes:

Councillor Wooldridge declared an interest due to her employment in relation to Agenda item 8 – Quarter one Revenue Monitoring Report and stated she would not take part in the debate or vote on the item.

37/20

Minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2020 pdf icon PDF 458 KB

The Chair will move that the minutes of the meeting be signed as a correct record. The only part of the minutes that can be discussed is their accuracy.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2020 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Mayor.

38/20

Announcements

Minutes:

1)     The Leader of the Council provided an update on the work that had been undertaken over the last few months, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, to provide services and support to residents, business and communities. 

 

2)    The Mayor made the following announcements:

 

·      There had been an excellent response to the ‘Big Thank You Week’, with hundreds of nominations for people who had gone out of their way to help others during the pandemic.

 

·       Black History Month started on 1 October and a full programme of discussions and events had been organised throughout the month.

 

·       Remembrance commemorations would be held virtually in November and shown at the appropriate times on social media platforms.

 

·       The Mayor gave thanks to Dave Burn, Interim Democratic Services Manager, who was leaving the Council, and wished him well for the future.

39/20

Questions from members of the public

To receive and answer any questions from the public.

(Questions must be received in writing by Democratic Services no later than noon on Tuesday 13 October 2020)

 

Question 1 – Nature Recovery Networks

 

From: Paul Beevers

 

Will the relevant Portfolio Holder respond to and refer to Committee this request for the mapping and delivery of urban and rural nature recovery networks as per NPPF, to include the creation and safeguarding of green spaces and corridors for species mobility and, solutions to overcoming obstacles to migration and dispersal caused by the built environment?

 

Question 2 – Restoring Biodiversity

 

From: Gillian Brown

 

Will the relevant Portfolio Holder respond to and refer to Committee this request to schedule with communities and stakeholders extensive habitat restoration to a consistently high standard to deliver biodiversity net gains?

 

Question 3 – Community Empowerment

 

From: Paul Beevers

 

Will the relevant Portfolio Holder respond to and refer to Committee this request to propose new measures for encouraging, incentivising, empowering and rewarding communities to have oversight and influence over green space services and learning opportunities and meaningful volunteer participation in service delivery?

 

Question 4 – Learning About Nature

 

From: Rowan Harding

 

Will the relevant Portfolio Holder respond to and refer to Committee this request to propose an urgent and recurring funded programme of outdoor learning for all communities about nature and climate change with a focus on children of school age?

    

Question 5 – Council Budget for Nature

 

From: Steve Goodwin

 

Will the relevant Portfolio Holder respond to and refer to Committee this request to examine the State of Nature across the Borough and compare spending on nature with all other expenditure?

 

Question 6 – Authority Monitoring Report

 

From: Paul Beevers

 

Will the relevant Portfolio Holder respond to and refer to Committee this request to review Local Plan policy monitoring criteria reported in the AMR to resolve discrepancies or ambiguities and recommend improvements? 

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Planning, Infrastructure and Natural Environment responded to the following questions:

 

Question 1 – Nature Recovery Networks

 

From: Paul Beevers

 

Will the relevant Portfolio Holder respond to and refer to Committee this request for the mapping and delivery of urban and rural nature recovery networks as per NPPF, to include the creation and safeguarding of green spaces and corridors for species mobility and, solutions to overcoming obstacles to migration and dispersal caused by the built environment?

 

Answer

 

Can I thank Mr Beevers for his question and thank him for all the work he does to safeguard and protect our natural environment.  This is a pertinent question and it will be the subject of discussion at committee when the Green Infrastructure Strategy goes before the EPH committee in January next year for its annual appraisal.  Members of the committee will remember, that I insisted there is an annual update so that the Green Infrastructure Strategy itself remains live and relevant.  The government are currently discussing, as I understand it, an Environment Bill and if it becomes law the council will be obliged to deliver on a number of the things that have been mentioned and as a consequence those things will naturally become part of our policies and so they will end up before the committee, including of course the mapping and delivery of recovery networks.  I would like to say that we are some way along that road already with the work that syncs the biodiversity priority areas, the single biodiversity improvement zone that exists at the moment, and there are ecological network maps, all of which fall under the umbrella of the Green Infrastructure Strategy.  I would say that the work that they do is essential and ongoing and cannot be overstated.  I think it is very important. So I thank him for his question, its timely but I am hoping we will hear more from him at committee in January.

 

Supplementary Question

 

It still concerns me that even under the NPPF we can actually produce networks and we are not actually seeing networks.  So my question is will we get networks?

 

Supplementary Answer

 

I strongly suspect that is going to be addressed in the Green Infrastructure Strategy and through the Bill that comes before Parliament so if it is we will definitely be getting them and if it isn’t we look forward to hearing from Mr Beevers at that meeting to emphasise their importance to us.

 

Question 2 – Restoring Biodiversity

 

From: Gillian Brown

 

Will the relevant Portfolio Holder respond to and refer to Committee this request to schedule with communities and stakeholders extensive habitat restoration to a consistently high standard to deliver biodiversity net gains?

 

Answer

 

Can I thank Ms Brown for her question and say that of course, again, it is another timely question.  It is posed in a neutral manner so I am not taking offence at it, if I say that yes of course there is always more that can be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39/20

40/20

Petitions

Petitions cannot be presented to virtual council meetings but should be sent to the council for consideration.

Minutes:

There were no petitions.

41/20

Resignations and appointments pdf icon PDF 90 KB

a) to receive resignations from Committees and to make any necessary re-appointments

 

 

b) to receive resignations from Outside Bodies and to make any re-appointments and (ii) fill any existing vacancies.

 

Minutes:

The following appointments to committee were made:

 

1)    Councillors M Taylor, Cooper and Freeman be appointed to the Development Control Committee as reserve members.

 

2)    Councillor Freeman replace Councillor Cooper on the Manydown Overview Committee and Councillor Cooper be appointed as the reserve member.

 

3)    Councillor Wooldridge be appointed as a reserve member on the Human Resources Committee.

42/20

Quarter 1 Revenue Monitoring Report and Covid-19 Financial Impact Update 2020/21 pdf icon PDF 602 KB

Recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 8 September 2020

 

That Councilnote:

 

1)        The significant financial implications that Covid-19 is having on the council, including the current estimated cost of £5.98M in 2020/21 which exceeds the current £2.13M of funding received from Government, as detailed in section 6 of the report;

 

2)        The likely ongoing financial implications of Covid-19 on the MTFS in future years and that current savings plans must continue to be delivered where possible to prevent further deterioration in the council’s financial position;

 

3)        Further lobbying is being made to Government for further funding both directly and through other associations and societies;

 

4)        The proposed rebasing of the 2020/21 budget and use of central resources to mitigate the Covid-19 financial impact as shown in section 7 noting that there is a £2.21M budget gap in 2020/21;

 

5)        That the non Covid-19 net revenue expenditure on services in 2020/21, before net transfers to/from reserves is forecast to be £1.64M lower than the working budget. Details of the significant variances can be seen in section 6 of the report;

 

6)        The 2020/21 savings position is as detailed in section 9of the report;

 

7)        That budget virements amounting to £2.69M were processed in the first quarter, as summarised in section 10of the report; and

 

8)        The risks associated with the revenue forecasts are as detailed in section 11of the report.

 

That Councilapprove:

 

9)        The revised 2020/21 budget, which has been prepared in response to the financialimpact of Covid-19 as shown in section 7 (table 5)of the report, and notes thatcurrent accountancy policies will allocate any year end deficit against the MediumTerm Financial Risk Reserve;

 

10)     The following additional spend for new funding requests as noted in section 8of the report to be funded from the Homelessness Reserve:

 

£0.02M 2020/21 and £0.06M 2021/22 Rough Sleeper Initiative;

 

11)     The additional spend for new funding requests as noted in section 8 to be funded from the MTFS Risk Reserve:

 

Up to £0.25M 2020/21 Support J7 Planning; and

Up to £0.10M 2020/21 Devolution and LGR Review.

 

Minutes:

Council considered a report which presented the 2020/21 forecast position as at 30 June 2020 for revenue expenditure and income against working budgets and set out the funding position resulting from Covid-19 and rebased the budget taking account of the known implications.

 

The Leader of the Council proposed the recommendations set out in the report and thanked Group Leaders for their support in relation to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the council’s finances with a current estimated cost of £5.98 million compared to the funding received from government of £2.13 million. 

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Service Improvement seconded the recommendations and highlighted the challenges faced by the council in having to deliver additional support services and adapting quickly to a significant change in income.  In relation to the current cost of Covid-19 of £5.98 million, she stated that £1.04 million related to additional costs and £4.94 million to reduced income adding that the £2.13 million of government funding allocated to the council did not compensate for the loss of income.  She added that further government support was expected which may compensate for £0.75 for every £1 lost and Council would be updated in future quarterly updates.  She also stated that the council budget had been reviewed and tighter spending controls had been introduced including a recruitment freeze and delays to some executive commitments.  The transformation project had also been escalated to support working from home.  She added that with all of the work undertaken during the pandemic and good management of the council’s finances, the council was in a relatively strong position to continue to deal with the financial impact of Covid-19. She concluded by highlighting the hard work of officers to support local businesses and residents particularly in relation to the distribution of the Business Rates Funding Grants and leading the way with regarding to the Discretionary Grant Scheme.

 

Council debated the report and members made a number of comments which included:

 

·         Concern regarding the £0.29 million financial support in relation to the leisure contract provider Serco, for loss of income due to the closure of the leisure sites due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  However there had also been an interruption to the waste collection service that Serco were also contracted to deliver, however there didn’t appear to be any financial compensation to the council for the lack of service.  Whilst it is right to support local business it is not right that the tax payer should fund Serco’s problems and the issue required more scrutiny.

 

·         The work carried out during the pandemic in relation to homelessness had been incredible.

 

·         Concern regarding lack of mitigation measures to recoup the loss to the council of £2.17 million if government funding will not cover the shortfall.

 

·         Members endorsed comments regarding the hard work of officers to carry out activities to support residents and businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

·         More clarity was required regarding the loss of planning development income as a number of major planning applications had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42/20

43/20

Quarter 1 Capital Monitoring Report pdf icon PDF 400 KB

Recommendation from the cabinet meeting held on 8 September 2020

 

That Councilnote:

 

1)        That forecast capital expenditure for 2020/21, as at the end of quarter one is£43.427M as shown in section 4of the report. This is £0.300M less or 0.69% below thelatest agreed capital programme budget;

 

2)        The 2020/21 significant outturn variations and explanations for them areshown in section 5of the report;

 

3)        The addition of £0.067M to the programme and rephasing since the lastreported position in July 2020, under delegated powers as shown in section 3and Appendix 1of the report;

 

4)        The rephasing of £1.230M within the capital programme since the lastreported position in July 2020, under delegated powers as detailed in section3 and Appendix 1 of the report;

 

5)        The quarter one forecasts and impact of scheme variances for 2020/21 onfuture year’s capital expenditure were reported to the Capital ProgrammeBoard in July 2020;

 

6)        The latest forecast of capital receipts, grants and contributions for 2020/21 insection 6 of the report;

 

7)        The risks associated with the capital forecasts are as detailed in section 9of the report; and

 

8)        The capital programme remains fully funded up to 2023/24 based on the latestforecast of available resources.

 

That Councilapprove:

 

9)        The proposed creation of a new capital scheme, addition and spend of£0.196M in respect of converting 4 x 1 bedroom shared ownership units into4 x 1 bedroomsocial rented units within the upcoming Park Heights, Wella Road, Basingstokedevelopment, to be funded from unspent S106 developers’contributions for affordable housing.

 

10)     The revised capital programme for 2020/21 to 2023/24 and its financing asshown in section 7 and detailed in Appendix 2of the report.

 

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Service Improvement introduced the report which informed council of any major changes in the capital programme for the period 2020/21 to 2023/24 and highlighted changes in the programme since the last reported outturn position in July 2020.  The report also presented the forecast outturn position for 2020/21 and compared it with the latest agreed budget providing explanations for the significant variances.

 

Resolved: That Council

 

Note:

 

1)        That forecast capital expenditure for 2020/21, as at the end of quarter one is£43.427M as shown in section 4 of the report. This is £0.300M less or 0.69% below the latest agreed capital programme budget;

 

2)        The 2020/21 significant outturn variations and explanations for them are shown in section 5 of the report;

 

3)        The addition of £0.067M to the programme and rephasing since the last reported position in July 2020, under delegated powers as shown in section 3and Appendix 1 of the report;

 

4)        The rephasing of £1.230M within the capital programme since the last reported position in July 2020, under delegated powers as detailed in section 3 and Appendix 1 of the report;

 

5)        The quarter one forecasts and impact of scheme variances for 2020/21 on future year’s capital expenditure were reported to the Capital Programme Board in July 2020;

 

6)        The latest forecast of capital receipts, grants and contributions for 2020/21 in section 6 of the report;

 

7)        The risks associated with the capital forecasts are as detailed in section 9 of the report; and

 

8)        The capital programme remains fully funded up to 2023/24 based on the latest forecast of available resources.

 

Approve:

 

9)        The proposed creation of a new capital scheme, addition and spend of£0.196M in respect of converting 4 x 1 bedroom shared ownership units into4 x 1 bedroom social rented units within the upcoming Park Heights, Wella Road, Basingstoke development, to be funded from unspent S106 developers’ contributions for affordable housing.

 

10)     The revised capital programme for 2020/21 to 2023/24 and its financing as shown in section 7 and detailed in Appendix 2 of the report.

 

44/20

Appointment of the Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service pdf icon PDF 496 KB

Recommendation from the Human Resources Committee held on 29 September 2020

 

Council is asked to appoint Russell O’Keefe as Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service

Minutes:

Council considered a report which summarised the recruitment process that had taken place and a recommendation from the Human Resources Committee to appoint a new Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service.

 

Resolved: That Russell O’Keefe be appointed as Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service.

 

45/20

Report on the decision to enter into a joint agreement with Hampshire County Council for the continued provision of waste and recycling facilities. pdf icon PDF 250 KB

Report of the Leader of the Council

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Council noted a report which set out details of a decision taken by the Leader under the Urgency Procedure Rules in Part 4 of the Constitution.  The decision related to funding for continued provision of waste and recycling facilities.

 

Resolved: To note the report.

46/20

Standards Committee Annual Report pdf icon PDF 229 KB

Report of the Monitoring Officer

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Council received a report from the Standards Committee which summarised the main areas of work of the committee over the past year and reported upon the annual number of complaints received and the determination or dismissal of the complaints.  The report also reported on the committee’s consideration of the recommendations in the report on Ethical Standards from the Committee for Standards in Public Life and the committee’s work in relation to the emerging new Model Code of Conduct.

 

Resolved: To note the report.

47/20

Amendment to the Officer Scheme of Delegation pdf icon PDF 240 KB

Report of the Monitoring Officer

Minutes:

Council noted a report which set out changes to the Officer Scheme of Delegation in the Constitution following new provisions introduced by The Business and Planning Act 2020.

 

Councillor Harvey referred to the delegated power of the Planning Manager to determine applications for the modifications of conditions relating to construction working hours and requested that Ward Councillors be directly consulted on such an application due to the impact on residents.

 

Resolved:     To note the additional delegated powers given to the Head of Planning Sustainability and Infrastructure in the revision to the scheme of delegation as set out in the report.

48/20

Notice of Motion - Commonwealth and Nepalese Veterans

Proposer:       Councillor Freeman

Seconder:      Councillor Wooldridge

 

This Council notes that Commonwealth and Nepalese veterans have a long and proud history of service in the British military. From conflicts of old, such as World War Two, to recent conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, these veterans have served with distinction alongside British-born veterans. However when their service is complete, many are left with extortionate charges to remain in the UK.

 

This Council also notes many such veterans state that the Army failed to inform them that they needed to make an immediate application to the Home Office for leave to remain in the UK when their service was complete. Many thought the process was automatic yet this is not the case. Fees for indefinite leave to remain have also dramatically increased, Since 2015, fees for indefinite leave to remain have increased by nearly 127% from £1,051 - £2,381, with a family of four having to pay nearly £10,000 to remain in the UK. This figure doesn’t include the associated legal fees that some, who have struggled with immigration applications, have to pay. Many face spiralling debt and uncertain immigration status because failing to pay leaves their immigration status in doubt, and the very real prospect of deportation. Whilst their applications are ongoing, they are also unable seek employment or claim benefits.

 

Taitusi Ratucaucau, a veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was handed an NHS bill for £50,000.  Filimone Lacanivalu was 48hrs away from being deported in 2013, despite serving two tours of Afghanistan.  Sadly, there are hundreds of cases such as these, and with recruitment from the Commonwealth increasing, this injustice will be continue to linger for the foreseeable future.

 

This Council believes this to be a poor reward for people we persuaded to leave their countries in order to serve in the British armed forces. It is a poor reward for those who have been willing to put their lives on the line in service of this nation and we believe that they deserve better.

 

This Council resolves to make their Armed Forces champions and lead officers aware of the difficulties experienced by Commonwealth and Nepalese Veterans, and to ensure that those who are currently experiencing problems, whether financial or immigration difficulties, are not disadvantaged whilst their applications are ongoing.

 

This Council calls upon the Leader of the Council to write to the Prime Minister, Kevin Forster the Minister of State for Immigration, and Johnny Mercer the Minister of State for Veterans Affairs, outlining this Council's support for all Commonwealth and Nepalese Veterans who have served a minimum of 4 years to be granted the automatic and free of charge right to remain in the UK, and that any veteran who completes 12 years of service to be automatically given British Citizenship.

 

Furthermore, This Council calls upon the Leader of the Council to write to Maria Miller, MP for Basingstoke, Kit Malthouse, MP for North West Hampshire, and Ranil Jayawardena, MP for North East Hampshire, on the behalf of  ...  view the full agenda text for item 48/20

Minutes:

The following Motion as amended by the Proposer and Seconder, Councillors Freeman and Wooldridge was considered by Council.

 

This Council notes that Commonwealth and Nepalese veterans have a long and proud history of service in the British military. From conflicts of old, such as World War Two, to recent conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, these veterans have served with distinction alongside British-born veterans. However when their service is complete, many are left with extortionate charges to remain in the UK. This Council also notes many such veterans state that the Army failed to inform them that they needed to make an immediate application to the Home Office for leave to remain in the UK when their service was complete.

 

Many thought the process was automatic yet this is not the case. Fees for indefinite leave to remain have also dramatically increased, Since 2015, fees for indefinite leave to remain have increased by nearly 127% from £1,051 - £2,381, with a family of four having to pay nearly £10,000 to remain in the UK. This figure doesn’t include the associated legal fees that some, who have struggled with immigration applications, have to pay. Many face spiralling debt and uncertain immigration status because failing to pay leaves their immigration status in doubt, and the very real prospect of deportation. Whilst their applications are ongoing, they are also unable seek employment or claim benefits. 

 

The Nepalese (Gurkhas) have been an established within the British Army since 185 as the Brigade of Gurkhas and have, since 2004, a dedicated Army/Home office department established for that purpose of processing applications for ‘Leave to remain’ that had previously been located in Kathmandu, Nepal. Until that application is approved, there is no entitlement to any benefits and the applicant is required to pay the appropriate fees as is any person who wishes to settle in the UK. It is understood that the Royal British Legion is petitioning HMG to obtain a degree of relief from those fees for the Gurkhas and that is ongoing.

 

The British Armed Forces have recruited Commonwealth citizens during and since WWll and have served at all levels and in all disciplines worldwide. When leaving the Armed Forces at the end of their service, all personnel undertake a Resettlement process that is designed to ensure a smooth transition into civilian life. If the Service man/woman is of non-British nationality with no automatic right to reside in the UK, the explanation of that process and the implications of applying for Leave to Remain are included in the Resettlement process. Sadly, there are examples currently being dealt with by a High Court Case where this has not run smoothly, where paperwork was sent in some cases 6 months after discharge from the military which is well outside the 12 week time limit to apply.

 

This Council believes this to be a poor reward for people we persuaded to leave their countries in order to serve in the British armed forces. It is a poor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48/20

49/20

Questions from Members of the Council on notice

Minutes:

Question 1

 

From: Councillor Cubitt

 

Members attended a Council Briefing last week on a study commissioned by HCC on how to improve the connectivity between Reading, Wokingham, Bracknell and Basingstoke. Central to the study appears to be an option to “dual carriage” the A33 and link the M4 to the M3. A couple of years ago Members were explicitly told by external experts at an EPH Scrutiny Meeting that if the A33 was “dual carriaged” it would render Basingstoke a dormitory town for Reading’s businesses and that it would damage Basingstoke’s business parks.  Could Basingstoke Council tell my residents why it supported and part financed a study commissioned by HCC with a remit that entails at its heart a proposal which would damage our businesses and make us a dormitory town for Reading?

 

Answer: Cabinet Member for Planning, Infrastructure and Natural Environment

 

For the avoidance of doubt, we have not paid for this study, it has been paid for by the Highways Authority.  For the avoidance of doubt it was not our idea, it was set up for different reasons, namely to explore the links between the M4 and M3. That is something that is perhaps hard to criticise when you are looking at the other authorities, because it may well be that we don’t have any particular difficulty in getting to the M4, some might say it’s a bit slow on the road to Newbury, but if you are an authority such as Wokingham and you are trying to get to the M3 you have got gridlock in most directions from Wokingham, especially as you try to go through Bracknell. So it is no surprise they are coming up with these ideas, it is a question of where these ideas take them and it would have been wrong for us to ignore this and to have not had a seat at the table.  Our seat at the table is at an officer level, not a Member level because it is the County Councillors that have been attending this and they have, although we haven’t heard anything from them as to what they heard, because they didn’t tell us. 

 

The assumption in the question is that our economy would be damaged by better transport links to Reading.  I disagree, I think we live in the sort of economy that better transport links benefit everybody.  If we had better rail links to Reading at Chineham station, I don’t think that would be something we should say we shouldn’t have because it would harm our economy.  I disagree with whatever we were told on an earlier occasion.  However, the reason that we had this briefing is 100% down to me.  I found out this was going on and I wanted to bring it out into the open so all Members could find out about it.  In particular I wanted to make sure that the wards along the A33 Members could come to it and Members from all political parties did attend.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49/20

50/20

Questions to the Chair of Cabinet and/or a committee

To receive questions from members in relation to the minutes of the meetings detailed below:

 

Committee

Meeting Date

Audit and Accounts

29 June 2020

Development Control

01 July 2020

Economic Planning Housing

02 July 2020

Cabinet

07 July 2020

Development Control

08 July 2020

Standards

13 July 2020

Development Control

15 July 2020

Council

16 July 2020

Scrutiny

21 July 2020

Development Control

22 July 2020

Human Resources

28 July 2020

Manydown Overview

29 July 2020

Development Control

12 Aug 2020

Economic Planning Housing

03 Sept 2020

Human Resources

04 Sept 2020

Human Resources

07 Sept 2020

Manydown Executiuve Committee

08 Sept 2020

Cabinet

08 Sept 2020

Development Control

09 Sept 2020

 

Minutes:

The following questions were asked in relation to minute 34/20 of the Council meeting held on 16 July 2020.

 

1)        Councillor Regan referred to his question regarding the option to purchase the Camrose site and develop it as a sports complex.  He stated that he had not yet received a written response from the Cabinet Member and asked when he could expect to receive one.

 

The Cabinet Member for Borough Development and Improvement apologised and stated she would provide a response as soon as possible.

 

2)        Councillor Watts referred to his question regarding the options for Basingstoke Town Football Club where the Cabinet Member for Borough Development and Improvement had agreed to provide him with a detailed written response.  He stated that he had not received a response and requested that one be provided. He also asked if he could have an update on the council’s position in light of the Development Control Committee refusing the outline planning application for homes on the Camrose site.

 

The Cabinet Member for Borough Development and Improvement apologised that he had not received a response and agreed to provide one regarding his original question however did not consider his second point was in relation to the minutes.