a)    By Councillor Hill

 

This council agrees to reduce the number of signatures required for a petition to come to full council from 1500 to 1000.

 

b)    By Councillor K Davies

 

This council agrees to undertake a community governance review examining the issue of whether a new town council for the currently unparished parts of Windsor should be formed.

 

c)    By Councillor Taylor

 

We, as members of the council and representatives of the Borough, agree to make a conscious effort to increase our Social Media postings about local businesses and services, to encourage our residents to try new local services and venues.

 

d)    By Councillor Price

 

I propose that the Council adopts the following motion to apply immediately to all council meetings where part 2 is used due to legal restrictions or commercially sensitive reasons.

 

1)    From this date onwards all Cabinet and Full Council meetings that have to move into Part 2 have abbreviated minutes published after the meeting attached to the Part 1 minutes to reflect the decision made subsequent to voting. This will not reveal the detail or report at this stage.

 

2)    That a full explanation of the conditions that cause the information or report to be placed in part 2 is made at that time.

 

3)    If and when those conditions no longer apply – and at the discretion of the Monitoring Officer - the part two reports or information is then published in the minutes of the original meeting and a note made during the next Council or Cabinet meeting following this publication. 

 

4)    That these same rules are applied to historic Part 2 meetings, and that a periodic review takes place – subject to officer capacity and resource availability. The decision of the Monitoring Officer – in consultation with the Chief Executive - will be final in terms of any historical reports being released in this way.

 

5)    That this rule does not override GDPR, commercial or personal confidentially and any other legal consideration that would prevent release at any time.

 

(A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote).

 

Motion a) relating to the number of signatures required for a petition to come to full Council.

 

Councillor Hill introduced his motion explaining that when he first joined the Council only 1,000 names were required on a petition for it to be brought to Council for debate. He was seeking to get the number reduced again. He reflected that cynically the increased number was contrived to limit democratic debate and reduce resident influence. He considered 1,000 signatures as a tough number to collect and still required significant residents’ support. He asked the meeting to support the motion to have more democracy.

 

Councillor Bermange considered that it was important for the Council’s relationship with residents to have a strong petitions process and he was supportive of the straightforward motion. He considered that it offered a degree of equity for the remote parts of the borough. He recognised debates in full Council could not occur for every petition so considered it a reasonable balance. He observed that last summer there had been a change to the way e-petitions work. Previously the process had been simply to input an email address, details and validate it. This was now changed and required signatories to have an account. He stated that since the change the proportion of paper-based signatures had increased significantly and up to 86% of one example. He would be exploring the process with Democratic Services.

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that Councillor Hill had previously brought a similar motion, seconded by the Mayor. During that debate he had suggested that residents chose the petition route because the administration would not engage and would not listen. He stated that the new administration was changing and listening. He reflected that the only other view provided in the debate was the ex-leader of the Council stating that he did not support it. A closure motion was then put forward to close the debate before a vote was held in June 2020. He would be keen to hear what the members of the Conservative Group thought now about this proposal as in 2020 everyone in the group voted against the motion but the meeting was unable to hear their reasons why. He asked whether the Conservative members present still felt the same way or if they have changed their minds.

 

Councillor Taylor welcomed this motion returning for consideration. She considered that it was very difficult to gain 1,500 signatures. She asked colleagues to remember that not all residents were comfortable engaging with the Council as a lot of residents feel that the Council is not approachable or understand its processes. There will be residents who might have strong feelings about things just possibly don’t go down the petition route. She reflected that she personally had received more emails since the election and she was encouraged talking to other councillors who say they were receiving more emails, dealing with more casework and getting replies quicker and dealing with situations. She hoped that things that previously would have gone to petition were being dealt with quicker through collaboration between councillors as well as with officers. She was happy to support the motion as 1,000 signatures was a good number to make sure that significant issues were able to come to petition to increase democracy and give residents a voice.

 

Councillor Reeves commented that residents trusted him to represent their voice and give them the opportunity to have their voice heard. He believed this motion was moving closer to achieving this. If reported that if his ward, Cox Green, were to have a local ward issue brought to Council then 50% of the voting electorate would have had to sign. He concluded that even if effecting a small number of residents then it’s a voice and is something we should be listening to.

 

Councillor Coe commented that democracy should happen more frequently than every 4 years, it was an ongoing process and if residents think an issue is important. He agreed that there was a problem with how petitions were managed through the website, that this had become a barrier to people and no registration should be required. He stated that the threshold was too high and the petition scheme should be run more efficiently.

 

Councillor Hunt commented that she had listened very carefully to the arguments to decrease during the debate. She stated that previously the opposition had given no valid or relevant reasons as the arguments supporting a higher threshold were better said. Having listened to this evenings comments she felt that a reduced number would be better for residents so would support the motion.

 

Councillor Shaw commented that looking through the constitution the scheme said the threshold was set to ensure the petition was a genuine concern but he did not understand why 1,000 signatures could not be considered genuine.

 

Councillor Jones fully supported the motion and would have loved to have put forward her reasons when it was considered previously. She was advised that she could not speal and no reasons were put forward but that was not of their doing. She stated that she completely agreed with everything else that had been said as 1,000 signatures was the right number so that villages such as Old Windsor could put forward a petition on a local issue.

 

Councillor Del Campo commented that as Councillor Hunt was named then she had the right of reply to the comments made regarding how she thought the opposition could put forward their coherent thoughts in the face of a closure motion.

 

Councillor Hunt replied that she could not speak for them.

 

Councillor Sharpe commented that it was important to ensure that we have petitions of genuine interest and genuine concern. He added that residents should not need petitions if we are doing our jobs properly so should not have a lot of these petitions anyway. He understood the position that was being taken by Councillor Hill but it was about getting the right balance. He considered that if the threshold was reduced then we would open the flood gates for more petitions than we need to have and would require a debate on any issue just because they decide to have a petition. He stated that issues could be brought to the Council’s attention without a petition and there was no need for change.

 

Councillor Moriarty commented that what had been said was counter to the values that had been stated so far in the debate. He rephrased the question to Councillor Hunt regarding the closure motion but the Mayor advised it was not in the spirit of the debate and asked colleagues to move on.

 

Councillor Hunt confirmed she had nothing to add.

 

Councillor Kashmir Singh commented that it takes a lot of time and effort for residents to organise petition and bring it to the Council when they are not listening. 1,000 and 1,500 is more votes that most of the councillors who got elected. He did not think that 1,000 was too much if the Council was listening previously or they were preventing people bringing their voice to Council then that was why they felt they needed to create a petition and raising the bar so it was hard then they weren’t listening so he considered this was a good compromise.

 

Councillor Wisdom Da Costa commented that he welcomed the clear and precise motion so would be supporting it.

 

Councillor Douglas commented that he, with the trustees of Maidenhead Community Centre, had previously brought two petitions to Council in 2017 and 2019. The current debate was about the current level to be sufficiently difficult for significant issues to be brought and he remembered that collecting 1,000 was very difficult and not that many petitions got to 1,000 and reaching 1,500 was highly unusual. He suspected that the threshold had been set because it was known to be impossible.

 

Councillor Hill summarised the debate. He highlighted that the method of obtaining signatures electronically at the moment was driving people away and was very poor. The petitioner this evening had collected 80% of the signatures on paper. He stated it was not working and he would like to see the system return to the previous approach. In the same way as the Houses of Parliament ot make things easier for residents. He considered that the point had been made resoundingly that 1,000 is the right level. They wanted to open up residents even more and have more representation from residents. He considered that residents had been previously twarted at the 1,500 level. He said the previous usage of closure motions had been grossly unfair and undemocratic. He did not believe that it would open the flood gates but if every time Council met it debated a petition he reflected that it would be a good thing as it was engagement with the public. He recognised that it could be a difficult conversation, for example the debate regarding the buses, but he had a very productive conversation with the people who had raised the petition and he would engage with them, as would officers, to find out what was happening in Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury so that the Council could consider their perspective

 

Councillor Bermange raised a point of order that as there had been a dissenting voice during the debate he understood that the motion would be considered by a show of hands.

 

A named vote was requested.

 

 

 

On the proposition of Councillor Hill, Lead member for Transport and Highways seconded by Councillor Bermange it was

 

RESOLVED that

 

This council agrees to reduce the number of signatures required for a petition to come to full council from 1500 to 1000.

 

 

Motion b) relating to a Community Governance Review for Windsor

 

Councillor Karen Davies introduced a slightly altered motion to that published in the agenda:

 

This council agrees to undertake a community governance review examining the issue of whether a new town council for Windsor should be formed.

 

She explained that Councillor Wisdom Da Costa had expressed concerns that those residents who live in the Windsor ward of Clewer & Dedworth West but in Bray parish may feel they were excluded from the process, and she had been happy to amend the motion to make it clear that all Windsor residents’ views would be positively welcomed during the Community Governance Review process.

 

Councillor Karen Davies continued there were currently fifteen parish councils, town councils and parish meetings within the Borough, ranging from Cookham in the north to Sunningdale in the south, and Hurley in the west to Wraysbury in the east. She paid tribute to the hard work and effectiveness of the parish councillors and clerks who make such a positive contribution to their local areas, as this was often testified to by her colleagues who had parish councils in their wards.

 

She stated that residents in Windsor had long expressed a desire to share those benefits and four years ago 2,200 had signed a petition calling for a Windsor Town Council, although only the 600 electronic signatures were counted as the review process was started without waiting for the 1600 paper signatures to be presented.

 

She explained that there had consequently been much disappointment in Windsor when, despite the recommendation of the Community Governance Review being to form a town council, the recommendation was voted down by the last administration when considered at full council. She noted that otherwise a cohort of Windsor Town Councillors would have been elected in May and would already be hard at work.

 

She commented that as Liberal Democrats, they were committed to delegating decision-making powers to the lowest practicable level of government, and the opportunity for residents to have a Windsor Town Council had been a commitment for over a decade. She was therefore pleased to propose a community governance review into establishing a Windsor Town Council, and trusted that all members would support the motion, and that all Windsor residents would take the opportunity to participate in the process.

 

Councillor Carpenter was pleased to second the motion and stated that as a resident she had been part of the last campaign. She had been disappointed that the recommendations were voted down by the last administration especially as 80% of the responses were positive and voted against by councillors who areas had their own parish council. During the recent election campaign she had knocked on may doors within the unparished area of Clewer and Dedworth East ward. She said it was evident that, when speaking about parish councils, residents were unsure of benefits and the valuable work that parish and town councils do. She was looking forward to the governance review process being restarted as an opportunity to engage, educate and inform residents about the benefits of having an extra layer of democracy and aligning Windsor with the other 15 areas in the borough who already had a parish or Town Council. If agreed a new governance review would ensure that all Windsor residents could have their say.

 

Councillor Wisdom Da Costa commented that he was also involved previously instigating the earlier petition. He announced that itw as exactly 50 years since Windsor residents voted for the new council at Windsor and Maidenhead so for 50 years the area had been devoid of the ability to make decisions about their own town town. He stated that though small it was one of the best towns in the Country that within the last 16 years had unfortunately seen money go from their town to pay for developments in Maidenhead with decisions on what the money was spent on being made by Maidenhead Councillors not by Windsorians. Developments in Windsor such as A Vision for Windsor was not led by Windsorians and this had to stop. He suggested that a Windsor Town Council would offer a focal point for activities so the social aspect of a winter Town Council had to be looked at with great pride and as an opportunity to people together. He appreciated Councillor K Davies amending the wording of the motion so that all Windsor residents on the edge of settlement areas would get the opportunity to be represented in the debate. He hoped that he and Councillor Carole Da Costa could be on the Panel so that Windsor was represented fully. He encouraged consideration of devolving of powers such as grants and ability to comment on planning applications to the Windsor Town Forum as it would take some time before a new Town Council was formed.

 

Councillor Taylor was delighted to see this come back again she had been hopeful with how they had got previously and disappointed with how it had ended. She stated that councillors main role was to represent and listen to our residents and this was what they were doing with this coming back.

 

Councillor Julian Tisi commented that he thoroughly supported the motion observing that within his ward of Eton and Castle roughly one-third of the residents were part of Eton and Eton Wick which was covered by a Town Council. He stated that they were a passionate body of people making decisions about their own area and making a different. With respect to Windsor Town Forum he recognised that this was a talking shop, which served a purpose in the absence of a Town Council, but there was a difference between that and a democratic body where people felt an ownership for their town.

 

Councillor Larcombe commented that he had to force a by-election for Datchet Parish Council that was in July 1986 and he was also on Wraysbury and Horton Parish Councils as well. He stated that when he said he knew what was going on, he meant it as there was nothing like having your feet on the ground. He would be happy to see a Windsor Town Council and did not understand why there had not been one for so long.

 

Councillor Coe queried whether it was possible to expedite the process and have an election with the Police and Crime Commissioner or the General Election.

 

Councillor Sharpe commented that he thought Parish and Town Councils were a really good idea as gave people a voice in their local communities. He said what we needed to be careful about discussing a new Windsor Town Council was what powers it actually has and what jurisdiction it would have over the issues locally as parish councils actually have relatively limited rights over what they do.

 

Councillor Luxton commented that she fully supported the motion and felt it was time for Windsor to take control of what they can do in their own Town Centre and spend the money in the right way. She agreed it had been neglected a lot, she had previously asked for help for that side of the borough and being a tourist area in such an important place it has to be in the best condition.

 

Councillor Wilson commented that he supported the motion wholeheartedly and reiterated that he had seen the effectiveness of Eton and Castle Parsih Council operating and the strength of community within that town with some examples of the work they had done which were small but significant such as installing Memorial plaques on playgrounds, installing notice boards and providing dispensers for dog poo bags. He was very pleased to support the motion.

 

Councillor Cross commented that she also supported the motion especially undertaking the community governance review. She was speaking as both a borough Councillor but also a Bray Parish Councillor. She noted that Bray Parish had worked long and hard with residents of The Willows in relation to the National Heritage assets as it was important that all the stakeholders were part of the review. She said that parish boundaries needed to be taken into account to make an informed decision.

 

Councillor Buckley commented that as a Parish Councillor on a couple of parishes within his ward he could not express how passionate he was about Parish Councils and the benefit they were in the democratic process and how it trained Councillors to become more proficient at their jobs. He said he was co-opted in 2019, had been involved in planning and had been the Chairman of Datchet Parish Council for two years. He was passionate about forming this layer of local democracy in the parishes and town councils to support the council. He encouraged everyone to try and parish the whole of the borough and to put themselves forward on the parish Councils and work with the parish council on the work of the borough. He fully supported the motion.

 

Councillor Story commented that he also supported the motion but wanted to make one non-contentious suggestion that may avoid difficulties later on. He suggested that residents should be specifically asked for their views about whether, if a Windsor Town Council were to be formed, its members should receive an allowance or not like the members of Eton Parish Council and asking this early on would help a lot.

 

Councillor Kashmir Singh commented that he supported the motion and considered this was the closest way democracy could reach constituents and voters. He supported parishes for the whole of the borough.

 

Councillor Brar commented that being the Parish Councillor for Cookham it was very important to have Parish and Town Councils and fully supported the motion.

 

Councillor Karen Davies summed up the debate by saying that she really welcomed the support expressed across the chamber for the Community Governance Review and also for the work of Parish councils generally across the borough. She particularly welcomed the support of those conservative members present who had formally voted against the forming of the Town Council for Windsor last time around. She acknowledged that there was a lot of enthusiasm and observed that there would have been a Council up and running by now so was aware of people’s frustration. She was noted sure if it was possible to get an election undertaken at the same time as the Police and Crime Commissioner. She acknowledged that a lot of hard work was done by the officers in the last review and they would be able to use some if that again although revisited again. She wasn’t sure if it would be possible to complete this in time for the PCC election. In relation to the powers being delegated she stated that this would be subject to negotiation in the usual way with a new Parish and Town Councils starting small with a small number of services. The one thing she remembered from the last review was that allotments were the one statutory obligation that needed to be transferred. She appreciated the enthusiasm of members to want to do more and appreciated the suggestion about allowances.

She concluded that a Community Governance Review was a serious and legal business so would be done properly so could not be rushed. Consideration would need to be given to boundary issues and if included would be done in consultation with Bray Parish Council. She thanked everyone for their support.

 

Councillor Hunt left the room at 21:29

 

Proposed by Councillor K Davies, lead member for Climate Change, Biodiversity and Windsor Town Council, seconded by Councillor Carpenter it was

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that

This council agrees to undertake a community governance review examining the issue of whether a new town council for Windsor should be formed.

 

 

The Mayor confirmed with everyone in attendance that they were happy to continue beyond 9.30pm.

 

 

Motion c) relating to social media activity

 

Councillor Taylor introduced the motion with altered wording from that published in the agenda:

 

We, as members of the council and representatives of the Borough, agree to make a conscious effort to increase our sharing & promotion of local businesses and services, to encourage our residents to try new local services, venues as well as attend local events.

 

Councillor Taylor explained that the different wording was intended to be more encompassing and had been brought to the meeting to encourage colleagues to make a conscious effort to encourage residents to get involved. She considered it each Councillors duty in the current economic climate to try to get business within the borough and ask people to shop more local and try local businesses. She concluded that all councillors should make an effort as representatives to promote local festivals and events.

 

Councillor Hunt returned to the meeting at 21:32

 

Councillor Jones seconded the altered motion stating that local business and services were a lifeline to borough residents, that councillors should be doing all they could and was pleased to be seconding the motion which she hoped everyone present would be happy to support.

 

Councillor Carole Da Costa commented that she was great supporter of local business and used her influence where possible but did not want to bring herself into disrepute, so would be careful and concluded she was a great believer in shopping locally.

 

Councillor Amy Tisi advised the meeting that there was a really good website, #myroyalborough which helped people to find local information, small interest support groups and monthly meetings, a dog friendly interactive map and encouraged everyone to take a look.

 

Councillor Buckley commented that he really supported the motion and asked everyone to engage and support the proposal as local businesses and services were the lifeblood of the community.

 

Councillor Price stated that she agreed with Councillor A Tisi and reiterated the Mayor’s mantra of ‘Buy Borough’ to promote local businesses and services.

 

Councillor Reeves commented that he appreciated the change in wording as felt it should not only be for promotion via social media. In preparation for the world café in Cox Green he had used printed material to get a wider reach. He encouraged the use of other platforms, not just social media, to be able to promote and support local activities.

 

Councillor Wisdom Da Costa repeated the concerns raised regarding the code of conduct for example the perception of promoting one business chain over another. He supported the principles of buying locally as seen by his support for free parking scheme but was worried there would be issues is pushing things themselves. 

 

The Mayor reflected that the terminology was endorsement rather than publicity.

 

Councillor Wilson commented that attending local events was not just about supporting business but also art related events such as the show run by Windsor artists and held in Warfield. He was keen that councillors helped to promote a diverse range of events.

 

Councillor Hunt commented that although she initially thought she had no conflict in relation to the motion having listened to the discussion she declared that she would abstain from voting on the motion as her husband owned a business.

 

Councillor Devon Davies supported the motion and asked that ?? follow us on social media and encouraged them to nudge us to take action.

 

Councillor Sharpe commented that he was a passionate believer in making sure local businesses, services and events were promoted but he did not think the wording of the motion was very good as who was measuring, who was guiding councillors and if it was not done would there be a penalty.

 

Councillor Brar declared that because she owned a business she would also abstain from voting on the motion.

 

Councillor Martin declared that as she ran a networking group she would also abstain from voting on the motion.

 

Councillor Reynolds commented that he thought the motion was really clear that it was encouraging everyone to make a conscious effort to promote local activities and he did not understand why anyone would not want to support that intention.

 

Councillor Gurch Singh considered it was a really important message. 

 

In response to the request for advice whether councillors with local business interest should abstain from the vote the Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that councillors could vote or abstain as they wished on the motion.

 

Councillor Luxton declared that due to her charity work she would abstain from voting on the motion.

 

On the proposition of Councillor Taylor, Chair of People Overview and Scrutiny Panel, seconded by Councillor Jones it was

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that

 

We, as members of the council and representatives of the Borough, agree to make a conscious effort to increase our sharing & promotion of local businesses and services, to encourage our residents to try new local services, venues as well as attend local events.

 

 

Motion d) relating to the Council’s approach to restricted information

 

Councillor Price introduced her motion explaining that in order to achieve the values of respect and openness changes needed to be made on how Part 2 information was managed. She explained that for those unfamiliar with the terminology Part 1 referred to information available for all to see and was the vast majority of what was discussed at meetings. Part 2 was commercially sensitive information, for example, which must not be revealed to the public. She welcomed at the last Council and Cabinet meetings a move towards being more transparent in relation to Part 2 matters. The motion was to formalise this for all meetings. It had been created in consultation with the Head of Legal Services, Democratic Services and the Chief Executive with the wording having to be precise due to legalities being involved. To simplify the approach in relation to Part 2 matters there was moving forwards and looking back.

 

Councillors Luxton and Grove left the meeting at 21:48

 

Councillor Price continued that abbreviated minutes would be created and published to capture the discussions held in the closed part of the meeting. The motion was requesting that the reason why information was restricted was also shared and that a review took place with the aim of releasing the information if appropriate when the reason no longer applied. Looking back, a review would take place of past Part 2 information with the view to releasing information, where appropriate.

 

Councillor Werner seconded the motion but reserved the right to speak later in the debate.

 

Councillor Wisdom Da Costa agreed with principles to have more clarity but his concern was whether the motion was acceptable in legal terms.

 

Jane Cryer, Legal Advisor confirmed that extensive legal advice had already been provided by the Monitoring Officer on the wording of the motion.

 

Councillor Coe commented that he welcomed motion as he and other colleagues in the room had been trying to get hold of documents for a long time. He considered that it showed real leadership from Councillor Werner to promote a minimum amount shared in Part 2 and every single word that could be in Part 1 was.

 

Councillor Carole Da Costa commented that any motion that brought openness and transparency to an organisation had to be supported.

 

Councillor Larcombe agreed that anything that improved the honesty, the openness and transparency of the new Council could only be a good thing and he would be voting for the motion.

 

Councillor Sharpe agreed that he supported being as open as we can be and he had promoted a similar approach when he was the Chair of the Pension Fund and limited the amount of the information provided in Part 2.

 

Councillor Luxton rejoined the meeting at 21:52

 

Councillor Bermange fully supported the motion which he considered an excellent step forward to formalise this. He commented that they had seen the process emerging and it had been positively received. He thanked Councillor Price for bringing the motion forward and engaging with officers to get the wording right noting that a compromise had been made to have the wording that could be delivered within the statutory environment. He advised that if Councillors wanted to talk about genuinely confidential information then they could ask to go into Part 2 so that debate would not be stifled. He stated that it was important that no one should feel they were barred from talking about things.

 

Councillor Grove rejoined the meeting at 21:55

 

Councillor Reeves commended Councillor Price on the thoroughness of engaging with Monitoring Officer and other officer input. He commented that he was currently undertaking a legal qualification so understood some of the legal requirements needed, such as confidentiality, and appreciated the inclusion of the references to GDPR to respect people’s rights to data privacy as well. He reiterated thanks for those involved in developing a more transparent approach within the Council.

 

Councillor Jones thanked Councillor Price for proposing the motion and for the officers and councillors that had supported it being brought forward. She reflected that it had been a long time coming.

 

Councillor Douglas commented that this motion was in tune with things he had heard from the new administration long before the election, the intention had been there but he thought it was a great idea to formalise this.

 

Councillor Werner commented that the new administration was very keen to increase transparency and had already asked that the policy was changed in relation to Part 2 items, so only the restricted details are kept to a Part 2 appendix. This should not stop Councillors talking about Part 2 appendices if necessary. He explained that he was keen to strengthen Overview and Scrutiny and reducing the limit for petitions then this is the next part of that plan, further changes to embed this approach more. He expanded that it was important as gave confidence to residents and prevented a vacuum of knowledge. He considered it important that elected officials made this information available and provided evidence to support these decisions, being transparent and do more and more.

 

Councillor Price summed up that she was delighted to have the full support of councillors. She wanted to place on record that the motion could not have been brought unless the officers had not worked diligently to help create a workable motion. She stated that officers had been supportive and given guidance. She also thanked Councillor Werner for supporting the proposal. 

 

On the proposition of Councillor Price, Corporate Social Responsibility Champion, seconded by Councillor Werner it was

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that

 

i)               From this date onwards all Cabinet and Full Council meetings that have to move into Part 2 have abbreviated minutes published after the meeting attached to the Part 1 minutes to reflect the decision made subsequent to voting. This will not reveal the detail or report at this stage;

 

ii)             a full explanation of the conditions that cause the information or report to be placed in part 2 is made at that time;

 

iii)            if and when those conditions no longer apply – and at the discretion of the Monitoring Officer - the part two reports or information is then published in the minutes of the original meeting and a note made during the next Council or Cabinet meeting following this publication; these same rules are applied to historic Part 2 meetings, and that a periodic review takes place – subject to officer capacity and resource availability. The decision of the Monitoring Officer – in consultation with the Chief Executive - will be final in terms of any historical reports being released in this way;

 

iv)            and this rule does not override GDPR, commercial or personal confidentially and any other legal consideration that would prevent release at any time.