3,726 eitem
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 23rd February, 2026 be approved as a correct record.
RESOLVED: To note the Q4 Progress Update and the update on the end of year status of actions.
RESOLVED: To note the Corporate Parenting Annual and Forward Plan 2026-2027 and core documentation.
RESOLVED: To note the content of the update and Presentation.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he failed to use the meter for a journey within the Cardiff boundary and overcharged a passenger. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that when the complainant had approached his taxi and asked to go to St Mellons, he told her it would likely cost more than usual as it was an event day. She said she normally paid around £20 to get to that area. Throughout the journey she was very quiet and eventually asked to be dropped off by the roundabout by Tesco, but he felt it wasn’t safe there. She paid £20 in total but no more. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver estimated that the meter had read £25 or £26 when she got out. He was used to customers trying not to pay, especially when drunk, so he occasionally asked for a deposit, and his card machine wasn’t working at the time. He knew he had to provide that option but it had stopped working just before the journey. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that when she got in and asked to go to St Mellons, she told the driver she had £20 cash or could pay by card. He said it would be £30, and then immediately asked for the £20 cash. His meter wasn’t running, which he claimed was due to the event that day but she knew that wasn’t how it worked. She added that the driver then insisted she pay another £5 by bank transfer. She tried to do this but her banking app wasn’t working, so he said he’d drive her to a cash machine to get the money. She didn’t feel safe doing that so she asked to get out. The driver asked for her name and address as she left, which she did not provide. She emphasised that whether or not she had been drinking was irrelevant. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver suggested that he had asked for the extra money because the meter had gone above £25. The witness suggested that the meter had not been on at any time during the journey. The second witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, clarified that all journeys within the Cardiff boundary should be on the meter. He calculated the journey taken as being worth approximately £19.65, at most a couple of pounds more depending on stops and traffic lights. The £30 requested was significantly more than that in any case. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for 28 days. (2) Application 2 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had been stopped by a Licensing Enforcement Officer carrying passengers within the Cardiff boundary failing to use the meter. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been waiting at the rank for a while as it was a quiet night. The customers had approached him and asked to go to Llanishen, which he said would cost £17-18 on the meter. They were happy with this so he didn’t turn the meter on, despite knowing it was a requirement. The witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, added that the vehicle had been pulled over during a licensing operation which found that the meter was either not on or not working. He spoke to the passengers, who confirmed that they were advised at the outset of the journey that it would be a cash fare of £17, and he cautioned the driver for failing to use the meter. He asked him to reset the meter afterwards, which he reluctantly accepted. Members asked the driver if he had used the meter on his previous journeys that day, and heard that this was his first fare of the day. Members asked why the vehicle had been stopped in the first place, and heard that this was due to a defective numberplate light. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days. (4) Application 4 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he failed to use the meter and charged a fare in excess of the legal tariff. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t remember the exact trip or the fare he charged, but if a customer felt they had been overcharged then he understood it was a serious issue. He knew he had to use the meter correctly and charge the approved fare, and he had reflected carefully since he learned of the complaint. He suggested that personal and financial pressure may had affected his judgement, and he took full responsibility and was willing to refund the customer if needed. Members asked why the payment receipt had showed a different name to the driver, and heard that he had been temporarily using his daughter’s card reader because his was damaged. He understood that using someone else’s account was not allowed, but wanted to be able to continue working while his was broken. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he had been visiting Cardiff from Glasgow last summer. He had arrived at the central railway station with a lot of bags and sought a taxi from the rank there to the Premier Inn on Pentwyn Road. He didn’t have any cash so asked the driver if he had a card reader before getting in. It had been a pleasant journey where he and the driver chatted a lot, but he was shocked when the driver told him the price was £34.50. He couldn’t see any meter to prove this was a fair price but didn’t feel he could walk away without paying, so he did so by card. The witness added that he spoke to an Uber driver the next day who was appalled when he mentioned the cost. The other driver suggested that he make a complaint as it reflected very poorly on the city for visitors to be ripped off. The witness used several more taxis during his time in Cardiff and none of the fares were anywhere close to £34.50. The second witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, explained that he had investigated the complaint and initially found it difficult to identify the driver due to the different card reader and bank account. He had calculated the fare as having been worth approximately £19.30, and then interviewed the driver for potentially overcharging and failing to use a meter. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver reiterated that he didn’t recall the journey in question but had learned a lesson from the complaint. The witness suggested that it was unlikely he didn’t remember it, as he had a distinctive Glaswegian accent and they had spoken in detail about the city and both of their family links there. He did not want to be refunded for the journey, only to ensure it didn’t happen to anyone else. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (6) Application 6 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (7) Application 7 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a criminal conviction and a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was enthusiastic about driving and wanted it to be his livelihood. He had made mistakes in the past which had led to being disqualified, but felt he was a different person now and was fit and proper to drive taxis in Cardiff. Members asked about his convictions and disqualification, which the applicant clarified had been for six months in 2022. He didn’t feel that his convictions had been correct decisions but he had accepted them. He had been accused of attempting to drive with a drug level above the specified limit, but emphasised that he had just been sitting in his car and not trying to drive it. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused. (8) Application 8 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he wanted to contribute positively to the city. He had several convictions from 2024 but hoped he would be considered a fit and proper person. He wanted to work to support his family rather than being on benefits, and hoped he would be allowed to drive taxis as he liked driving and had a clean licence. Members asked for more details about his convictions, which the applicant explained had been for threatening or disorderly behaviour, resisting arrest and criminal damage to a police vehicle. He accepted he had done something wrong and emphasised that he would not do it again, and had undertaken an unpaid work requirement and paid the fines. He felt that the offences had been based on a misunderstanding as he had been very new in the country at the time. Members asked why he had not declared his convictions on his application, and heard that he had misunderstood the question as being about his driving licence rather than his personal life. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused. (9) Application 9 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions and a previous criminal conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he his first conviction had been in 2018 for possession of cannabis, and he had plead guilty in court and took full responsibility for his actions. He had since been sent back to court four times for not completing a community order, but felt this was partly due to an administrative error and provided evidence that he had completed the necessary requirements. He clarified that the other offence had involved driving a family member’s car while he didn’t have a licence. He had refused to provide a specimen following this, not realising at the time that this was a crime. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused. (10) Application 10 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that she had been disqualified from driving for six months in 2023 after totting up points on her licence. She hadn’t been in a good place and had been going through a difficult family time, but had overcome that now and felt she’d grown up, and the points had expired. She drove coaches for a living and was seeking a taxi licence to expand her options. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the changes proposed by the Standards Committee Procedures Working Group, as set out in Appendices 2 – 4 of the report be noted subject to the following additional point being added to Appendix 3(a), paragraph 30: - “If either party decides to have legal representation at the Hearing, the Monitoring 26-03-26 Minutes and DN (AR) Officer is to be notified not less than five clear working days in advance of the Hearing in order to inform the other party to ensure that the opportunity is available to seek legal representation.” (2) T H A T the point raised by Working Group Members (Appendix 2 – Agenda Item 5b – Row 9), in relation to the suggestion that a trained mediator be instructed to conduct the Stage 2 – Mediation part of the procedure, who is independent of the Vale of Glamorgan Council and whether a service level agreement could be established with other neighbouring Local Authorities, be taken forward for consultation with Political Group Leaders. (3) T H A T all proposed changes and recommendations of the Standards Committee be shared with Political Group Leaders for comment, with any feedback to be reported back to the Monitoring Officer as appropriate. (4) T H A T, subject to the outcome of Resolution (3) above, the Monitoring Officer be authorised to present the report and proposed amendments to the Constitution to Full Council for approval. Reasons for decisions (1) To ensure that the Standards Committee was fully informed of the work undertaken by the Procedures Working Group, and the rationale for the proposed amendments arising from its review, including the addition to Appendix 3(a), paragraph 30, to provide clarity to all parties and avoid any unnecessary delays to hearings being arranged. (2) To further explore the requirements set out in paragraph 19 of Appendix 3(a) that currently stated that mediation meetings would be chaired by the Vale of Glamorgan Chief Executive, or a nominated Director as determined by the Chief Executive, however the Working Group were concerned that the mediation stage put the Monitoring Officer and/or any other Vale of Glamorgan Officer involved in a difficult position, as they were required to collaborate with the Elected Members involved once the matter had concluded. (3) To enable Group Leaders to provide comments on the proposed changes ahead of formal consideration by Full Council, ensuring transparency and cross-party engagement in the review process. (4) To allow the Monitoring Officer to take forward the necessary constitutional amendments for approval by Full Council, subject to feedback received, in accordance with the statutory requirements for updating the Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED – T H A T the confidential update on correspondence with the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales ('the Ombudsman'), as provided verbally by the Monitoring Officer, be noted. Reason for decision Having regard to the contents of the Part II report and discussion held at the meeting. 26-03-26 Minutes and DN (AR)
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the reports and the feedback received in respect of observation visits undertaken by Independent Members of the Standards Committee be noted. (2) T H A T where matters following observation visits are highlighted by Independent Members, as issues requiring further attention or further visits and / or requests are made by the Monitoring Officer / Head of Legal and Democratic Services for visits to be undertaken, these be arranged as and when required. (3) T H A T the proposal for observations to be held within the 2026 – 27 Municipal Year, as presented within Appendix 1 of the report, be agreed. Reasons for decisions (1) Having regard to the observations undertaken and the role of the Standards Committee. (2) To maintain a watching brief having regard to the role of the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer. (3) To complete the two-year observation cycle, as previously agreed by the Committee, having regard to the outcomes of the 2025 Boundary Commission for Wales Community Review. 26-03-26 Minutes and DN (AR)
RESOLVED – T H A T under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 4 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Act, the relevant paragraphs of the Schedule being referred to in brackets after the minute heading.
RESOLVED – T H A T the content of the report be noted, with an update on the correspondence with the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales ('the Ombudsman') and matters arising under the Part II report on the agenda be considered. Reason for decision To apprise Members of the Committee. 26-03-26 Minutes and DN (AR)
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the applications for dispensation submitted by Community Councillors, as listed in Appendix 1 to the report, be noted. (2) T H A T the Standards Committee agrees that when applications for dispensation are required to be considered as a matter of urgency, the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chair of the Standards Committee be provided with the authority to consider and grant interim approval of such applications until the next scheduled meeting of the Standards Committee, whereby the applications will be presented to the entire Standards Committee for final ratification. Reasons for decisions (1) To comply with the regulations and obligations for the grant of dispensations to speak and vote at meetings. (2) To process applications received under this delegated authority in a timely manner, to the benefit of the applicant, and to meet the Standards Committee’s role of granting dispensations to Councillors, Co-Opted Members and Church and Parent Governor representatives from requirements relating to interests set out in the Members' Code of Conduct. 26-03-26 Minutes and DN (AR)
RESOLVED – T H A T the Forward Work Programme, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be agreed. Reason for decision To discuss and agree a Forward Work Programme for the Municipal year ahead that would thereon be managed by the Chair of the Committee in consultation with the Council’s Monitoring Officer.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted. (2) T H A T the verbal update provided by the Monitoring Officer at the meeting be noted. Reasons for decisions (1) To apprise Committee. 26-03-26 Minutes and DN (AR) (2) Having regard to the information provided.
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 29th January, 2026 be approved as a correct record.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED: 1. To receive nominations and appoint to the vacancies on the Committees, in accordance with the Party Group wishes, as set out on the Amendment Sheet.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED: 1. To approve the new appointments of Local Authority governors to the school governing bodies as set out in Appendix 1, each for a term of 4 years from the date of the appointment, in accordance with the recommendations of the Local Authority Governor Panel.
RESOLVED that Cllr Michael Michael was the Lord Mayor Elect for the municipal year 2026/27. The Lord Mayor invited Cllr Berman, Leader of the Liberal Democrat group, to propose the appointment for the Deputy Lord Mayor Elect. The Lord Mayor invited Cllr Gibson, Leader of the Plaid Cymru, Green Party, Common Ground group, to second the appointment. It was RESOLVED that Cllr Sue Lent was the Deputy Lord Mayor Elect for the municipal year 2026/27.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED: 1. To approve the public advertisement of, and recruitment to, the post of Chief Executive on the basis of the reviewed role profile, spot salary and terms & conditions of the post.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED: 1. To confirm that the decision to agree the Pay Policy Statement constitutes agreement to implement the cost of living pay increases determined by the relevant negotiating body effective from 1st April 2026, as accounted for in the Budget set and agreed by Council on 5th March 2026; 2. To determine that any additional financial implications arising from the national pay agreements determined after this date that cannot be met within the Council’s Revenue Budget will be referred to Council for consideration and decision; 3. To approve the attached Pay Policy Statement (2026/27) at Appendix 1.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED: 1. To approve the revised Cardiff Code of Corporate Governance as set out in Appendix A, and request the Monitoring Officer to update the Constitution, Part 5, accordingly; 2. Delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Section 151 Officer and the Chair of the Governance and Audit Committee, to make any minor amendments to the Code of Corporate Governance which may be required from time to time to reflect any changes in law or best practice.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED: i. To approve the updated Inter Authority Agreement (IAA) as set out in Appendix 1; ii. To delegate any further minor amendments required to the IAA as a result of legislative changes to the Corporate Director Resources (Section 151 Officer) in consultation with the Chair of the Pensions Committee and the Director of Governance & Legal Services (Monitoring Officer); iii. To delegate the final approval and signing the document to the Corporate Director Resources (Section 151 Officer), in consultation with the Chair of the Pensions Committee.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED: 1. To delegate authority to the Corporate Director, Resources, in consultation with the Director of Governance & Legal Services and Monitoring Officer, to proceed with the public advertisement and convening of a Member Appointment Panel for the appointment of an Independent Non-Executive Director to fill the vacancy due to arise on the Board of Cardiff Bus; 2. To approve the establishment of a Member Appointment Panel, comprised of three Labour; one Liberal Democrat and one Conservative Member, with delegated authority to interview suitable candidates and make an appointment to fill the vacant Independent Non-Executive Director position on the Board of Cardiff Bus.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED: a) To note the response to the consultation exercise as outlined within the Visitor Levy Proposal; b) To implement the Visitor Levy in Cardiff based on the Visitor Levy Proposal and the content outlined in paragraphs 75 to 123; c) To delegate authority to the Director of Economic Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Investment & Development to undertake the necessary work to implement the Visitor Levy; d) To delegate authority to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Investment & Development to sign the Memorandum of Understanding with UK Hospitality.
RESOLVED – The Sub Committee considered all of the evidence, written material, and submissions made at the hearing. In reaching its decision, the Sub Committee had regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance issued by the Home Office, and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy. The Sub Committee noted that the Temporary Event Notice related to a proposed event for up to 90 attendees, involving a daytime seated buffet and dancing in the evening, with dispersal concluding at 01:00 hours. The Sub Committee carefully considered the objection submitted by Environmental Health (Pollution Control), which stated that authorising the event would undermine the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The Sub Committee attached significant weight to the history of noise nuisance associated with the premises. It noted that multiple complaints had been received from several individuals since 2024 in what is predominantly a residential area. The Sub Committee further noted that a noise abatement notice had been served in May 2025, and that five subsequent breaches of that notice had been witnessed by officers. Of particular concern to the Sub Committee was the evidence that a previous Temporary Event Notice, on 20 June 2025, had resulted in a further breach of the abatement notice, as licensable activities continued beyond the hours authorised by that TEN. The Sub Committee considered this a serious matter demonstrating both ongoing noise problems and a failure by the premises to comply with regulatory requirements designed to protect local residents. The Sub Committee took into account Mr Munro’s explanation that he had been unable to monitor previous events due to ill health, and noted that some internal alterations had been made to the premises in an effort to mitigate noise. However, the Sub Committee was not satisfied that these measures sufficiently addressed the underlying issues. The pattern of repeated breaches, including during a TEN, led the Sub Committee to conclude that there remained a significant risk that the licensing objectives would not be upheld. Having considered all of the evidence before it, the Sub Committee was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that allowing the event to proceed would undermine the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance. The cumulative history of complaints, breaches of a statutory abatement notice, and non compliance during a previous TEN carried substantial weight in the Sub Committee’s deliberations. Accordingly, the Sub Committee RESOLVED to issue a counter notice. The effect of this decision was that the Temporary Event Notice was not authorised and the event could not proceed.
RESOLVED – The Sub?Committee heard from the applicant, considered all evidence, submissions, and written material, and reviewed the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the National Licensing Policy Framework, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, and the Cumulative Impact Assessment. The Sub?Committee also heard the oral representations made by the local ward member on behalf of a local resident. The Sub?Committee noted that the premises had been trading for a significant number of years and had established a positive track record of management. It also noted that no representations had been received from either South Wales Police or Environmental Health, and the Sub?Committee attached appropriate weight to the absence of objections from the responsible authorities. The Sub?Committee considered the explanation provided on behalf of the applicant that the current door restriction was imposed more than two decades ago in different regulatory circumstances, and that subsequent planning decisions had permitted later use of the Westgate Street entrance. The Sub?Committee also acknowledged the applicant’s position that extending the operational hours of that entrance would improve customer flow and support effective management, particularly during peak times, without undermining the licensing objectives. However, the Sub?Committee also acknowledged the concerns raised by the local ward member on behalf of residents, particularly in relation to the unique characteristics of Westgate Street, its proximity to the Principality Stadium and Cardiff Arms Park, and the limitations faced by some residents due to conservation area restrictions preventing the installation of double glazing. The Sub?Committee accepted that residents regularly experience elevated levels of disturbance during major events and that the reopening of an additional access/egress point could potentially increase the risk of public nuisance if not carefully managed. The Sub?Committee had regard to the fact that the objections centred primarily on the prevention of public nuisance and considered whether the proposed variation, if granted, would adversely impact that licensing objective. In doing so, the Sub?Committee took account of the applicant’s assurances regarding continued responsible operation, the existing use of door staff, and the willingness of the applicant to adopt additional controls through a formal management plan. Balancing all the evidence, the Sub?Committee concluded that the premises had demonstrated a history of compliance, that responsible authorities had raised no objections, and that the proposed variation could be permitted without undermining the licensing objectives, provided that additional safeguards were applied. The Sub?Committee therefore considered it appropriate and proportionate to grant the variation subject to additional conditions designed to address concerns relating to public nuisance, particularly on major event days. Accordingly, the Sub?Committee resolved to GRANT the application subject to the following additional conditions: • There will be no exiting from the doors on Westgate Street on major event days after 9pm. • The premises shall operate a documented door management plan designed to minimise disturbance to nearby residents. The plan must outline procedures for controlling entry and exit, managing external areas, preventing noise from patrons, and addressing any incident that may impact local residents. The plan shall be kept on the premises and made available for inspection by authorised officers. The Sub?Committee further noted that the application sought to include the following wording: “The entrance doors to the Westgate Street frontage shall not be used by customers or staff for the purpose of exit/egress to and from the premises between the hours of 23:15 and 09:00 Monday to Saturday and between 22:45 and 09:00 on Sundays except in the case of emergency.” For clarity, the Sub?Committee resolved to amend this to read: “entrance/egress to and from the premises.” The Sub?Committee considered that these conditions struck the appropriate balance between supporting the needs of the business and addressing the concerns of local residents. The Sub?Committee concluded that, with these measures in place, the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance would be promoted.
RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.