3,726 eitem
RESOLVED: To note those applications decided by delegated powers between 07.10.23 – 27.10.23
RESOLVED – That this item is confidential and exempt from publication as it contains exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Action 1972. The public is 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 following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Case 1 The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that alleged a driver refused to take him and his disabled wife from Heath Hospital to Llandaff North, and also told them he would not take a fare for less than £10. It was further alleged that the driver had used abusive language towards another driver who challenged him about not taking them. The driver addressed the Sub Committee, stating that he had not refused the fare and had instead sought to give it to the next driver in the rank because he was aware that that driver was soon leaving the rank to attend to a school run. He did not recall using any abusive language and suggested that the other driver involved had a personal problem with him. The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, reiterating the sequence of events outlined in his witness statement. The driver had refused to take him and his wife to Llandaff North, saying that he was waiting for somebody and then saying he did not take fares less than £10. The complainant approached the second taxi on the rank. He explained what had occurred to the driver but was still within earshot of the first driver. The second driver asked his colleague why he had refused the fare. The first driver told him to ‘fuck off and mind your own business’, followed by ‘fuck off’ again. The complainant stated that it was at this point the first driver accepted another fare and left the rank. The complainant stated that the driver of the second vehicle was unhappy and he himself was upset. He asked the driver for information on how to lodge a complaint and was provided with the relevant details. The Sub Committee discussed the two versions of events and agreed that the witness provided more credible evidence. Members asked why the driver now had a full recollection of the incident, in contrast to the written statement he provided where he indicated he could not recall any details of the incident. RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 28 days for refusal of a fare and unacceptable conduct. (2) Case 2 The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from Dragon Taxis regarding an incident that had been recorded on video by a member of the public and subsequently provided to them. The Licensing Manager stated that they had also received a video of the incident by a friend of the driver. Members viewed three video clips of the incident, and were advised that the videos showed an altercation involving the driver of a licence vehicle displaying Dragon Taxis livery and a number of other individuals. However, the vehicle was not a Dragon taxi and the driver was not employed by them. The Committee clarified the identities of those involved. The Sub Committee asked how the incident had started. The driver stated that a car was blocking a junction causing traffic to back up. He asked the driver of the vehicle to move. The other driver got out of his car, approached him and used abusive language. The driver stated that he felt threatened, so he pretended to get a weapon from the boot of his vehicle in order to scare his assailant off, but it was actually a hat in his hand. Members discussed the incident and agreed that the driver may well have been frustrated by the road being blocked, but had lost his temper and escalated the situation. The Committee was not convinced by the driver’s suggestion that he had only been holding a hat, as the video appeared to show a sharp object in his hand. The witness also described the driver as ‘holding a sharp object threatening to stab somebody’ during the commentary on the video. Members felt that he had clearly made a threatening gesture, regardless of what the object was. Members also noted that the driver had a Dragon Taxis logo on his car despite not working for them, which could be considered fraudulent or misrepresentation. The driver left the hearing and the hearing proceeded in his absence. RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire licence be revoked. (3) Case 3 The Sub Committee were asked to determine whether a taxi driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that a motoring conviction for IN10 (using an uninsured vehicle) was returned on his DVLA check as part of his licence renewal. The driver stated that his conviction had nothing to do with his role as a taxi driver. He had purchased a private vehicle and was driving that at the time of the offence. Members were advised that the vehicle was purchased with a number of mechanical faults. He took the vehicle to a garage using temporary insurance cover for 1 hour. He had not realised that the cover had expired when the mechanic recommended that he drive the car further than was necessary on his homeward journey in order to ensure the car was in good working order. He was stopped by the police who found the car was uninsured. However, his was unable to use his phone to demonstrate that the car had been insured earlier that day. He had received 6 points on his licence and a fine. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had first applied for a taxi licence in 2020, and the incident had happened in January 2023. He had no points on his licence other than the six he had received for this offence. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence. Members were advised that that the applicant had been convicted of the offence of battery in 2017. The driver’s representative stated that the driver had not intended to deceive anyone by not declaring his conviction. There was some confusion because the website used to complete the application contained out of date or misleading information. The driver’s representative stated that the conviction was the result of a domestic incident in October 2017. The applicant was extremely remorseful. The applicant and his wife were still together and happily married after 35 years. They had run a shop together for many years, during which time he obtained a personal licence to sell alcohol, demonstrating that he was a responsible individual. In response to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that in 2017 he and his wife had a heated argument that involved extended family in India on a mobile phone. The wife took the phone and asked to speak with them. When attempting to retrieve the phone from his wife, this this caused her to hit her head on a wall. The police were called. His wife was present and stated to the Sub Committee that nothing had occurred since this incident. The family worked together very well. The driver added that he was confident he could handle the stresses of the job in the future. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be approved. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence Members were advised that the applicant had a relevant conviction on his DBS relating to an offence from 1994. The driver stated that he was reapplying for a licence, having previously held one until 2008. Since then he had worked full time as a coach driver for National Express and Cardiff Bus. He was experienced in working with the general public, including vulnerable adults and children, and had never once had a problem in all that time. The conviction was from about 30 years ago when he was young and foolish, and he accepted that he had made a mistake which he had been punished for. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be approved. (6) Case 6 The Sub Committee was asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that that the driver attempted to charge £6 to take an assistance dog and had discriminated against the complainant. The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident which had been submitted by the complainant. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was not notified on the booking that there would be a dog. He arrived at the pickup location and the dog was a few metres away and not wearing any high-vis, so he explained to the passengers that he would have to start the meter at £6. The passenger asked whether the driver understood what the high-vis harness the dog was wearing was. The driver responded that he did. He had no problem with dogs, only that it wasn’t mentioned on the booking. The complainants stated that they called the office to clarify that there should be no charge for an assistant dog. By then they felt uncomfortable, so they left the taxi and got into another one. The complainant described the incident as an unnecessary and embarrassing experience. Members sought to clarify whether the driver was aware of the operators policies on assistance dogs and pets. The driver stated that for a pet dog the meter will start at £6. For assistance dogs there is no additional charge. Members asked why it would matter whether there was notification that a dog was mentioned at the time of the booking. The driver stated that he didn’t see the assistance dog it at first because of the poor visibility he was therefore surprised. Members asked why the driver had insisted on a £6 fee after being told it was a guide dog. The driver stated that he was unaware and his English language skills are not the best. The video highlighted that there was a language barrier. The complainants reminded Members that that the driver initially claimed to be allergic to dogs but he could not provide an exemption certificate when asked. The complainant stated that in his experience incidents like this are a regular occurrence with taxi drivers in Cardiff. The complainant considered that the matter should be before Magistrates. The language barrier was not considered to be a major factor in the incident as the driver kept saying that he understood. Blind people should not be left out in the street. Committee in agreement that the video clearly showed that it was not just a misunderstanding, and the driver was trying to charge and additional fee. It was confirmed that all drivers have assistance dog training as part of their SQA qualification. The Sub Committee acknowledged that the driver had no history of offences, but refusing a fare to someone because of a protected characteristic was unacceptable. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days for refusal of a fare and attempting to overcharge. (7) Case 7 The Sub Committee was asked to determine whether a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License after a complaint was received stating that he refused to take an assistance dog and claimed he had a medical condition. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that as he picked the complainants up from their house they were recording him on a mobile phone, which had confused him. He was sneezing and dizzy at the time, but he took them to their destination. Members asked whether the driver had an allergy and an exemption certificate. The driver confirmed that he did not have an exemption certificate and had not seen a doctor about getting one since the incident. He was not allergic to dogs. The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, emphasising the driver would have known he was visually impaired because his guide dog’s harness was clearly labelled. He and his partner had to spend 10 minutes explaining to the driver why he had to take them and the dog, which they shouldn’t have had to do. They had missed a train because of the delay which affected their work. The complainant’s partner added that he had started filming because he saw the driver looking at them while they approached the car and suspected he would refuse to let the dog in. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days for unacceptable conduct.
RESOLVED: · The minutes of the meeting of the 20 April 2023 were approved a correct record and signed by the Chair. · Approval of the minutes of 7 November 2023 be delegated to officers and the Chair.
RESOLVED to: 1) Note the Group Leaders Reports on the discharge of their new statutory duties in relation to standards of conduct (Appendices A1-A4); 2) Delegate authority to the Interim MO to review the proforma, having regard to comments made, and make any necessary minor amendments; and 3) Agree to receive a further report from Group Leaders in around June 2024 and thereafter every twelve months.
RESOLVED to note the contents of the report and Appendices A and B
RESOLVED to: 1) Agree the proposed contents and structure of the Committee’s Annual Report 2022/23 2) Delegate authority to the Interim Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair, to draft and finalise the Annual Report, having regard to comments provided by Members of the Committee; 3) Ask the Chair to present the Committee’s Annual Report 2022/23 to the next suitable meeting of full Council; and Ask the Monitoring Officer to send the Committee’s Annual Report 2022/23 to each of the Community Councils in Cardiff, and a copy to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.
RESOLVED: 1) To note the meeting observation feedback received, as set out in Appendix A 2) To continue to observe meetings of the Council, Committees and Community Councils and provide feedback to the Committee.
RESOLVED to note the information set out in the report and receive a further report at the next suitable Committee meeting.
RESOLVED to note and agree the Work Programme 2022/23 as set out in Appendix A, with the addition of the two matters noted above.
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 11th September 2023 be approved as a correct record.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Draft Annual Report and Accounts 2022/23, as set out at Appendix A to the report be approved, and that the Chair be authorised to sign the same on behalf of Trustees. Reasons for decision Having regard to the content of the report in accordance with the requirements of the Charities Act 2011, and the Charities (Accounts & Reports) Regulations 2008 that the Annual Report and Accounts be approved by the Trustees as a body in accordance with their normal administrative procedures. Minutes - AR
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the single application for financial assistance, as set out in Minutes - AR Appendix A of the report, be approved. (2) T H A T the maximum award amount be increased to £10,000 on a trial basis until the 1st of April 2025. (3) T H A T the process for grant application be promoted via the Council’s corporate social media channels. Reasons for decisions (1) Having regard to the content of the report and subsequent discussion at the meeting. (2) To accommodate a trial period of 18 months with the hope of increasing the amount of applications received related to larger financial schemes. (3) To increase the number of applications for Welsh Church Act Grant funds, raise awareness on the availability of the fund and invite further applications for consideration by the Committee.
RESOLVED: 1. To note the update on the Annual Education Report of Children Looked After and the Virtual School and Virtual Headteacher Update and; 2. To feedback any observations or comments.
RESOLVED: • To note the Cardiff Commitment Update Report and; • To provide any observations or comments.
RESOLVED: • To note the update on the Into Work Advice Service; • To provide any observations or comments
RESOLVED: • To note the update in Appendix A and to make any observations or comments; • To consider how the Participation Strategy meets the needs of Cardiff’s Children Looked After and how it is reported to Committee going forwards.
RESOLVED: 1. To note the update in Appendix A and to make any observations or comments. 2. To consider how the Personal Advisor Service was meeting the needs of Cardiff’s Children Looked After and how it be reported to Committee going forwards.
RESOLVED: • To note the content of the report and; • To explore ways the scope of the programme could be widened so that it reached as many of Cardiff’s Children Looked After as possible.
RESOLVED: • To note the information in Appendix A of the report. • To discuss how Members could support and further the needs of the services.
RESOLVED: • To note the programme of visits in Appendix A of the report and; • To indicate any expressions of interest in attending any of the visits contained in the programme.
RESOLVED: • To note the content of the report; 2. To provide comments and feedback.
RESOLVED: • To agree the Work Programme and; • To identify any other topic for inclusion on the Work Programme
RESOLVED: To note the verbal update on complaints.
RESOLVED – T H A T in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee, the following applications be determined as indicated and any other necessary action be taken. 2020/01218/HYB Received on 29 October 2020 (P.51) APPLICANT: Mr Phil Worthing AGENT: Mrs Emma Fortune, Brunel House, 2 Fitzalan Road, Cardiff, CF24 0EB. Leckwith Quay, Leckwith Road, Leckwith. Hybrid planning application for residential development for up to 228 dwellings (submitted in OUTLINE), associated highway and bridge improvement / realignment works (submitted in FULL). Development involves the demolition of all buildings on site and of the existing B4267 Leckwith Road Bridge. DEFERRED For Planning Committee Site Visit. Minutes - AR 2021/01046/RG3 Received on 14 August 2021 (P.135) APPLICANT: Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council, The Alps, Quarry Road, Cardiff, CF5 6AA. AGENT: Mr John Griffiths Tecta Associates Limited, Blacksmiths Shop, The Forge, Cantref, Brecon, LD3 8LR. 10, Dyffryn Close, St. Nicholas. Retrospective application for the reinstatement of chimney stack and replacement roof tiles. Councillor Perkes withdrew from the meeting for the item. Deemed planning consent be GRANTED subject to the conditions contained in the report. Reason for decision Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting. 2021/01047/RG3 Received on 14 July 2021 (P.148) APPLICANT: The Vale of Glamorgan Council The Alps, Quarry Road, Cardiff, CF5 6AA. AGENT: Mr John Griffiths Tecta Associates Limited, Blacksmiths Shop, The Forge, Cantref, Brecon, LD3 8LR. 12, Dyffryn Close, St. Nicholas. Retrospective planning for the reinstatement of chimney stack and replacement roof tiles. Councillor Perkes withdrew from the meeting for the item. Deemed planning consent be GRANTED subject to the conditions contained in the report. Reason for decision Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting. Minutes - AR 2023/00740/FUL Received on 12 July 2023 (P.161) APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Richard and Anne Prosser 16 Heol-y-Frenhines, Dinas Powys, CF64 4UH. AGENT: Mr and Mrs Richard and Anne Prosser 16 Heol-y-Frenhines, Dinas Powys, CF64 4UH. 16, Heol Y Frenhines, Dinas Powys. Retention of a 6ft fence to the side / rear of the property to enclose the garden. The fence is set back from the boundary line approximately 20cm. RESOLVED – T H A T, contrary to the recommendation of officers, planning permission for the retention of the fence be granted subject to the suggested conditions. Reason for decision Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting Minutes - AR
RESOLVED – T H A T the applications as outlined within the report, on pages 13 through 38, under the above delegated powers, be noted.
RESOLVED – T H A T the applications as outlined within the report, on pages 44 through 48, as determined by the Head of Sustainable Development under delegated powers, be noted. Minutes - AR
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the passed building regulation applications, as listed in Section A of Minutes - AR the report, be noted. (2) T H A T the rejected building applications, as listed in Section B of the report, be noted. (3) T H A T the serving of Notices under Building (Approved Inspectors Etc.) Regulations 2000, as listed in Section C of the report, be noted.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T it be noted that no Appeals had been received at the time of the meeting taking place. (2) T H A T the Enforcement Appeal, as detailed in Section B of the report, be noted. (3) T H A T the Planning Appeal Decisions, as detailed in Section C of the report, be noted. (4) T H A T it be noted that no Enforcement Appeal Decisions had been received at the time of the meeting taking place. (5) T H A T the statistics relating to appeals for the period April 2023 – March 2024, as detailed in Section E of the report, be noted.
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 7th September 2023 be approved as a correct record.