Newid hinsawdd, sero net, llifogydd, ynni, bioamrywiaeth, parciau a mannau gwyrdd.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
Mae pob cyngor yng Nghymru wedi datgan neu ymateb i'r argyfwng hinsawdd ac mae ganddo gynlluniau i dorri ei allyriadau ei hun, o adeiladau, cerbydau a'r hyn y mae'n ei brynu. Mae cynghorau hefyd yn rheoli perygl llifogydd ar afonydd a nentydd lleol.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Mae'r Cabinet yn cytuno ar gynlluniau hinsawdd; mae pwyllgorau craffu'n gwirio cynnydd.
Dweud eich dweud
Gofynnwch i'ch cynghorwyr sut mae'r cyngor yn gwneud yn erbyn ei dargedau ei hun, ac ymatebwch i'w ymgynghoriadau ar gynlluniau.
Wrthi'n llwytho
Fesul cyngor, y 12 mis diwethaf
Faint o eitemau agenda ar y pwnc hwn y deliodd pob cyngor â nhw, a faint oedd â phenderfyniad wedi'i gofnodi.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with a different local authority and had the licence revoked. He also had a motoring conviction for CU80 (use of mobile phone while driving) which resulted in 6 penalty points.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was a hard worker who just wanted the best possible life for his children. He was a courteous and friendly driver who treated customers well and had experience driving for Uber before.
He had received the penalty points in 2021 for parking on a double yellow line. A police officer informed him he had committed an offence but then acted unprofessionally, which another police officer apologised for, so he didn’t realise he had actually received the points until he applied for a change of licence in Newport. Newport City Council then revoked his licence because of his failure to declare the points.
Members queried the history of complaints highlighted by Newport council. The driver acknowledged he had received some complaints while working for Uber but felt that this was because some customers would complain about anything. Since leaving Uber he had worked for Amazon but wanted to serve the public as a taxi driver again.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that the six points on his licence were made up of 3 points for parking on a double yellow line and 3 for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t feel this was a fair punishment and believed the police had fabricated their charges. He had not put in an official complaint because he didn’t have the money to go to court.
Members asked if the driver would be happy for his children to travel in a taxi driven by someone who had six points on his record. The driver responded that he would not.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident with the police officer provided by the driver. Members queried why he hadn’t shown the video to the authority until now. The driver responded that he hadn’t seen the point, and added that he had given it to Newport council at the time of his hearing.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that information was received by the Licensing Authority alleging suspected drug misuse that was a cause for concern with Adult and Children’s Services. Due to the nature of his role as a taxi driver and the high likelihood of transporting vulnerable passengers, these concerns were shared with the licensing authority, including a DNA test that was requested by the Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the DNA test stemmed from a family matter where he had voluntarily put himself forward to be tested as a possible carer for a child. He was shocked when he saw the results, having never used drugs in his life, and disputed it immediately with the testing company, his solicitor and the local authority. He had managed to arrange a new test through the local authority the day before the hearing and believed the results would show he had not taken drugs at any point in the last 12 months.
He added that he was dependent on the school run for his livelihood, as it was about 80% of his income. He had driven schoolchildren and children with special needs around for more than six years and loved it. He had no support from Universal Credit as he was self-employed, and was only just about keeping his cab running to pay the bills. This experience had turned his life upside down and been very damaging. He wanted to clear his name and get back to working the school runs.
Members asked about the time period the new test would cover, and when the results would be available. The driver confirmed that it would cover the last 12 months, so that it included the time of the original test and could clear his name properly, and the results would take up to two weeks.
The Sub Committee discussed the possibility of deferring the case until the results of the new test were available. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the next scheduled date was 5th June, and the driver would remain suspended from the school contract and able to drive his taxi in the meantime.
RESOLVED – that the matter be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was aggressive, made rude gestures and drove his vehicle in a way as to cause concern.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that the parking layout outside Heath Hospital had recently changed, and this had caused some confusion for the public. As taxi drivers they often needed to explain to people where they could park and where they might get a ticket. People were normally very understanding and grateful for the advice but in this case the people he spoke to got aggressive and told him to go away. He was only trying to help but the way they responded made him feel terrible.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that her recollection of events was very different. She and her son were picking up her husband after major surgery, and her son dropped her off at the entrance before driving off and coming back to pick them up. Her son made sure to go to the designated pick-up point, which was clearly signposted. As he pulled up, the taxi driver got out of his car and started shouting that they couldn’t park there. Her son calmly responded that they would only be 30 seconds, but the driver continued shouting and put his middle finger up at them. He then reversed his car very close to theirs in order to make it difficult for her son to pull out. She wound the window down and said she was going to report him, and he said ‘go ahead’.
The driver suggested that the witness had parked in the taxi rank and he was telling them they couldn’t park there. The witness insisted that they had not parked in the taxi rank at any point, and had followed the signs instead.
The driver added that his vehicle had a parking sensor and camera so he would not have reversed right up against the complainant’s car as they claimed. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he confirmed that the camera did not record video footage.
Members queried how the parking system at the hospital worked, which the Licensing Officer clarified was not regulated in the normal way as the taxi rank was not designated by Highways. Instead, there was a private agreement for taxis to be allowed to use certain bays, with a private company issuing tickets when people contravened the signs. It was a notoriously busy area which used a one-way loop to prevent cars pulling into the A&E bays.
The Sub Committee discussed the contrasting stories in detail and highlighted the need for taxi drivers operating at a hospital to be especially empathetic and patient with the public, even if they sincerely felt they were doing something wrong.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver had notified the authority he had been convicted of a motoring offence CU80 (use of a mobile device while driving).
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated he was sitting in stationary traffic with the handbrake on when he took a moment to plug the charging cable into his phone. He didn’t realise that there was a policeman next to him who informed him that he had committed an offence. He had been driving for more than 20 years and never had a single point on his licence before this, and had learnt his lesson and would be much more careful in the future.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he hadn’t appealed the penalty because he accepted that he had touched his phone. He didn’t see the point in taking it to court because he had done what he was accused of, and he declared the offence to the council as soon as possible. He added that he had already been punished further for his actions in addition to the initial fine, because his insurance had gone up significantly.
The driver’s representative added that while the offence of using a mobile device while driving was a serious one, his vehicle was stationary at the time and he didn’t have any passengers, meaning that he wasn’t actually causing any risk to other road users. However, it was an offence, and he had accepted his punishment. The representative suggested that the driver had been punished enough already, and that his spotless prior record and clear remorse should be taken into account. He was an honest and reliable driver who would never make a mistake like this again.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver reported to the licensing office that he had his DVLA licence revoked due to accumulating speeding points over a short duration of time, and that his licence was within 2 years from first grant. It was disposed of that he would need to reapply and complete his theory and practical tests again, which he had done.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that he had received 3 points on three consecutive days in July 2023 at the exact same place on Western Avenue. He hadn’t realised that the speed limit had changed from 40 to 30, and the clocked speeds (37mph, 38mph and 38mph) indicated that he genuinely believed he was under the limit. He was a very good and reliable driver who had never had any issues before or since.
The representative added that the driver had lived a difficult life and had to work very hard to get where he was today, and his income was vital to his family and to get both of his children through university. He was certainly a fit and proper person to drive a taxi, and he just wanted to support himself and his family. He accepted that having 9 points on his licence was a serious thing, and would be particularly observant of speed limit changes in the future.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had a conviction contrary to the guidance.
The driver was not in attendance so the application was deferred.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the driver previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted of causing injury whilst dangerous driving. The driver had not held a relevant licence with the authority since this application.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was convicted for dangerous driving in 2013, after an accident which he deeply regretted. He had never had an accident before this and he hadn’t since. He went to jail for it and served his time but still lived with it today.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s colleague gave a character reference. He explained that the driver had been associated with the taxi industry for a very long time, and a long time had passed since his offence. He had seen how he behaved with other drivers, passing on knowledge and experience to students coming through, and transporting children as a contractor for the local authority. He had proved he was a fit and proper person, and there was no value in continually punishing people for the same thing. He was not the same person he was 11 years ago, he now had a family and wanted to get his licence back.
The Sub Committee queried a recent offence on the driver’s DVLA licence history, where he had received 6 penalty points for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. The driver clarified that at this time he was renting out more than 400 cars, and this particular one was being driven in Hampshire. His business was in difficulty at the time and he wasn’t able to access the building where the letters arrived regarding this offence. He wasn’t the driver of the vehicle but as the director of the company he was responsible for it.
RESOLVED – that the application be refused.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that a motoring conviction had been declared on the application. The offence was IN10, using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the offence happened in November 2022. Immediately prior to that, he had been out of the country due to a family emergency. There weren’t enough funds in his account for the direct debit for his insurance to go through so it was cancelled, but he didn’t receive any notification of this. He was then pulled over by police (in his own car rather than in a private hire vehicle), fined £400 and given seven points on his licence. He added that he was currently licensed by Newport City Council, who were aware of the offence and had recently renewed his licence.
RESOLVED – that the application be granted.
RESOLVED - That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits and considered all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, written submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicants during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application.
RESOLVED: that
1) the progress made on carbon reduction over the period of the One Planet Cardiff Strategy be noted.
2) the commencement of work on of a Climate Change Response “Green Paper” be approved to include a clear picture of challenges, goals and potential investment opportunities associated with them.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee to convey any comments, observations and recommendations made during the way forward.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the addition of a condition stating that there would be no sale of individual cans of beer, cider or lager.
Members accepted that there were issues associated with problem street-drinkers in the area and that a condition restricting the sale of single cans was appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. Members accepted the concerns raised by local residents in relation to the undercroft and the use of the car park. However, the undercroft was beyond the direct control of the premises and did not form part of the application.
Members did not feel that any evidence had been presented that the licensing objectives would be undermined except for the issue in relation to the sale of single cans. Members therefore agreed to approve the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the additional condition set out above.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s License given that one of the directors had been prosecuted by the local authority for his involvement in a case that resulted in an unlicensed driver undertaking a journey in a private hire vehicle for a school transport service.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that his former business partner had given a vehicle to an unlicensed driver without consulting him and stopped paying insurance, and this was what led to the prosecution. He highlighted that he held a clean operator’s licence in the Vale of Glamorgan and had driven taxis for more than 20 years without any issues.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant confirmed that he had an operator’s licence in the Vale of Glamorgan and was seeking a Cardiff one too so he could seek contracts for school and airport runs in the city. At the moment the company could only use drivers licensed in the Vale.
The Sub Committee asked how he would ensure that the previous issue with the unlicensed driver would not happen again. The applicant assured them that he would have a safeguarding system in place, with each vehicle and driver registered internally. He owned the vehicles himself and would be responsible for insuring them.
RESOLVED – application refused
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging the refusal of a fare and questioning driver conduct.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not recognise the details in the witnesses’ statements, as he only ever drove with a meter. He did not recall the incident in question and did not recognise the witnesses.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he would have been working in his taxi at the time of the incident and that the badge number the witnesses had reported was his. Nobody else had access to his vehicle or badge, so the wrong number might have been written down.
The Sub Committee queried a previous complaint against the driver alleging refusal of a fare. The driver recalled that he only ever refused a fare when the passenger was particularly drunk or aggressive.
The witnesses addressed the Sub Committee, stating that they were going to a show at the Millennium Centre and got into a taxi on St Mary’s Street, which normally cost £8-£9, but the driver asked them for £16.50. They settled on £10 which was still above the usual fare for this journey. The witnesses noted down the badge number and contacted the local authority. They were certain that it was the same driver.
The witnesses did not recall seeing a meter in the vehicle but had not queried this at the time. They suggested that if the fare had been legitimate and the meter running, the driver would have just shown it to them when they challenged the fare. The Sub Committee discussed where the meter would normally be in a taxi, and heard that in Cardiff it was generally attached to the dashboard above the radio but could also be attached to the rear-view mirror. The driver confirmed that his meter was attached to the rear-view mirror, and added that if a passenger ever asked where the meter was then he was obligated to show it to them.
In response to questions from the driver’s representative, the witnesses stated that they had made a note of the badge number as the taxi was driving off. They added that the vehicle was a black and white Prius, and the driver confirmed that he drove one of these. The driver’s representative suggested that this was a common vehicle for taxis in Cardiff, and the witnesses may have confused it with another one with a similar badge number.
RESOLVED – suspended for 7 days
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour, including making rude and abusive hand gestures.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver highlighted his clean record. He had driven taxis for many years and conducted school transport for special needs children for 14 years. He did not recall the incident itself but strongly refuted the allegation that he had made offensive gestures.
The driver added that he was unaware that the complainants had followed him into the car park afterwards, and suggested that this indicated they were hoping to have an altercation. As a taxi driver he understood that he had to negotiate a number of potentially stressful situations every day and maintain professionalism. He suggested that the complainants were not qualified to judge what constituted good driving.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses stated that the taxi had cut across them on Cogan Spur without indicating and nearly caused an accident, before braking hard without warning. The sudden stop caused one of the witnesses’ back pain to get worse. The witnesses contested the driver’s claim that he did not make any gestures towards them, and emphasised that they were not following him around the car park, but rather looking for a disabled bay which could be difficult to find when it was busy.
The witnesses stressed that taxi drivers were meant to set an example, as they were representing Cardiff Council and had the logo on the back of their vehicle. One of the witnesses added that he was a former driving instructor qualified to Grade 6 and also a former Special Constable, so he understood the definition of dangerous driving. He had known the driver personally for many years and would not have made this complaint unless he felt that it was very serious. The incident had been entirely unnecessary and put people in danger.
RESOLVED – written warning
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging the refusal of a fare and questioning driver conduct.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that a customer had entered his taxi upon leaving the Motorpoint Arena at about 11pm and asked to go to an address in Gwaelod Y Garth. He put in the wrong postcode by mistake and thought the destination was outside Cardiff, so he suggested a fare of £50. He then realised his error and tried to let the customer know but they had already left and got into another taxi.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had misheard the address as CF35 when he asked the passenger where they wanted to go. The actual postcode in Gwaelod Y Garth was CF15. The CF35 address was 24 miles away so he estimated that this would cost about £50, going by his usual £2 per mile price for trips out of Cardiff.
The Licensing Officer confirmed that while any in-district fare had to be calculated using the meter, there was no standard procedure for calculating fares outside of Cardiff as long as the fare was agreed with the customer before the journey began.
RESOLVED – written warning
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License given that upon renewal of his licence his DBS returned a recent conviction from August 2022.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he had been convicted of domestic violence in 2022 and had since undertaken all of the community service and rehabilitation programs required by the court. He had been a taxi driver for more than a decade and had a very high Uber rating. He hoped he could prove to the Sub Committee that he was a professional and reliable individual who could be trusted to drive a taxi. He was trying to be a positive role model for his son and had learned a lot from the rehabilitation program.
The driver’s representative added that the driver had intended to appeal the conviction but had been unable to do so for financial reasons. He had been licensed in Cardiff for 15 years with an exemplary record, had participated in a rehabilitation course and had declared his conviction to the licensing authority at the earliest opportunity. He had no other source of income and was a single parent, so he depended on his license for his livelihood.
RESOLVED – license revoked
Application 6
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License given that he disclosed a conviction for plying for hire without a licence to do so, and received 8 points on his licence for driving without insurance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been driving taxis for 23 years and otherwise had a clean record. He had always driven a hackney carriage but had taken it to the garage the day before and was driving a private hire vehicle instead. While driving along Mill Lane, he saw two young women who did not seem to be getting picked up by anyone else, and he didn’t want to leave them on their own.
As they got in, he realised that he was in the wrong vehicle, but he took them to their destination anyway. He accepted that this was an error and apologised to the Sub Committee. This was the first mistake he had made in a long career and it would not happen again.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, he accepted that he took them to their destination despite knowing that he shouldn’t. He suggested that he thought they might cause trouble if he asked them to leave. He confirmed that he understood the consequences of taking them as he did not have the correct insurance for a trip that wasn’t pre-booked.
The Licensing Officer clarified that licensed drivers in Cardiff were dual-badge, meaning that they could drive both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, and it was the vehicles themselves where the insurance varied. The insurance depended on the trip being pre-booked, and if it wasn’t pre-booked then it wasn’t insured. It was an offence to ply for hire without the required insurance.
The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee, asking the panel to consider the driver’s length of service and his spotless record. He had been a fit and proper person to drive a taxi for many years and this was a serious lapse of judgement which would never happen again. The representative added that the driver had already been punished for the offence with fines and points on his license.
RESOLVED – 28 day suspension
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following persons to current Local Authority Governing Body vacancies as follows:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Applications Received
Coed Glas Primary School
Llanishen
14/09/2023
29/11/2023
Najia Ashraf
Rebecca Donovan
Eastern High
Trowbridge
30/11/2022
Karuna Hathiramani
Fairwater Primary School
Fairwater
24/07/2023
Alexandra Meah
Llanishen Fach Primary School
Rhiwbina
01/09/2023
Zadie Vaca
Oakfield Primary School
Trowbridge
28/06/2023
Guy Delong-Smith
Pencaerau Primary School
Caerau
02/11/2023
Nana Baah
Pentrebane Primary School
Fairwater
20/11/2023
Ayobami Oledejo
Pentyrch Primary School
Pentyrch & St Fagans
12/09/2023
12/09/2023
Nicola Harding
Roath Park Primary School
Plasnewydd
13/09/2023
David Morris
Severn Primary School
Riverside
16/12/2023
Avijit Bhagwant
St Francis RC Primary School
Ely
17/05/2022
Lauren Reilly
Thornhill Primary School
Lisvane & Thornhill
29/10/2023
Siobhan Evans
Windsor Clive Primary School
Ely
05/07/2023
Kathryn Stevens
Ysgol Pencae
Llandaff
26/01/2022
Delyth Evans
The Committee received and considered applications to future vacancies against criteria, matching skills to vacancies. RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following:
School
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Re-appointment requested
New application received
Birchgrove Primary School
Heath
22/05/2024
Christine Salter
Cardiff High School
Cyncoed
27/05/2024
Miriam Norton
Fitzalan High School
Canton
29/01/2024
Cllr Jasmin Chowdhury
Federation of All Saints’ CW Primary School and St David’s CW Primary School
x 2 vacancies
Pentwyn
19/02/2024
19/02/2024
Steven Erickson
Stephen Henderickson
Grangetown Nursery School
Grangetown
18/05/2024
Cllr Lynda Thorne
Greenhill School
Rhiwbina
22/05/2024
Mark Thomas
Llysfaen Primary School
Lisvane & Thornhill
22/05/2024
Nick Barber
Pen-Y-Bryn Primary School
Llanrumney
27/05/2024
Paul Stock
St Francis RC Primary School
Ely
27/05/2024
Cllr Irene Humphries
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Plasmawr
Fairwater
22/05/2024
Mair Parry-Jones
Ysgol Y Wern
Llanishen
27/05/2024
Margaret Kemp
The Committee received and considered applications to vacancies for the Temporary Governing Body to oversee the establishment of the new primary school serving Cathays and parts of Gabalfa, Heath, Llandaff North and Plasnewydd, against criteria, matching skills to vacancies. RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Applications Received
Temporary Governing Body to oversee the establishment of the new primary school serving Cathays and parts of Gabalfa, Heath, Llandaff North and Plasnewydd:
LA GOVERNOR POSITIONS X 3
05/02/2024
05/02/2024
05/02/2024
Cllr Norma Mackie
Cllr Chris Weaver
Cllr Rhys Taylor
PARENT GOVERNOR POSITIONS X 4
05/02/2024
05/02/2024
05/02/2024
05/02/2024
Kate Moles
Zainab Mahmood
Alison Bolton
Claire Guthrie
RESOLVED: that
1. the Skateboard Amenity Strategy be adopted.
2. It be noted that Officers will review progress to deliver the strategy through the Annual Parks, Play and Infrastructure delivery plan attached at Appendix 2 to this report.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
22/02673/FUL – PENTWYN / LLANRUMNEY
Cardiff East Park and Ride, Eastern Avenue, Old St Mellons, Cardiff, CF23 8HH
Demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of the site to provide commercial floorspace (Use Classes B1, B2, B8, A3) and/or ancillary Class A1), associated drive-thru and car parking; the re-provision of the park and ride; a bridge across the Rhymney River; site wide landscaping and associated works.
Subject to the amendment of Conditions 7, 18 and 19 (as set out in the Amendment Sheet and Late Representations dated 11.0.24).
APPLICATION GRANTED
23/01427/ FUL – HEATH
35 St Isan Road, Heath, Cardiff, CF14 4LU
Construction of two storey extension to side and rear of existing building, roof alterations including raising of ridge height and dormers, extending existing Pharmacy and creating 2no. additional flats with provision of amenity space and bike store.
(Councillor Garry Hunt left the meeting during consideration of this application in accordance with his personal and prejudicial interest)
APPLICATION REFUSED
20/00187/MJR – LLANDAFF
Land at De Braose Closer, Danescourt, Cardiff
Residential development comprising 36 dwellings together with associated infrastructure, public open space and woodland management
(Councillor Adrian Robson t left the meeting during consideration of this application in accordance with his prejudicial interest)
REASON:
This application was considered Planning Committee on 7 December 2023. It was resolved to defer the application to the next meeting of the Committee for reasons for refusal based on the objections raised by the Committee.
The application was refused for the following reasons:
1.
The development, by reason of its location within a significant identified area of Open Space, would exacerbate the existing deficiency of Open Space within the Llandaff ward, as identified by the Open Space Survey (2022), contrary to the provisions of Policy C4 of the adopted Local Development Plan (2016) and guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales (Edition 11, February 2021) (paragraph 4.5.3).
2.
The creation of an extensive, engineered vehicular access through the significant woodland, including the removal of trees, would cause unacceptable harm to the established character and appearance of the existing mature and established woodland and public footpath network which cannot be mitigated by replanting, or the translocation scheme proposed, or outweighed by any other benefits of the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of KP5, EN6, EN7 and EN8 of the Local Development Plan (2016), Supplementary Planning Guidance Green Infrastructure (including Technical Guidance Notes relating to: Ecology and Biodiversity and; Trees and Development) (November 2017), as well as Chapter 6 of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 11, February 2021 – with Chapter 6 updated October 2023) and Policy 9 (Resilient Ecological Networks and Green Infrastructure) of Future Wales: The National Plan 2040.
3.
The development, by virtue of its siting and the quality of proposed connections for both walking and cycling, does not provide safe, legible and otherwise well designed connectivity to nearby shops, facilities and schools for the proposed affordable housing development, contrary to Policies KP5, T1 and C6 of the adopted Local Development Plan (2016) and guidance within the adopted Cardiff Residential Design Guide
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following persons to current Local Authority Governing Body vacancies as follows:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Applicant
Albany Primary School
Plasnewydd
24/07/2023
Muna Noor
Ffederasiwn y Ddraig
(Ysgol Bro Eirwy and Ysgol Pen y Pil)
Trowbridge / Llanrumney
02/09/2023
Glesni Owen
Fitzalan High School
Canton
01/09/2023
Cllr Ash Lister
Radyr Comprehensive School
Radyr & Morganstown
26/09/2023
Tim Opie
The Oaks Federation
(Greenway and Trowbridge Primary Schools
Rumney / Trowbridge
18/07/2023
10/05/2023
28/03/2023
Victor Chitsiga
Ahmed Azam
Jordan Jones
The Western Learning Campus (Riverbank School, Ty Gwyn School & Woodlands High School)
Caerau
04/09/2023
Andy Kreppel
Ysgol Gynradd Gymraeg Hamadryad
Butetown
01/08/23
Linda Mitchell
The Committee received and considered applications to future vacancies against criteria, matching skills to vacancies.
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Applicant
Gladstone Primary School
Roath Park Primary School
The Rainbow Federation (~Bryn Hafod & Glan Yr Afon Primary Schools
Llanrumney
24/02/2024
24/02/2024
John Brown
Lesley Noaks
Ysgol Gymraeg Coed-Y-Gof
Fairwater
29/01/2024
Ceri Landers
RESOLVED : That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee to convey any comments, observations and recommendations made during the way forward.
RESOLVED:
Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS RESOLVED TO BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
21/00783/MJR – BUTETOWN
LAND AT CURRAN EMBANKMENT, BUTETOWN, CARDIFF
Demolition of existing buildings/structures and the comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment to provide up to 2,5000 new homes (class C3), business space (class B1), and a mix of complementary leisure, food and drink, hospitality, retail and health and wellbeing uses (class A1, A2, A3, C1, D1 and D2); creation of new open space (including a new riverside park and water taxi stop); new pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access points, pedestrian footbridge; vehicular and cycle parking facilities; landscaping; public realm and other associated ancillary and highways works. all matters reserved other than vehicular access.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED
23/02009/FUL – PENYLAN
7 LADY MARGARET COURT, COLCHESTER AVENUE, PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 9AW
Change of use to class A3 Café/Coffee Shop with ancillary takeaway use.
22/00687/FUL – RADYR & MORGANSTOWN
RADYR COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL, HEOL ISAF, RADYR, CARDIFF, CF15 8XG
RESOLVED: that
1) authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Events, the Section 151 Officer, and the Legal Officer to conclude negotiations with AMG and other relevant stakeholders to:
a. Finalise and enter into a Conditional Agreement for Lease with AMG on the basis of the principles set out in the draft Conditional Agreement for Lease set out at Confidential Appendix 3;
b. Enter into the lease and associated documents as set out at Confidential Appendix 3 upon satisfaction of the conditions within the Conditional Agreement for Lease;
c. Complete the business sales agreement with AMG for St David’s Hall based on the principles set out in the draft business sales agreement attached at Confidential Appendix 3 upon satisfaction of the conditions within the Conditional Agreement for Lease;
2) the continued closure of St David’s Hall and the associated consequences set out in this report until AMG satisfy the conditions within the Conditional Agreement to Lease be noted.
3) In light of the above, it is unlikely that all employees will transfer to AMG under the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment Regulations 2006) as envisaged in the July 2023 Cabinet report. As a result, the Council’s proposed staff engagement strategy, to manage the closure of St David’s Hall as set out in this report, be noted.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS RESOLVED TO BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
23/01705/VAR – BUTETOWN
RED DRAGON CENTRE AND COUNTY HALL, ATLANTIC WHARF, CARDIFF
A variation of condition application made pursuant to Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condition 2 (approved plans), Condition 9 (CEMP) and Condition 10 (Soil Resource Survey) of the detailed planning permission (Arena and Hotel) within hybrid planning permission reference: 21/02687/MJR
The application was approved as per recommendation subject to the amendments to the conditions set out with in the Amendment Sheet/Late Representations Schedule.
23/00050/FUL – CAERAU
LAND SOUTH OF NARBERTH ROAD, CAERAU, CARDIFF
Development of 83 residential units (use Class C3, including affordable housing) as well as associated vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian access, engineering and infrastructure works, landscaping, open space and sustainable urban drainage.
The application was approved as per recommendation subject to the amendments to the conditions set out with in the Amendment Sheet/Late Representations Schedule.
APPLICATION GRANTED
23/01501/FUL – FAIRWATER
CANTONIAN HIGH SCHOOL, FAIRWATER ROAD, FAIRWATER, CARDIFF
Construction of new Cantonian, Woodlands and Riverbank Schools and other associated buildings including new Health and Well-being Centre. Provision of various outdoor spaces, Sports Pitches and Multi-Use Games Areas, Flood-lighting, parking and access provision, cycle and refuse storage areas, SuDS provision and other associated work including the demolition of the school buildings.
The application was approved as per recommendation.
RESOLVED: that
1) the procurement process of the Council Fleet spot hire requirement via the Welsh Government Commercial Delivery (WGCD) Framework for the provision of spot hire vehicles WGCD Ref: NPS-FT-0110-2 be approved.
2) the high-level evaluation criteria set out in the report for the direct award to a single supplier for lots 1 and 2 with Lot 3 run as a mini competition as an when a vehicle of this type is required be approved.
3) Authority be delegated to determine and generally deal with all aspects of the procurement process and ancillary matters up to and including the awarding of the contract to the Corporate Director, Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation and Performance, the Cabinet Member for Climate Change and the Director of Governance and Legal Services.
RESOLVED: that
1) the procurement process via mini competition for the supply of liquid fuels for the Councils fleet via the National Procurement Services framework WGCD -FT-0122-23 for a period up to the 12th of April 2027 be approved.
2) The high-level evaluation criteria set out in this report be approved.
3) Authority be delegated to the Corporate Director, Resources in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation and Performance, the Cabinet Member for Climate Change and the Director of Governance and Legal Services to determine and generally deal with all aspects of the procurement process and ancillary matters up to and including the awarding of the contract.
Appointments Committee - Head of Climate Emergency Response (OM1),
RESOLVED – That
1. Mr Gareth Harcombe be appointed to The Head of Climate Emergency Response (OM1) at the salary associated with the post and the commencement date to be agreed with the candidate in accordance with the resignation period and completion of the appointment process by the Council; and
2. The selection process has been conducted in accordance with the appointments process and each candidate had been treated equally and fairly. The successful candidate was appointment on merit.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATION GRANTED
(Councillors Robson and Reid-Jones, in accordance with their prejudicial interests left the meeting during discussion of this item).
22/03007/DOC – Llandaff North and Llandaff
Land Either Side of River Taff Comprising Land South of Existing Access Road within Hailey Park and Land at Eastern Turning Head of De Braose Close, Danescourt
Discharge of Condition 3 (Landscaping) of 21/02608/MNR
Appointments Committee - Head of Climate Emergency Response (OM1),
RESOLVED: to consider the Call-In.
The Chairperson explained the structure of the meeting at Stage Two and that, he had agreed that Cllr Joel Williams could ask questions as part of the consideration of the Call-In; however, he could not take part in the determination of the Call-In as he is not a Member of this Committee.
Members were reminded that the scope of the Call-In, and therefore the scope of Members’ questions, was limited to the reasons set out by Councillor Taylor in his request for a Call-In. These were set out in full at point 11 of the scrutiny cover report in the committee papers.
The Chairperson asked if there were any questions at this point.
Cllr Williams noted that there were no Cabinet Members present at the meeting and asked if they had been invited to attend. It was explained that when seeking availability for the Call-In meeting, the date that was best for most Committee Members was not a date that the Cabinet Member could make. It was stressed however, that as this was an Officer Decision, the Cabinet Member was not required to attend.
Cllr Berman sought clarification on whether there was any further information he needed to be briefed on as he was unable to attend the pre-meeting. It was explained that the information discussed at the pre- meeting was the same information contained in the papers.
For consideration of the Call-In, the Chairperson welcomed:
· Cllr Rhys Taylor – the Member who has Called-In the decision.
· Neil Hanratty – Director of Economic Development
· Jon Maidment – Head of Parks and Cardiff Harbour Authority
· Richard Crane – Operational Manager – Principal Solicitor (Property and Planning)
· Eirian Jones – Operational Manager – Strategic Estates
· Steve Robinson – Operational Manager – Commissioning and Procurement
Cllr Taylor was invited to present his reasons for the Call-In as follows:
1. The process does not represent value for money for the council or public purse.
It does not represent value to the public purse to end a lease of a sitting tenant who is open to negotiation on the terms of their lease, including increasing their rent obligations. The willingness of the tenant to do this is a matter of public record. The council engaged with the current tenant to renegotiate the lease in June/July 2022, only to reject the options appraisal presented by the tenant in December 2022, on request of the council. In February 2023 the council determined that it would no longer be able to re-negotiate the lease and was required to go out to public tender in July 2023. The rationale for doing this is open to question.
2. The council progressed the current process (public tender) on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate information.
The council’s position in February 2023 that it could not progress on the basis of a re-negotiation with the sitting tenant because it was progressing a Management Agreement - rather than a lease with an accompanying Management Agreement - was incorrect. Advice presented to officers subsequent to the decision to opt for a Management Agreement (and therefore public tender) stated that the council is not able to solely offer a Management Agreement and must use a lease as the primary vehicle. Had proper advice been sought at the outset, the protracted and costly process could have been avoided. In addition, the initial lease negotiations – and decision to adopt a new approach in February 2023 – was led by officers who with neither legal nor lease expertise. As such, the process has been flawed from the outset.
3. The process has undermined a successful, independent business which council policy (including Procurement Policy) wishes to promote.
The council’s refusal to formally extend the end point for the tenants’ lease, opting rather for a Tenancy at Will, stripped the business of legal rights and protections, and has put significant financial pressures on the business. With only a 24-hour notice period to end the tenancy, the decision to move to a Tenancy at Will has needlessly put huge pressures on a successful, popular independent business. There has been a lack of scrutiny around the decision to move from a lease to a management agreement and subsequently to move the tenant on to a Tenancy at Will. Furthermore, the lack of complete and accurate advice on the terms of which the council was able and should re-shape the lease has undermined the business and council policy.
4. The rationale and decision making around entering a public procurement process, rather than lease negotiation, is not clear.
The council has stated that this process is being undertaken for the benefit of users of Bute Park but has failed to set out what the current offer from the current tenant fails to deliver. In addition, there is a large petition and responses to a visitor survey which suggest that users are overwhelmingly supportive and appreciative of the offer of the current tenant. The decision making to date has not taken that public view into account. I would suggest that engaging the New Friends of Bute Park group to gauge public opinion on what the offer from the café should be, just weeks before issuing the tender, suggests that the council was not itself sure what the current gaps in the current offer are, or what it intends to deliver through a public procurement process. Furthermore, it is a matter of record that the sitting tenant was open to re-negotiating the terms of their lease, including increasing their rent obligation. As such, the decision to end the lease deserves full scrutiny.
Neil Hanratty & Jon Maidment were invited to present their response. Neil Hanratty stated that he had nothing to add to the written statement that had been submitted and was contained in the papers at Appendix C.
Members were invited to ask questions to the panel. These included questions around:
· Social Procurement and how this was used in this instance.
· The differences between a property lease and a concessionary agreement.
· The benefits of the new agreement to the general public.
· If the current tenant could bid at the next stage.
· Whether information available to inform decision making was complete and accurate
· Whether the Council had acted in good faith and complied with the Welsh Government Procurement Policy.
· The length of time taken to seek legal advice and speak to the existing tenant.
· The views of the Cabinet Member
· Stakeholder engagement and consultation including the timing of such
· Concern around misleading Council communications to the public.
· Drivers for moving to a concessions agreement and the meaning of ‘operational experience’ cited in Appendix C
· Whether or not it is good practice to undertake public consultation in these types of cases
· Sell 2 Wales process and information provided at various stages
· Clarification of 24-hour notice period in Tenancy At Will
· Clarity on operational impact if no change to the property lease agreement.
· Benefits of changing to a concessionary service agreement.
· Impact of extending the property lease until March 2024.
· Lessons to learn from this process
· Legal implications if remain with property lease agreement – process to be followed and impact on operations
· Clarification of what service provision the concessions agreement would include
· Whether there were any pertinent legal matters that some, but not all, committee members had been made aware of
· Whether there were any additional costs to the Council from this process.
Following a short break, Cllr Taylor was invited to sum up, this is summarised as follows:
Cllr Taylor stated that this was not about not moving forward, it was clear that the current arrangements needed to be improved, but it is about the process and its fairness and whether the decision taken on the best way forward could be evidenced. He added that he understands the Council is the landlord and that the new agreement benefits them, but he considered that there didn’t seem to be any consideration to the impact on the sole trader and the context they are operating in.
Cllr Taylor considered that there needed to be a full apology to the tenant about the length of time taken to seek the correct legal advice and the impact on the tenant during this time. He sought assurances that lessons would be learned on this going forward.
He considered that the Council backtracked somewhat by engaging with the New Friends of Bute Park too late in the process and that communications with the public had been generally problematic.
Cllr Taylor considered that the ‘no choice’ of options going forward was a value judgement that suits the landlord and not the tenant or users of Bute Park.
He considered that lessons needed to be learned so that this situation does not happen again, and Officers do not find themselves with a call-in for a public procurement exercise.
In conclusion, Cllr Taylor considered there needs to be a pause, a stay of execution, the length of which should be negotiated between the tenant and the landlord. He stated that this would provide confidence to the tenant, the public, the users of Bute Park and other tenants who may be in a similar position. It would also show fairness and accountability when things go wrong.
Neil Hanratty was invited to sum up his response. He stated that he personally regretted the anxiety caused to the existing tenant and staff at the Secret Garden Café, and he apologised for the time taken to get to the point when it was realised a concession agreement was required. He added that he will personally be involved in future conversations with the existing tenant about the way forward. He stated the Council is very happy with the job that the existing tenant and her team do and encouraged the tenant to bid. He stated that he completely disagreed with the view that the Council had not undertaken stakeholder engagement, as the Council had consulted with the existing tenant, who is the stakeholder. He concluded that the right thing to do was for him to receive the response from the Committee, to consider it, and to have a conversation with the tenant.
The Chairperson asked each Member for their views going forward. All Committee Members except for Cllr Berman decided to not refer the decision back. Cllr Berman wanted it noted that he did want to refer the decision back. As part of their feedback, Members raised the following points:
· Recommend a pause if that is what tenant wishes and is appropriate
· Suggest developing guidance to provide clarity on process to follow when move to other concession agreements, learning lessons from this process to improve the process followed
· Suggest speaking to the tenant sooner rather than later
· Suggest seek legal advice earlier in the process
· Recommend the Council review any lessons to learn re communications to ensure public have the full picture.
· Suggest reach out proactively to other tenants also affected and contact them as soon as possible.
In his feedback, Cllr Berman made the following points supporting his decision to recommend referring the decision back:
· Need to learn lessons from this process before going ahead with changes in this or other concessions agreements
· Need to review decision, re-examine potential procurement routes and potentially seek external legal advice on this
· Need to look at whether need to have shareholder engagement as part of looking at different procurement routes
· Need to ensure there is clarity and transparency around the process that gives reassurance to all those interested in the outcome, including those who have signed the petition.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Director conveying the above suggestions as recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
Appointments Committee - Head of Climate Emergency Response (OM1),
RESOLVED: that
1) Authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks & Events, the Section 151 Officer and the Legal Officer, to conclude negotiations with AMG and other relevant stakeholders to:
a. complete the MOU with stakeholders based on the principles set out in the draft MOU attached at Confidential Appendix 1;
b. complete the lease and associated documents as set out at Confidential Appendix 1; and
c. complete the business sales agreement with AMG for St David’s Hall based on the principles set out in the draft business sales agreement as set out at Confidential Appendix 1.
2) the transfer of [all] employees to AMG under the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment Regulations 2006) (TUPE) be authorised.
RESOLVED: that
• the procurement of new recycling collection fleet over a three-year period with a value estimated at £9.7M be approved.
• the award of an initial contract (as set out in the report) be approved.
• Authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development, subject to consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation & Performance, Cabinet Member for Climate Change, s.151 Officer and Director of Governance & Legal Services and Monitoring Officer, to deal with the future award of contracts (and any ancillary agreements) as required in relation to this procurement.
RESOLVED: that
1) the proposed scheme for Pentwyn Leisure Centre be approved as illustrated by the design plans at Appendix 1 and the financial proposal at Confidential Appendix 3 and authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Events, the Section 151 Officer, and the Monitoring Officer to:
i. Undertake a public consultation on the proposals and consider potential changes as required within the limits of the approved budget set out at Confidential Appendix 3;
ii. Deal with all aspects of the procurement of a contractor(s) to undertake the works set out in this report subject to the financial envelope set out at Confidential Appendix 3;
iii. Conclude lease agreements with tenants on the terms set out at Confidential Appendices 3 and 4, subject to detailed due diligence and independent valuation to demonstrate best value.
2) the solar energy scheme as set out at Confidential Appendix 5 be approved.
3) Authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Events, the Section 151 Officer, and the Legal Officer to deal with all aspects of the procurement of a contractor(s) to deliver the solar energy scheme as set out in this report and at Confidential Appendix 5, subject to the financial envelope set out at Confidential Appendix 5.
RESOLVED: that
1) the proposed agreement with Tennis Wales as set out in this report be approved.
2) the three tennis court sites identified in this report be included in the agreement.
3) Authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Culture, Parks and Events and the Legal Officer to:
a. identify a further three tennis court sites to be included in the agreement subject to appropriate due diligence and governance relating to any Trust arrangements and/or restrictive covenants;
b. enter into Licence Agreements/Management Agreements as required for the sites included in the scheme.
4) It be noted that further reports will need to be presented back to Cabinet as Trustee to approve the inclusion of any sites subject to Charitable Trusts.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
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 a hackney carriage driver requested payment of the fare in advance of the journey and also refused to use the taxi meter.
The Sub Committee received representations from the driver. The driver stated that he had no recollection of the incident. He accepted that a photograph provided by the complainant was a photograph of his vehicle but he denied that was the driver involved in the incident. The driver confirmed that he was aware of the licensing conditions relating to use of the taxi meter.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that he approached the taxi and requested to be taken to Ely. The driver requested £20 in advance of the journey. The complainant agreed to this conditionally as long as the taxi meter was used. At that point the driver refused to use the meter. The complainant stated that he reminded the driver that he was obliged to use the meter for this journey and the driver stated that it was a busy night therefore he was refusing to use the meter. When the complainant stated that he would report the matter to the licensing authority the driver became agitated. The complainant then photographed the rear of the vehicle and proceeded to look for another taxi. He eventually booked an Uber vehicle, the fare was £13.50.
Responding to a question from the Sub Committee, the complainant stated that he could not be certain that the driver before him was the driver of the vehicle on the night in question. However, he was certain that the vehicle in the photograph was the vehicle involved. The Sub Committee was invited to view the digital date stamp of the photograph which confirmed that the photograph was taken at 0525 hours on the morning of 5 February 2023. The complaint also stated that he emailed the Licensing Authority with details of the incident immediately upon returning home.
The driver confirmed that he was the sole driver of the vehicle and nobody else used the vehicle.
RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning for refusal to use the taxi meter. The Sub Committee accepted that the photograph provided by the complainant was valid and the driver was the driver of the vehicle at the time.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a report received from Uber regarding the conduct of a hackney carriage / private hire driver licensed by the authority. The report indicated that the driver has had his Uber account permanently deactivated due to a series of complaints of a similar nature from customers on the platform. The complaints related to a number of inappropriate comments, advances and personal intimate questions made by the driver whilst transporting customers.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. The driver stated that he was not made aware of all the incidents in question by Uber and that Uber had handled the complaints ‘unprofessionally’. It was alleged that Uber had questioned him about one of the incidents when he had passengers in his vehicle. Uber also corresponded with him but the correspondence addressed to the wrong name despite repeated attempts to correct this.
Members were advised that Uber had asked non-specific open-ended questions that the driver felt unable to answer. It was confirmed that he had received an email from Uber stating that he had broken their Code of Practice and he was no longer able to work for them.
The driver was asked to respond to each of the incidents set out in the report. The driver stated that he couldn’t remember the first incident from five years ago as it was not brought to his attention at the time. The second incident was discussed with Uber but there were passengers in his vehicle and he was unable to hear what was being said by Uber. He had no recollection of the third or the fourth incident. The fifth incident was discussed but he felt unable to answer the open-ended questioning put to him.
Members were advised that since the termination of his Uber account the driver had attempted to communicate with them but this was proving difficult. It was also alleged that Uber had acted illegally in reporting the matter to the Licensing Authority. The driver stated that he had been a licensed driver for 19 years and he had an excellent rating on the Uber platform.
RESOLVED – that the driver complete the SQA for Professional Drivers within 3 months. The Sub Committee has concerns about the driver’s pattern of behaviour across multiple incidents that amounted to unprofessional conduct.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for a hackney carriage / private hire licence. The applicant had a conviction under Section 5 for using threatening words and behaviour. The applicant was asked to outline the incident which led to the conviction.
Members were advised that the driver was involved with a collision with another driver. Both parties had pulled into a lay-by to exchange details. A third party individual approached and attempted to interject into the conversation. An argument ensued during which the applicant called the third party a racist.
Police attended the scene. Details were exchanged and the applicant left. Subsequently the driver was asked to attend a police station and he was charged. The allegations were denied and the matter proceeded to court. The applicant stated that in court the Duty Solicitor told him not to worry. He was unable to satisfactorily follow the proceedings due to a problem with his hearing aid. He was found guilty.
The driver stated that he has been a licensed driver in Newport for 9 years without incident.
RESOLVED – That the application for a hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence be approved.
RESOLVED – The public be excluded for this part of the meeting as the Committee discuss information which is confidential and exempt from publication as contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Action 1972. The public may 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.
The Chairperson then opened the debate on this item. Members were invited to comment, seek clarification or raise questions on the information received. Thiediscussions are summarised as follows:
· Officers were asked to comment on the age, emissions and general condition of the vehicles used for school transport. Officers stated that different quality standards depending on the classifications of the vehicles. Tendering companies are required to meet those standards in order to join the approve list of contractors. Vehicle age limits are specified and discussions are ongoing with contractors with a view to improving their vehicles to Euro 6 emission standards. Members were asked to note that there are a reduced number of contractors bidding for tenders and these are working at capacity in terms of the number of vehicles available. Furthermore, some school bus services are provided by public bus companies and these will fall outside of the procurement framework. Services that are procured via the framework will receive a higher score during the tendering process for better quality vehicles.
· Members asked whether officers were confident that the services can be provided in the future given the limited number of contractors tendering for contracts. Members were advised that the position is extremely challenging in Cardiff and across Wales. The impact of the Bus Emergency Scheme, where Councils across Wales may be looking to replace public bus services with contracted services, also needs to be factored in. Bus companies have a limited number of drivers available and they are struggling to cover their existing services. These concerns have been raised with Welsh Government.
· Members asked whether the new schools being built in the city were being built on established bus routes. Officers stated that consultation is undertaken with colleagues in Planning and Education to ensure that schools have good transport links, including bus services and walking and cycling networks.
· Members asked whether the costs of the contracts would reduce in coming years if budgetary pressures such as inflation and fuel costs come down. Members were advised that tendering is undertaken to provide a consistent cost. For example, ALN contracts are 3-year contracts in order to provide stability for the pupils. These include options for inflationary increases. However, it is difficult to reduce a contract price. Because of the dynamic nature of the service both contractors and the Council need to give 1 months notice to end the contract and contractors are able to withdraw from the contact.
RESOLVED – That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee to convey any comments, observations and recommendations made during the way forward.