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 was 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 he displayed conduct unbefitting of a licensed driver.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had taken a booking by the supermarket in St Mellons and waited there for the customer. Two people arrived, an old woman and a younger woman with her. He thought he only had one customer, and that the younger woman was helping her to the car. A minute or so into the journey the passenger said ‘where is my daughter?’, so he stopped at a petrol station to turn around. The passenger suddenly asked where her daughter was again and this confused the driver, so he called his operator. The passenger became panicked and angry and so he asked his operator if he could drop her back at the original spot and leave.
The driver refuted the suggestion in the witness’ statement that he had stopped to fill up his car, as well as the suggestion that he had spoken in an aggressive manner.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had experience working with older people who required extra assistance. He always got out of his car to help them get in, but in this case she was already being assisted.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that she and her mother were at the garden centre when she booked a taxi home for two people and received a text confirming this. The driver was not paying attention as they came up to the vehicle so she helped her mother into the car. She asked the driver to open the boot, at which point he shut the door and drove off, so she rang the operator and spoke to them. It took about 15 minutes for the taxi to return with her mother inside, who was quite shaken. The driver got out and came over, not to help her out but to tell her very loudly to get out of his vehicle, in what she felt was an aggressive way. Eventually another driver came along and they went home.
Regarding the driver’s statement that he had spoken to the passenger, the witness explained that her mother was profoundly deaf and couldn’t have conversations with people unless they were very close and looking directly at her. The booking had been clearly made for two people and her mother had told him to return her immediately. She also disputed the driver’s suggestion that her mother had been angry and aggressive, noting that she was 96 years old and 4’9”.
Members asked if there was any other conversation between the witness and the driver. She explained that she had just said ‘hello’ initially and then asked if he could open the boot.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for two weeks.
(2)
Application 2
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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver smoked a cigarette whilst in his licensed vehicle and proceeded to drive and act in a manner not considered fit and proper.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been having a cigarette outside his vehicle while waiting for the customer to arrive. When the passenger got in, he smelt smoke and told him that he had a lung condition. The driver acknowledged his mistake and in hindsight should have moved further away from the vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that the driver had been smoking inside the vehicle, and that he had asked if the passenger minded if he continued. He challenged the driver on this as he knew it was illegal, and the driver threw it out of the window. The witness emphasised that he had weak lungs and was coughing throughout the journey, but needed to get home and kept quiet so the driver did not terminate the trip.
The driver turned up the music very loud, which the witness felt was intended to intimidate him, and exceeded the speed limit during the journey. When asked about his badges, he said he didn’t use them, which made the witness suspect that he was not driving legally.
Responding to questions from Members, the driver explained that he took his badges out of his car overnight because it had been broken into before. He had his badge on him in this instance but it might not have been in the window. He understood the requirements about displaying the badge.
The driver’s representative asked about an altercation with a group of people in another vehicle mentioned in the driver’s statement. The witness explained that while they were stopped at a red light, the passenger side window was wound down to get rid of the smell of smoke, and some young men nearby heard them arguing about it. He didn’t feel this was relevant or indicative of the whole journey so didn’t he include it in his own statement.
The driver’s representative acknowledged that he understood why the witness was upset at smelling smoke, and the driver would move further away from the vehicle in the future. He asked that Members show leniency in this instance, suggesting that the situation had been escalated by the witness. The driver had been licensed to drive taxis for 13 years and had never had a complaint of this nature before.
The witness disputed the suggestion that the driver had only been smoking outside of his vehicle, but emphasised that his attitude was the main reason for his complaint.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 License given that the driver declared he had 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the three offences, which he had incurred in 2022, 2023 and 2024 respectively. He accumulated heavy mileage each year, normally 40,000-50,000 miles, and his priority was customer safety and excellent customer service. He understood there was no excuse for exceeding the speed limit but had appealed one of these convictions as a 30mph sign was covered by trees, but this had been unsuccessful.
He assured Members that he was a safe driver who went above and beyond for his passengers. He had been a licensed taxi driver for nearly seven years now and had received no complaints in that time. It was his main source of income, and he would endeavour not to put himself or the licensing authority in this situation again.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that none of the offences had occurred while he had passengers in the vehicle.
Members discussed the delay between the last SP30 conviction in February and the driver notifying the authority in August, noting that he was obligated under the conditions of his licence to inform them of any offence as soon as it occurred. The driver responded that he had declared it upon renewing his licence, and apologised for failing to do so sooner.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was 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 declared he had three SP30 motoring convictions and was pending a further two.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the convictions. He had worked as a taxi driver for many years and loved the job and being a part of the community. He supported his family on his single income and worked long hours to do so. He understood the responsibilities of being a taxi driver and the challenges of the job.
The driver’s representative updated Members on the status of the two pending convictions. The driver had received three points for one of them, meaning he now had twelve in total, and he had been ordered to take a speed awareness course for the other offence.
The Sub Committee queried whether he had received any kind of ban. The driver responded that he had paid the fines and had not had any notification of a ban, so he was still driving. He had been informed of the last set of points about three weeks ago and had a speed awareness course booked in October.
The Chair suggested that it was unusual to be offered a speed awareness course when a driver already had nine points, and noted that there was no evidence of whether he had been suspended or not. It was suggested that the driver be suspended until the licensing authority received evidence that the last two offences had been settled and the DVLA had not suspended him.
It was suggested that the matter be deferred to the next Sub Committee on 6th November. The driver’s representative noted that a month was a long time to wait when taxi driving was his main source of income. It was instead agreed that the driver would present the evidence to the licensing authority as soon as possible, while the authority would also check with the DVLA in the meantime.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended until the driver presents evidence to the licensing authority that the two recent convictions have been settled with no driving ban.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was 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 declared he had two SP30 motoring convictions and one SP50 motoring conviction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t intend to make excuses, but did feel he was a fit and proper person to safely drive a taxi. Two of his speeding offences happened in the same place on Manor Way, after the speed limit there was reduced from 40mph to 30mph. On both occasions he was travelling to the hospital to visit his mother without passengers in the vehicle and was caught going at 36mph.
He admitted that this was wrong and had taken his punishment. He had taken this experience on board and was now an even more careful driver than before. He did a lot for his passengers and took public safety very seriously. He had a character reference from a funeral director whose clients he regularly drove around, and felt he was a good representative of the city of Cardiff.
Members asked why it took several months to inform the licensing authority of these convictions. The driver responded that he was aware of the obligation to notify the council, but the court process had finished in April and he had sent off his licence. After it came back, he notified the authority after a week or two, which he acknowledged he should have done sooner.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was 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 declared he was disqualified from driving and had received a ban from the DVLA.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had a taxi licence since 2008 and as of the start of 2024 had not had any points on his licence. He had a drink and a meal with some friends one evening and gave one of them a lift home, not realising he was over the limit, and was pulled over. He was banned from driving for 15 months, which was reduced to 12 upon doing a course.
Before this ban had expired, he drove his car in an emergency, needing to pick up stock for the shop he ran, and was pulled over by the police for driving while disqualified. For this, he was given a nine month ban, fined and required to do community service.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that it was never safe to drink alcohol before driving, and this had been a huge mistake. He understood the severity of his crime and the impact it had on people. Driving while disqualified had also been a terrible mistake and he had faced the consequences of this.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
RESOLVED – T H A T the applications as outlined within the report, on pages 75
through 80, as determined by the Head of Sustainable Development under
delegated powers, be noted.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Draft Annual Report and Accounts 2023/24, be approved,
subject to slight amendments to add that the COIF investments are investments of
an ethical nature being made, as described by the Operational Manager for
Accountancy during the meeting, and that the Chair of this Committee be
authorised to sign the same on behalf of the trustees.
(2) T H A T a report be brought to a future meeting of this Committee,
regarding the Investment Policy and Strategy with the aim of this being reviewed
by Members, with particular regard to a number of the companies that the fund
was currently invested in.
Minutes - LW
No.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Having regard to the content of the report and accounts and to discussions
at the meeting, and in accordance with the requirements of the Charities Act 2011,
and the Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008.
(2) In order for Committee to review the Policy and Strategy, and to have them
reflect Committee’s views regarding the companies in which the fund was
invested.
Minutes - LW
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 which stated that he became threatening and angry when challenged in respect of the metered fare being charged, and failed to provide his driver identification when requested.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was at the taxi rank by the castle when a passenger approached him and asked to be taken home. He asked if she had a preferred route and proceeded with the journey, and as they were about to go over the Fairoak roundabout she queried the reading on the meter. She said he was ripping her off but he explained it was the normal meter price and she could take it up with the council if she wanted.
The passenger asked him to stop so she could get out and refused to pay the fare. He saw another cab coming and waved him down to explain the situation. The passenger asked for his ID and he said she could take a picture of his plate number. He recorded a video on his phone but had lost it while backing up his device recently.
Members queried why he had refused to show identification to the passenger when she requested it. The driver suggested that she had been aggressive to him, and he didn’t want to leave his seat. He had reached behind instead to get his papers from the back seat because this included the meter certificate which showed it was functioning correctly.
The Sub Committee explored the discrepancy between the fare requested and what the witness normally expected to pay. The driver didn’t know why exactly it was higher than normal, as every meter was the same. He recalled that when she got out of the cab, he said she could just give him what she had, not necessarily the whole fare.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness reiterated the details in her statement, a number of which contradicted the driver’s account. She suggested that the driver had not asked her about her preferred route, but she had asked to avoid Newport Road because it often took longer. As they stopped at the lights on Lake Road East, she noticed that the fare was higher than usual. She got taxis home a lot, frequently after midnight, and the fare was normally around £16. When she challenged this, the driver said that the council set the rates but clearly didn’t want to talk about it any further.
She added that when the driver reached into the back of the car she thought he was grabbing at her, which was distressing. He got out the meter certificate but she realised the meter was still running and by then had reached £21.70. She said she wouldn’t pay anything until he provided his name and badge number so she could make a complaint. She tried to get out of the vehicle to take a picture of the plate number but he locked the doors, and at one point claimed he didn’t know his registration number.
The driver then flagged down another taxi driver who spoke to both of them. The second driver agreed that the fare was higher than expected and suggested that she pay it before taking it up with the council. The driver had been aggressive and rude throughout, and she felt scared and unsafe.
Members discussed the witness’ account and asked whether she accepted the explanation that the doors locking could have been an automatic feature. She explained that she asked the driver to unlock the door but he didn’t. It was only when the second driver came back that the door was unlocked.
In response to questions from the driver’s representative, the witness stated that she couldn’t recall the starting amount on the meter when she got in the taxi. It was only when they got to the lake that she realised the fare was higher than normal. The Licensing Officer added that the council had retrospectively calculated a reasonable fare for the trip at the night-time rate to be about £17, though it might have been higher due to the bank holiday.
The driver’s representative asked whether the witness accepted that meters were checked by authorised council officials and could not be tampered with by the drivers. The witness did not agree, and suspected that it was either set to a higher rate or was already running when she got into the vehicle.
The driver’s representative suggested that the incident could be seen as a misunderstanding. The driver was just doing his job in getting her home, starting and stopping the meter accordingly, and it was not right that he was challenged about what he was required to charge. The driver then flagged down a third party to help defuse the situation.
The witness acknowledged the points made but still felt upset about the experience, and had not used a hackney carriage since. She emphasised that the driver’s conduct was unacceptable, since he had been aggressive and nasty and refused to provide his licence number.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(2)
Application 2
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 which stated that he displayed aggressive and intimidating behaviour by shouting and gesturing towards a cyclist using the regular bus lane.
The driver was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he had been cycling on Newport Road, coming from Roath towards Bute Park. There was a cycleway near the prison but he didn’t join it, choosing instead to use the bus lane which he was entitled to do. He stopped at a red light, and as he pulled away again a taxi started honking at him. The driver overtook him close by and shouted and gestured for him to move over. This was very upsetting and intimidating. It had happened before with other drivers, some of whom had been physically aggressive towards him.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the witness.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared relevant convictions on his DBS certificate as part of the application to renew his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been driving along the bus lane on Westgate Street last November. A bus inspector flagged him down and came over, and they had an altercation which led to the driver being accused of racism. This went to court and he was convicted and fined. He couldn’t afford to appeal and paid the fine in instalments.
He added that he had driven taxis for more than 15 years and never had a complaint. It was an unfortunate incident but he had taken it on the chin and hoped to move on. He relied on his job to pay the rent and support his family, and would be willing to do the relevant BTEC course if it would help.
Members queried what exactly he was alleged to have said. The driver explained that it was allegedly a racial slur, but he disputed saying this. He acknowledged that he shouldn’t have gotten angry, and anything similar were to happen again he would just ignore it and go to the next job.
The driver’s representative reiterated that he had driven taxis for more than 15 years and had a good record with no recent issues. He had disputed the complainant’s version of events but couldn’t afford to challenge the conviction so had to accept the fine and everything that came with it. Outside of work, he was of good character and worked with charities and food banks. Taxi driving was his sole source of income, and it was of vital importance that he be able to keep his licence. He had also indicated his willingness to complete the relevant qualification in order to shore up his knowledge and ability.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for two weeks, and that the driver be required to complete the BTEC Certificate In Taxi & Private Hire Driver (Level 2) within three months.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had been convicted of offences resulting in him being disqualified from driving.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that in 2021 he had taken a job on Cyncoed Road whilst driving for Uber. While driving on Newport Road, he saw a cyclist in the bus lane and passed him when the gap was sufficient. The traffic slowed down and the lane split into two, with his lane diverted slightly towards the middle of the road. The cyclist came up behind him, thinking that the taxi had cut him off, and kicked the car twice, swore at the driver and broke the mirror.
The driver added that he wanted to prosecute the cyclist for this damage so he pulled into the left on Colchester Avenue to stop him leaving the scene. As his vehicle stopped, the cyclist went into the front wing and hit his shoulder on the door. The ambulance and police were called, and the cyclist went to hospital while the driver was arrested. He was released with no charge that day but learned about a year later that criminal proceedings were underway, which led to him being disqualified from driving for two years.
He emphasised that he had not intended to do the cyclist any harm, only move across to stop him running off as he knew he wouldn’t have any registration. It was the worst mistake he had ever made, and he had lost years of earnings and a mortgage as a result.
He added that he had been a taxi driver for 34 years, and had done school runs for 17 of those. He had an excellent record and always went above and beyond for his passengers, and felt he was a good ambassador for the city of Cardiff. He missed doing the job a lot, as it was not only his source of income but also his social life. He didn’t feel he would be able to work anywhere else, and hoped he would be allowed to keep his badges.
Members asked what he would do differently if an incident like this were to happen again. The driver accepted that his reaction had made him the culprit, and in the future he would just ignore it and carry on with the next job. He stressed that what happened that day was out of character for him.
Members queried the details of the incident, noting that a news article about it differed in some respects. The driver maintained that this was an inaccurate report that got key details wrong.
Members asked how he felt about sharing the road with cyclists in general. The driver emphasised that he took his responsibilities both as a taxi driver and under the Highway Code very seriously, and he understood how dangerous a car could be when used improperly. He acknowledged that by not pulling over and calming down he had made a very serious error, but it would never happen again.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire licence be suspended until such a time that the driver produces a certificate of the SQA ‘Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi and Private Hire Driver’ qualification.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction to consider.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged he had several convictions from his younger days, but he had come a long way since then and turned his life around, and did not pose any danger to the public.
Members noted that the guidance advised not issuing the licence in a case like this unless there were exceptional circumstances, and asked what these might be. The driver explained that his last conviction was seven years ago, and since then he had a clean record. He had been working consistently since then and had become a real part of the community who was always helping others out.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had recently received an endorsement on his licence due to defective tyres. He had bought a car which passed its MOT, and while driving it back to Cardiff was stopped for a bald tyre. He had received three points and a fine for this.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
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.
2023/01102/RG3 Received on 15 November 2023
(p74)
APPLICANT: Vale of Glamorgan Council Civic Offices , Holton Road , Barry,
CF63 4RU
AGENT: Mr Jon Hurley Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park,
Cardiff, CF23 8RS
Land at Former Eagleswell School, Eagleswell Road, Llantwit Major
Minutes - AR
No.
Temporary housing accommodation and associated works
Deemed planning consent be GRANTED subject to the conditions as contained
within the report as well as an amendment to condition 8 and an additional
condition 14:
Amendment to condition 8
Any part of the rear windows in plots 9-27 that are below 1.7m in height about the
level of the floor in the room that is serves shall be obscurely glazed and fixed in
accordance with details that shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance
with the approved details prior to the first beneficial occupation of the
development. The windows shall thereafter be retained at all times in accordance
with the approved details.
Addition of new condition
14. Within 12 months of the date of this planning permission, a plan/strategy to
manage the removal of the temporary residential units from the site shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Strategy
will detail the plans to relocate the modular units to alternative sites within the 5-
year period from the grant of planning permission and should include the
commencement of this work at least 18 months prior to the expiry of the planning
permission with the 7 plots 21-27 being identified as those to be removed from the
site first. The plan will detail the proposed method and numbers of units to be
relocated to newly identified sites in batches appropriate to the size of the
receiving site. The temporary residential units shall thereafter be removed from the
site in accordance with the approved details.
Condition 14 Reason:
To ensure that local amenities are safeguarded and to ensure the development
accords with Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy), MD1 (Location of New
Development) and MD2 (Design of New Development).
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00888/FUL Received on 16 April 2024
(p117)
APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Stuart & Lizzie Reid 4 Cliff Parade, Penarth, CF64 5BP
AGENT: Mr Tim Fry 88 Glebe Street, Penarth, CF64 1EF
4, Cliff Parade, Penarth
Demolition of existing house and construction of replacement dwelling
Minutes - AR
No.
APPROVED - Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00948/FUL Received on 3 June 2024
(p159)
APPLICANT: Marc Lewis 10 Bronheulwen, Porth, Mid Glamorgan , CF39 0BJ
AGENT: Mr Matthew Biggs Suite 212, Morgan Arcade, Cardiff, CF10 1AF
Land off Sandy Lane, Ystradowen
Full planning application for residential development together with engineering,
drainage, landscaping, highways, and other associated works
RESOLVED – T H A T, subject to the below conditions and subject to the
interested person(s) first entering into a Section 106 legal agreement to include
the following necessary planning obligations:
• To secure the provision of the identified 19 affordable housing units on the
site.
• To pay a financial contribution to the sum of £105,800 to contribute towards
the provision of sustainable transport facilities in the vicinity of the site.
• To pay a financial contribution to the sum of £145,992 towards education
requirements arising from the development.
• To pay a financial contribution to the sum of £40,320 to provide / improve
areas of public open space.
• To pay a financial contribution to the sum of £57,960 towards the provision
of new, or enhancement of existing, community facilities in the area, and
• To provide Public Art to the value of 1% of the build costs
In addition to a clause requiring the payment of a fee to monitor and implement
the legal agreement (£7,081.44 in this case).
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
Minutes - AR
No.
2021/01516/FUL Received on 15 September 2022
(p229)
APPLICANT: Mr N Rubenstein c/o DHPC, Lytchett Minster , BH16 6FE
AGENT: Mr Darryl Howells Darryl Howells Planning Consultancy, Unit 6, The
Axium Centre, Dorchester Road , Lytchett Minster, BH16 6FE
Woodside Hamlet, Ham Manor, Llantwit Major
Siting of five proposed tourist pods and wooden platform accesses
REFUSED – Subject to the Reasons for Refusal as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
Minutes - AR
RESOLVED – T H A T the applications as outlined within the report, on pages 24
through 25, as determined by the Head of Sustainable Development under
delegated powers, be noted.
(ii) To Confirm Tree Preservation Order No. 3 2024 for Tree at London House,
89 Eastgate, Cowbridge –
The matter was reported to Planning Committee under the Council’s approved
scheme of delegation because objections had been received, following the serving
of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
The application site related to London House, 89, Eastgate a mid-terraced
property located within the Cowbridge Conservation Area and Settlement
Boundary.
A Section 211 Notice was submitted which sought the removal of a sycamore tree
located to the rear of the property, due to concerns stated that it is was likely that
the union of tree would fail (under ref. 2024/00201/TCA).
Due to the notable amenity value of the group that the Sycamore tree was located
within, its condition, life expectancy and the tree’s visibility from Melbourne Close
and the High Street and the contribution it made to this part of the Conservation
Area, a Tree Preservation Order (No. 3 of 2024) was served on 20th March 2024.
Minutes - AR
No.
Letters were sent to the owners and neighbours, who were given 28 days to
comment on the TPO. The local planning authority received one letter of
objection. Whilst objections had been raised to the TPO, it was considered that
none of the issues raised by the objectors provided sufficient justification to
override the reasons in favour of confirmation of the TPO. Therefore, it was
recommended that the TPO be confirmed without modification.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Order be confirmed.
Reason for decision
The decision to recommend the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order had
been taken in accordance with Section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 (as amended), which empowered the local planning authority to make
provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands.
It was considered that the decision complied with the Council’s well-being
objectives and the sustainable development principle in accordance with the
requirements of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.