Mae cynghorau'n gweithio gyda'r heddlu ac eraill ar ddiogelwch cymunedol, yn rhedeg teledu cylch cyfyng, yn trwyddedu tafarndai, tacsis a mangreoedd gamblo, ac yn delio ag ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol fel sŵn.
Mae penderfyniadau trwyddedu'n cael eu gwneud gan bwyllgor neu is-bwyllgor trwyddedu o gynghorwyr, sy'n clywed gan ymgeiswyr a gwrthwynebwyr.
Gallwch wrthwynebu cais am drwydded yn ystod ei gyfnod ymgynghori. Rhowch wybod i'r cyngor am sŵn ac ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol.
| Cyngor | Eitemau | Gyda phenderfyniad |
|---|---|---|
| Caerdydd | 43 | 27 |
| Abertawe | 26 | 4 |
| Bro Morgannwg | 15 | 12 |
| Sir Gâr | 8 | 3 |
| Casnewydd | 4 | 0 |
| Rhondda Cynon Taf | 2 | 0 |
| Ceredigion | 2 | 1 |
| Powys | 1 | 0 |
| Sir Fynwy | 1 | 0 |
| Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr | 1 | 0 |
| Torfaen | 1 | 0 |
| Blaenau Gwent | 1 | 1 |
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.
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 spoke and acted inappropriately to a member of the public and her son when they were in his vehicle. The complainant stated that the driver read and kept the paper that had her personal information on, he then advised her not to ring Dragon but call him on his number instead, he then gave her a card with his personal mobile number and name on it. The driver stated that he had taken the paper to double check the address, he was not aware of the details of the fare and was only being polite and courteous by chatting. He added that the business card with his name and number on was in amongst the other cards by mistake, his daughter had written on some of his old cards, and he gave this one by mistake. The complainant addressed the Sub Committee and reiterated her complaint, as outlined in the papers. She added that when she had got back to her address and relayed the conversation with the driver to her friend, she had been advised to make a complaint. The representative for the driver stated that the driver would not have known the specific details of the booking and the customers vulnerability. He would only have been advised of the pick up and drop off location by the operator. The driver confirmed that he has a clean record, and this stated that this had been a genuine misunderstanding for which he apologised. RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning and be mindful in future of the conversations he has with customers based on their situation/circumstances. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from a hackney carriage driver that another driver displayed aggressive behaviour to him include shouting, cursing and threats to injure and damage him. The driver is also accused of attempting to head butt another driver whilst plying for hire at Mill Lane taxi rank. The Sub Committee received representations from the driver. The driver stated that he was waiting in the taxi rank on Mill Lane, he was near the front of the queue and customers approached the car in from and then him, asking if it was the car they had booked, he said he was not and then another taxi approached and pulled in and they got in that car and left. The taxi in front of him left with a customer and he pulled forward. After this the driver of the car behind him got out of his car and knocked on his window, he was very aggressive and was accusing him of refusing fares and giving them to other drivers. He said he tried to explain what had happened, but he wouldn’t listen, so he got out of his car and they carried on arguing. Then he got back into his car with a customer and pulled away. The complainant addressed the Sub-Committee and stated that on the date in question he was working at the Marriott taxi rank on Mill Lane, he was 2nd in the queue and the other driver was choosing fares and giving fares to other drivers who were his accomplices and not the other fellow taxi drivers. He left his vehicle and spoke to the driver and confronted him about his actions and told him he had been waiting to get fares for almost 40/50 minutes. He warned him if he carried on doing it he would be reported to licensing. The complainant stated that the other driver then became very aggressive and tried to headbutt him and other drivers had to get involved to stop it from resulting in further aggressive behaviour. He added that the other driver also made threats saying he was going to "smash up my vehicle" These incidents were reported to 101 and the complainant told the Sub-Committee that he felt so scared that he did not work for a few days in case he saw him. The representative for the driver state that if the complainant had not left his vehicle and acted aggressively towards the driver with no evidence of what had gone on, they would not be sat there today. The driver and the complainant responded to questions from Sub Committee Members and the meeting was adjourned for the decision. RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning and be mindful in future of his conduct. (3) (4) Application 3 (In absence) The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remains a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that he has been Jailed for 4 years and 8 months following a conviction of robbery. RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Drivers licence be revoked. Application 4 The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remains a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that he has been convicted of 2 motoring offences amounting to 9 penalty points. The driver failed to notify the authority at the time of receiving the points instead waiting until the renewal application and declaring them on the application form. The Sub Committee received representations from the driver. The driver stated that in 2021 he was having family problems and his wife was suffering from depression. He spent nine months away from the family home and during that time his wife had not passed on any of his mail. He added that about 7 or 8 months after he had left, his daughter had sent a picture of a letter from the DVLA, after which he called them, but the case had already been sent to the court and he was told to wait. There had been two camera offences and the driver stated he did not know about them or the points. He added that between 2007 and 2021 he had held a clean licence. During Covid he had taken up delivering take away food, which was when the offences occurred. The representative for the driver asked the Sub Committee to take into consideration the drivers previous clean record and the fact that he is now back with his family and has five children to support. RESOLVED – That the driver receives a written warning, be reminded of his duties as a taxi-driver, and to complete a relevant BTEC course within three months to familiarise himself with the standards expected of him.
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 agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control
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, REFUSED the application. The Sub Committee considered that the application did not overcome the rebuttable presumption that the application should be refused and that the cumulative impact policy should be applied.
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.
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 following conditions: 1. After 20:00 The use of the external area is restricted to dining customers only. 2. Allocation of customers to external tables must only be carried out by the DPS or duty manager. 3. After 20:00 a member of staff must undertake regular patrols of the external area and perimeter on Bangor Street to monitor noise levels from patrons. These patrols must be recorded and retained for a period of 3 months (either electronically or a physical document) The record should include the time, date of patrol, who it was undertaken by and any comments or resulting action taken. The premises is under an obligation to inform Cardiff Council if the noise levels are excessive on a regular basis. 4. No speakers or music will be used after 20:00 in the external area. The premises licence holder shall invite residents to a meeting every 6 months.
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: That the Council AGREED to: 1. approve the election of Chairs and Deputy Chairs (as appropriate) to the Regulatory and Other Committees and Groups as follows: Committee Chair Deputy Chair Constitution Committee Cllr Russell Goodway - Corporate Parenting Advisory Committee Cllr Sarah Merry as Deputy Leader - Council Appeals Committee Cllr Chris Lay - Democratic Services Committee Cllr John Lancaster - Employment Conditions Committee Cllr Chris Weaver - Licensing Committee Cllr Michael Michael Cllr Maliika Kaaba Pensions Committee Cllr Chris Weaver - Planning Committee Cllr Ed Stubbs Cllr Irene Humphreys Public Protection Committee Cllr Michael Michael Cllr Maliika Kaaba Bilingual Cardiff Working Group Cllr Owen Jones - Local Authority Governor Panel Cllr Sarah Merry as Deputy Leader - Investment Advisory Panel Cllr Chris Weaver - Works Council Cllr Chris Weaver - Health & Safety Advisory Forum Cllr Chris Weaver - 1. approve the proportional allocation of Scrutiny Chairs as set out in paragraph 4, Table A of the report; and 2. note the proposed appointments of the Scrutiny Chairs made by Party Groups pursuant to Part 6 of the Local Government Act (Wales) Measure 2011 as follows: Scrutiny Committee Chair Deputy Chair Children & Young People Cllr Lee Bridgeman N/A Community & Adult Services Cllr Rhys Taylor N/A Economy & Culture Cllr Peter Wong N/A Environmental Cllr Owen Jones N/A Policy Review & Performance Cllr Joel Williams N/A