Trwyddedau ar gyfer tafarndai, tacsis a digwyddiadau, ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol a safonau masnach.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
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.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Mae penderfyniadau trwyddedu'n cael eu gwneud gan bwyllgor neu is-bwyllgor trwyddedu o gynghorwyr, sy'n clywed gan ymgeiswyr a gwrthwynebwyr.
Dweud eich dweud
Gallwch wrthwynebu cais am drwydded yn ystod ei gyfnod ymgynghori. Rhowch wybod i'r cyngor am sŵn ac ymddygiad gwrthgymdeithasol.
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 –
(1) T H A T the amendments to the Multi-Location Meetings Policy as set out in
paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the report be included in the Council’s Constitution.
(2) T H A T Section 18 of the Constitution Contract Procedure Rules be replaced
with a revised Section 18 (revised Appendix A) to the report as set out in paragraph
2.5 of the report.
(3) T H A T amendments to Sections 14.10 Functions not to be the responsibility
of an Authority’s Cabinet / Executive, 14.16 (f) Terms of Reference of the Public
Protection Licensing Committee and Section 26 Officer Delegations – Director of
Environment and Housing and Head of Shared Regulatory Services be, approved for
inclusion in the Council’s Constitution as contained within paragraphs 2.7 to 2.11 of
the report.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To update the Multi-Location Meetings Policy within the current Constitution
as agreed by Cabinet on 18th July, 2024.
(2) Having regard to the latest legislation.
(3) To update the relevant sections having regard to the implementation of some
regulations by the end of November 2024 within the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017.
No.
RESOLVED – T H A T the proposed Statement of Licensing Principles for 2025-
2028, as detailed in Appendix A to the report, be approved and the report be referred
to Cabinet and then on to Council for final approval.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and to discussions at the meeting, and to
ensure that the Council fulfilled its statutory duty as a Licensing Authority.
September 17 Minutes and DN (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 – That the public be excluding from the meeting during consideration of the following item accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) as the item contains exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 18 of Parts 4 and 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).
‘Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime.’
An application for the review of a Premises Licence was received from South Wales Police in respect of Cardiff Bay Convenience Store, Bute Street.
The Sub Committee heard representations from South Wales Police, the licence holder and interested others.
Decision
The Sub Committee considered the Premises Licence Review in respect of Bay View Convenience Store 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 and Cumulative Impact Assessment, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and licence holder during the hearing in its determination of the matter.
The Sub Committee felt that revocation of the Premises Licence was not proportionate to promoting the licensing objectives. However, they felt that a suspension of three months would be suitable considering the seriousness of the breaches that occurred.
Furthermore, the Sub Committee felt that the conditions that the licence holder had offered should be applied to the licence, apart from the condition relating to CCTV which they felt was not sufficient. The Sub Committee therefore proposed that the CCTV condition offered should be amended so that footage was retained for a period of no less than 31 days and the timestamp of the date and time of the CCTV be required to be accurate.
The Sub Committee felt that this suspension and these conditions were appropriate for promoting the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application.
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 has been received stating he refused to take a journey from Cardiff train station to Penarth after allegedly saying he was available for hire.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that the driver in attendance at the meeting was not the one he had dealt with and submitted a complaint about.
RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken.
(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 has been received stating that he refused to take a passenger using the meter and requested £30 for a journey within the Cardiff boundary.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that the complaint related to an alleged incident on 3rd February 2024 which was the evening of the Wales v Scotland International rugby match. At 8.55 pm on the evening of 3rd February 2024 and the time of the alleged incident St Mary’s Street would have been very busy. The driver was not working but was present as he had pre-arranged to pick up his nephew as he knew he would have been struggling to get out the city after the rugby international match. There was evidence from the nephew that he had made arrangements with the driver to collect him and take him home.
He added that the driver did not speak to the witness and had no reason to speak to him as he was there only to take his nephew home. Further, if the driver had been working taking a fare to Pentwyn would have cost more than a typical Saturday night due to the level of congestion in the city. It was noted that the journey to Roath with his nephew took 45 minutes and Pentwyn would have taken double that time.
He suggested that perhaps the witness was confused as he had asked the driver five times how much it would cost to take him to Pentwyn. He also referred to the photograph submitted by the witness. He stated that there was no illuminated sign in the middle of the roof of the car with the word Taxi written on it as he was not working but waiting for his nephew.
The driver’s representative queried why the driver would refuse a fare if he was working because he would be paid more if journey took longer due the congestion in the city centre. He also added that the driver was not someone who has caused the council problems, always used the taxi meter and provided the correct questions when asked.
Summarising he said that the balance of probabilities would suggest that the incident did not happen. There were two statements to support the driver – his and his nephew’s, and the statement that the complainant had to repeat his request five times to the drive, and also the witness was not present. He suggested that the driver was a fit and proper person and that the allegation was not substantiated.
RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he took payment of £25 from a member of the public in a private hire vehicle without the fare being booked in advance, and then offered and took payment for a second un-booked fare with the same member of the public the following day.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the timeline in the case was crucial and referred to the fact that the allegation dated back to July 2023. The witness had stated he made a booking with the taxi company but the company had a record of him cancelling the booking at 12.03 am. The driver was not working that night which had been confirmed by the taxi company. The witness had suggested he had spoken to the driver and the driver had asked for confirmation that the name matched the booking.
The driver’s representative said that the original booking was cancelled and had not been received by the driver as it had been allocated to another driver – the implication being that it was the original driver who had the name and details from the taxi company.
The driver’s representative stated that the witness had been taken to their home address, and the driver had to wait a significant period before the witness was driven to his destination. The witness had been pleased with the charge of £25 and commended, who he believed was, the driver on the level of service provided.
However, a few hours later at 3.00 am the witness claimed to have seen the same person. He had gone from commending someone on a £25 fare to an argument around a £6.50 fare. The driver’s representative noted that this did not make sense. According to the witness statement he stated the fare was normally cost £6 to return home again and then claims he was told to exit the vehicle as he does not have the full fare.
The driver’s representative stated that the witness did not describe the driver, car, colour, make or registration details. He also did not contact the taxi company until 10 to 14 days after the alleged incident. He was then advised to contact the Council which was 6 months later in 2024.
He said that the driver was contacted for the first time eight months after the original allegation in July 2023 and asked whether he recalled something happening. It was noted that the driver would have made between 8,000 to 10,000 taxi journeys during that time and was adamant that he did not pick the witness up. The witness also referred to a BACS payment but the driver had never taken a BACS payment.
Responding to questions the driver’s representative clarified the booking process. He explained that when booking on the app or at the taxi base the passenger was asked for their name, pick up point and destination. The driver would then receive confirmation on an app and had the option of accepting or rejecting the booking. If they accept the fare, they would receive the pick-up and destination details and the name of person who had made the booking. Only the driver who accepted the booking would be able to view the booking. If the passenger had cancelled the booking what would be logged on system was that the booking was cancelled and the driver would no longer have access to that journey but it would remain on the company system.
To summarise, the driver’s representative stated that the driver disputed the complaint in two respects. Firstly, it was not him and secondly, in relation to the allegation itself it was not substantiated on its own merits as £25 was accepted for the first fare and then £6.50 was claimed by the witness to be an overcharge for the return journey. It was also noted that the witness was not present to clarify issues.
RESOLVED – that no further action would be taken.
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 declared he had a conviction for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.
The Sub Committee heard the case in the absence of the driver. The driver was contacted during the meeting by telephone to confirm his attendance. However, no response was received. The application had been scheduled to be heard at 11.30 am. To allow time for the driver to arrive the Sub Committee waited until 11.34 am before commencing the hearing.
The Sub Committee noted the circumstances and the driver’s conviction for the possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. Additional information had also been provided by the police. The driver had no previous complaints and had been driving since 2007, however the Sub Committee were mindful of the guidance on determining the suitability of applicants and licensees in the Hackney and Private Hire Trades and that a licence should not be granted unless at least 7 years had elapsed since the completion of any sentence.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be revoked as of 7.08.24
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had 6 penalty points on his licence, arising from two offences committed on 29th July 2022 for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks and driving otherwise than in accordance with a license. The applicant failed to declare these endorsements on his application for a grant of a licence and ticked the ‘No’ box when answering the question on the application form.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was a fit and proper person. He said his conviction had been a mistake. He had been living abroad and had been in possession of a driving licence since 2008. When he returned to the UK in July 2022 he had not known that his driving licence was not valid until he had been stopped by the police. When he contacted the DVLA he said they did not have an explanation for him as to why his licence was not valid.
When the driver attended court for the driving conviction, he informed the Sub Committee that he had been told he could drive with his international driving licence but could take his driving test again. He did so and passed within one month. He said he paid for insurance for the vehicle but it was not accepted as his driving licence was showing as not valid. The insurance company emailed him to say the payment was rejected and he confirmed he had not received an insurance policy document. The driver said he had held a full driving licence for the last 2 years and had not accumulated any points during those 2 years.
Responding to questions the driver informed the Sub Committee that he had not declared the points on his application form as he had not understood what the term ‘endorsement’ meant. He confirmed he now knew what the term meant.
He also confirmed that when he held his first UK driving licence he had been in possession of a card and photo and that he was aware it was valid from 2008 to 2018. He informed the Sub Committee that he had changed his address and was going to change his licence but was convicted before he had managed to do this. The driver confirmed he was aware of the seriousness of the offence as the police had taken his car and he had to obtain an insurance document to release it.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application.
Members noted that South Wales Police, Environmental Health Pollution Control and the Licensing Authority, acting in their capacity as a Responsible Authority, objected to the application. South Wales Police and Environmental Health put forward a number of conditions that, if granted, would like applied to the licence. These conditions had been agreed by the applicant.
The Sub Committee acknowledged that the premises was subject to enforcement action by the Shared Regulatory Services and noted that action was taken by the owner to ensure that the management responsible no longer worked at the premises.
Members considered that the additional conditions agreed by the applicant could help to mitigate the issues in Caroline Street, as outlined in Claire Dewhurst’s presentation.
Members carefully considered all the representations and felt that the additional conditions agreed with South Wales Police would not negatively impact the licensing objectives or add to the negative cumulative impact in the area.
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, and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application.
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C13, 23rd May, 2024 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
No.
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME – LAND AT UPPER COSMESTON FARM, PENARTH (PART I) (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C30, 6th June, 2024 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME – LAND AT UPPER COSMESTON FARM, PENARTH (PART II) (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C35, 6th June, 2024 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
RENEW OF PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS FOR THE PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL RELATED ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C66, 11th July, 2024 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
RENEWAL OF PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS – DOG CONTROLS (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C67, 11th July, 2024 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
No.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the proposal of renewing the existing Public Space Protection Orders
for controlled alcohol zones be agreed.
(2) T H A T the contents of the public consultation results and the inclusion of
new restricted areas be noted.
(3) T H A T the proposed additional areas as part of the renewal process be
agreed and incorporated into the Orders.
(4) T H A T the resolutions of Cabinet as regards the report be noted and agreed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To assist the Council to robustly manage alcohol related Anti-Social
Behaviour at its Resorts, Town centres and Public Open Spaces.
(2) To ensure the Council has considered the views of the public and other
stakeholders and the Orders reflected current issues.
(3) To ensure the Council and Police had the appropriate powers to protect the
quality of lives of those who lived, worked and visited restricted areas and to permit
the majority of the law-abiding citizens to use and enjoy public spaces, safe from
anti-social behaviour.
(4) The introduction and renewal of Public Space Protection Orders was a matter
for determination by Full Council and to ensure their prompt introduction.
No.
RENEWAL OF PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS – DOG CONTROLS (REF)
In presenting the report, the Leader advised that there were some very specific
issues in terms of dog control and the anti-social behaviour by their owners. She
noted that all highways and footways were covered in these Orders and referred to
the extra recommendation that had been agreed by Cabinet relating to Llantwit Major
Recreation Ground.
Councillor Franks enquired as to how the Orders were likely to be enforced and what
resources would be available and requested that the boundary of Murchfield be
clearly identified, together with Highgate Place play area. The Leader said that she
would request a copy of the boundaries for all Members and they would assist
enforcement going forward. She reiterated that Members had had a number of
opportunities to respond to consultation in respect of this report and that such
conversations should have been undertaken at that time.
Councillor Mahoney also commented on how enforcement would go forward, in
particular he said having regard to sports fields. The Leader commented that the
rules and procedures relating to sports fields was specific to those areas and where
they were gated it was noted that the level of dog fouling had increased. It was the
fact that dog owners were not controlling their dogs and it was noticeable that when
the nights closed in this was becoming far more of an issue.
Councillor Carroll welcomed the report, acknowledging that it was vital that
enforcement took place, suggesting that plain clothed enforcement officers be a
good idea.
Councillor Protheroe recorded her thanks for the inclusion of dogs to be on leads for
Ogmore and Southerndown and referred to the number of dog attacks on sheep that
had been happening on the Ogmore and Southerndown common. In her view the
Orders were terribly important, timely and vitally important to educate people and
suggested that further signs be placed on the common, it being noted that the
common was not a country park.
The Leader said it would have been useful if Members who had concerns or issues
had raised them earlier and had engaged in the consultation process, however, she
asked that if any Member had any further details that they wished to share that they
contact the relevant officers.
Councillor Dr. Johnson concurred with the Leader that there had been a significantly
long period of consultation on the matter. Councillor Morgan wished it to be noted in
the record that there were a number of responsible dog owners who behaved
appropriately and irresponsible dog owners, in his view, were few and far between.
Having considered the matter, it was subsequently
No.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the proposal of renewing the existing Public Space Protection Orders
for dog controls be endorsed.
(2) T H A T the contents of the public consultation results be noted.
(3) T H A T the proposed new additional areas as part of the renewal process be
agreed and incorporated into the Orders.
(4) T H A T the resolutions of Cabinet in respect of the report be noted and
agreed.
(5) T H A T subject to formal agreement with Llantwit Major Town Council,
Llantwit Major Recreation Ground be added to the proposals with enforcement
subject to the agreement of Llantwit Major Town Council who own the land.
Reasons for decisions
(1) In order that the Council had robust Orders in place for dog controls on
adopted highways, footpaths, resorts/beaches, town centres, sports pitches and
public open spaces.
(2) To ensure the views of the public and other stakeholders were considered
and the Orders reflected current issues.
(3) To ensure the Council had appropriate powers to protect the quality of lives of
those who lived, worked and visited the Vale.
(4) The renewal and introduction of Public Space Protection Orders were a
matter for determination by Full Council.
(5) To include Llantwit Major Recreation Ground to the proposals, with the
support of the local ward Members and in agreement with Llantwit Major Town
Council.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the updates to the Cabinet Quarterly Work Programme for April to
June 2024 attached at Appendix 1 to the report be agreed.
(2) T H A T the Cabinet Quarterly Work Programme July to September 2024
attached at Appendix 2 to the report be endorsed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To monitor progress.
(2) To approve the Work Programme for July to September 2024.
C61 USE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S EMERGENCY POWERS (EL/PR)
(SCRUTINY – ALL) –
The Leader presented the report, the purpose of which was to notify Cabinet of the
exercising of Emergency Powers by the Chief Executive since the last report on 23rd
May, 2024.
Councillor Williams referred specifically to Paragraph 2.1(a) concerning the Western
Vale Wellbeing Hub for Older Adults and People Living with Dementia and
appreciated the use of emergency powers to enable Officers to act quickly to support
excellent provision.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Chief Executive's Emergency Powers be
noted.
Reasons for decisions
To inform Cabinet.
C62 RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN (ROWIP) (DL/SP)
(SCRUTINY – ENVIRONMENT AND REGENERATION) –
The Deputy Leader presented the report, the purpose of which was to enable
Cabinet to consider and approve the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP).
The ROWIP was a live document and changes could be made as circumstances
demanded, for example, changes in legislation.
Councillor Williams had attended the Local Access Forum meeting where the
principles of the ROWIP, the network and various improvements had been
discussed. The changes to footpath accessibility in the Vale of Glamorgan had been
noted at that meeting, including wheelchair accessibility, which had a positive impact
for local residents and were a part of the ROWIP, though not stated explicitly as a
benefit.
The Leader said that another positive aspect was the availability of routes
electronically to be able to choose which routes were available and with much
improved direct access.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) attached as Appendix
A to the report be endorsed as the Council’s replacement version and its adoption in
principle agreed subject to consideration by the Environment and Regeneration
Scrutiny Committee.
(2) T H A T the ROWIP be referred to the Environment and Regeneration
Scrutiny Committee for its consideration.
(3) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Head of Sustainable
Development in consultation with the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for
Sustainable Places to make typographical or other minor changes as necessary prior
to publication or during the life of the Plan should this become necessary.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To ensure the Council fully discharged its statutory duty under the
Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 to review and publish every 10
years, its Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP), outlining how it proposed to
meet its Well-being and Improvement Objectives to maintain, improve and publicise
the rights of way network for the public.
(2) To ensure appropriate scrutiny of the report.
(3) To make typographical or other minor changes as necessary without the need
to seek Cabinet approval.
C63 UPDATE ON THE CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSAL TO
CREATE A WELSH MEDIUM SPECIALIST RESOURCE BASE AT YSGOL
GWAUN Y NANT FROM SEPTEMBER 2024 (EAWL) (SCRUTINY – LEARNING
AND CULTURE) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report, the purpose of which was to advise
Cabinet of the outcome of the consultation exercise undertaken on the proposal to
create a Welsh Medium Specialist Resource Base at Ysgol Gwaun y Nant from
September 2024.
Some of the issues raised as part of the consultation and responses to those issues
were discussed in paragraphs 2.9 to 2.13 of the report.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the consultation document (attached at Appendix A to the report), the
Consultation Response report (attached at Appendix B to the report) and other
appendices included as part of the report, including the Community and Equality
Impact Assessments at Appendices C and D respectively, to create a Welsh Medium
Specialist Resource Base at Ysgol Gwaun y Nant from September 2024 be noted.
(2) T H A T the proposal to create a Welsh Medium Specialist Resource Base at
Ysgol Gwaun y Nant from September 2024 through the publication of the proposals
in the form of a statutory notice be approved.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To ensure that all relevant information was considered by Cabinet in reaching
a decision on whether to publish a statutory notice on the proposals.
(2) To ensure that there was capacity to provide integrated provision for pupils
with a diagnosis of an autism spectrum condition and those experiencing significant
social communication, interaction, or regulation difficulties, reflecting the Council’s
commitments to meeting the requirements of the Additional Learning Needs and
Education Tribunal Act 2018 (ALNET Act 2018) and in its 10 year Welsh in
Education Strategic Plan (WESP) and Welsh Government’s Cymraeg 2050 strategy.
C64 WELSH LANGUAGE STANDARDS ANNUAL MONITORING
REPORT 2023-24 (EAWL) (SCRUTINY – LEARNING AND CULTURE AND
CORPORATE PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCES) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report, the purpose of which was to seek
approval for the Council’s Annual Welsh Monitoring Report and update on 5-year
Promotion Strategy.
Councillor Williams said he looked forward to the matter being discussed at the
relevant Scrutiny Committees.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Annual Welsh Monitoring Report for 2023-24 (attached at
Appendix 1 to the report) and Update on the Welsh Language Promotional Strategy
(attached at Appendix 2 to the report) be approved in principle, subject to
consideration by Learning and Culture and Corporate Performance and Resources
Scrutiny Committees.
(2) T H A T the report (and appendices) be referred to Learning and Culture and
Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committees for consideration and if
endorsed by the Committees, that the report be published.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To allow the Council to meet its reporting duty to the Welsh Commissioner as
part of the Welsh Language Standards.
(2) To enable Learning and Culture and Corporate Performance and Resources
Scrutiny Committees to consider the report (and appendices) prior to publication.
C65 PERMANENT TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER – SCHOOL STREET
CLOSURE DRYDEN ROAD, PENARTH (NBS) (SCRUTINY – ENVIRONMENT
AND REGENERATION) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report, the purpose of which was to agree to
make the experimental school street closure on Dryden Road for Fairfield Primary
School, Penarth a permanent order.
An Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) had been in place since April 2023
and gave Officers time to assess the success or otherwise of the pilot school street
closure as the first type of its kind in the Vale of Glamorgan. Feedback from
residents which had been positive was included in Paragraph 2.7 of the report as
well as Appendix D to the report. Appendix C to the report referred to vehicle
speeds and traffic volumes that were assessed prior to implementation and
monitored during the experimental school street closure, with very little traffic
entering at times of closure.
Councillor Birch, as a local ward Member, said that the experimental TRO had been
a popular move with parents. There continued to be issues with inconsiderate
parking which existed prior to the pilot but had been well received locally. Councillor
Wilson said that the other local ward Member, Councillor Buckley, had also been
supportive of the pilot.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T public notice be advertised for the Experimental Traffic Regulation
Order for a school street closure on Dryden Road, Penarth as detailed in Appendices
A and B to the report, to be made permanent.
(2) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Director of Environment and
Housing, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood and Building
Services to agree the final design and extent of the school street closure and that the
Monitoring Officer / Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to execute
any legal Orders to implement the Scheme.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To provide the necessary authority to the progress with the permanent Traffic
Regulation Order.
(2) To provide the necessary authority to ensure the scheme was implemented in
the most appropriate and efficient manner.
C66 RENEWAL OF PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS FOR THE
PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL RELATED ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR (NBS)
(SCRUTINY – ENVIRONMENT AND REGENERATION) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report, the purpose of which was to ensure there
remained effective controls and management arrangements aimed at preventing
incidences of alcohol related anti-social behaviour in public places.
Councillor Wilson said that such Orders had been in place previously and required
renewal with minor variations to the existing Public Space Protection Orders
(PSPOs), in respect of the prevention of alcohol related Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
Such Orders would not prohibit any alcohol consumption in the areas proposed but
provided a means of control should there be instances of anti-social behaviour.
Paragraph 2.12 of the report referred to the inclusion of Orders at twelve new sites
as a result of consultation and representations received from the public and Elected
Members. Survey responses were included within Appendix A which showed support
for such controls in the described areas for a further three years.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the proposal of renewing the existing Public Space Protection Orders
for controlled alcohol zones be agreed and the Orders referred to Full Council, for
consideration.
(2) T H A T the contents of the public consultation results and the inclusion of
new restricted areas be noted.
(3) T H A T the proposed additional areas as part of the renewal process be
agreed and incorporated into the Orders for consideration by Full Council.
(4) T H A T the resolutions of Cabinet as regards the report are referred to Full
Council for consideration.
(5) T H A T use of the urgency procedure set out at Section 15.14 of the
Council’s Constitution be agreed in respect of recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 4 to
allow the matter to be considered at Full Council on 15th July, 2024.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To assist the Council robustly manage alcohol related Anti-Social Behaviour
at its Resorts, Town centres and Public Open Spaces.
(2) To ensure the Council considered the views of the public and other
stakeholders and the Orders reflect current issues.
(3) To ensure the Council and Police had the appropriate powers to protect the
quality of lives of those who lived, worked and visited restricted areas and to permit
the majority of the law-abiding citizens to use and enjoy public spaces, safe from
anti-social behaviour.
(4) The introduction and renewal of Public Space Protection Orders was a matter
for determination by Full Council.
(5) To enable the Orders to be considered at the next available Full Council
meeting to ensure their prompt introduction if agreed.
C67 RENEWAL OF PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS - DOG
CONTROLS (NBS) (SCRUTINY – ENVIRONMENT AND REGENERATION) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report, the purpose of which was to ensure there
remained effective controls and management arrangements in please, aimed at
improving the behaviour of irresponsible dog owners and reducing anti-social
behaviour associated with dogs and dog fouling.
Councillor Wilson said that such Orders had been in place previously and required
renewal with variations to the existing Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs), for
the purpose of dog controls.
Consultation had taken place on the matter and many of the responses received
were positive about the proposed Orders. Appendix A referred to 64% of the public
agreed with the proposal to retain all the existing dog controls in the Vale of
Glamorgan, strong agreement regarding the removal of faeces from all adopted
highways and footpaths and seasonal dog controls at Ogmore-by-Sea.
Councillor Wilson proposed an additional Recommendation to Cabinet to agree that
Llantwit Major Recreation Ground be added to the proposals to be considered at Full
Council, with enforcement subject to the agreement of Llantwit Major Town Council
who owned the land. Llantwit Major Councillors were in support of that area being
included in the proposals and agreement with Llantwit Major Town Council would
have to be sought prior to the matter being considered at Full Council on 15th July,
2024.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the proposal of renewing the existing Public Space Protection Orders
for dog controls be endorsed.
(2) T H A T the contents of the public consultation results be noted.
(3) T H A T the proposed new additional areas as part of the renewal process be
agreed and incorporated into the Orders for Full Council consideration.
(4) T H A T the resolutions of Cabinet in respect to the report be referred to Full
Council for consideration.
(5) T H A T use of the urgency procedure set out at Section 15.14 of the
Council’s Constitution be agreed in respect of resolutions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 to allow the
matter to be considered at Full Council on 15th July, 2024.
(6) T H A T subject to formal agreement with Llantwit Major Town Council,
Llantwit Major Recreation Ground be added to the proposals for consideration at Full
Council, with enforcement subject to the agreement of Llantwit Major Town Council
who own the land.
Reasons for decisions
(1) So that the Council had robust Orders in place for dog controls on adopted
highways, footpaths, resorts/beaches, town centres, sports pitches and public open
spaces.
(2) To ensure the Council considered the views of the public and other
stakeholders and the Orders reflected current issues.
(3) To ensure the Council had appropriate powers to protect the quality of lives of
those who lived, worked and visited the Vale.
(4) The renewal and introduction of Public Space Protection Orders were a
matter for determination by Full Council.
(5) To ensure the Orders could be considered at the next Full Council meeting
and if agreed, promptly introduced following the meeting.
(6) To include Llantwit Major Recreation Ground to the proposals, with the
support of the local ward Members and agreement with Llantwit Majot Town Council.
C68 RE-COMMISSIONING OF THE PROVISION OF CHILDCARE FOR
FLYING START IN COLCOT, BARRY, VALE OF GLAMORGAN (SCH)
(SCRUTINY – HEALTHY LIVING AND SOCIAL CARE) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report, the purpose of which was to seek
authority to re-commission an existing contract relating to the provision of childcare
for the Vale of Glamorgan Flying Start Programme within Colcot, Barry and delegate
authority to award the contract to the successful provider.
Councillor Williams said that although the report fell within the Social Care and
Health Portfolio that it was important to recognise the work undertaken with the
Cabinet Member for Education, Arts and the Welsh Language as much of the work
was cross-Directorate. Although the programme provided services to children aged
0-3 and 2-3 years, it was important to recognise that there was also provision for
parents who were a part of the tendering process.
Councillor Birch welcomed the report and was pleased to see parental involvement
in the programme and actively involved in ongoing provision. The cluster of schools
in Barry were some of the most disadvantaged in the Vale of Glamorgan and the
programme would work towards improving the life chances of children.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Director of Social Services, in consultation with the Cabinet
Member for Social Care and Health, be authorised to undertake a competitive tender
process for the provision of Flying Start services in Colcot, Barry.
(2) T H A T the Director of Social Services, in consultation with the Cabinet
Member for Social Care and Health, be authorised to award the contract(s) for the
service for an initial period of two years with an option to extend for up to a further
two years, following the completion of the tender process.
(3) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Monitoring Officer/Head of
Legal and Democratic Services to prepare, complete and execute a contract with the
successful bidder.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To enable the Directorate to undertake a tender process that would provide
Flying Start childcare within Colcot, Barry in a cost-effective way that met the
requirements of Welsh Government Flying Start Guidance and the required
standards of the Care Inspectorate Wales (CIW).
(2) To ensure that the service was in place for the next two years with the
potential to extend it for a further two years if required.
(3). To ensure that the appropriate authority and documentation were in place to
complete the contract.
C69 CONTRACT FOR THE PROVISION OF CHILDCARE FOR FLYING
START IN CADOXTON, BARRY, VALE OF GLAMORGAN (SCH) (SCRUTINY –
HEALTHY LIVING AND SOCIAL CARE) –
The Cabinet Member presented the report which was similar to the previous agenda
item but focused on a different area, the purpose of which was to seek authority to
undertake a tender process relating to the provision of childcare for the Vale of
Glamorgan Flying Start Programme within the setting in the grounds of Cadoxton
Primary School in Barry and delegate authority to award the contract to the
successful provider.
Councillor Birch was pleased to endorse the report and said that Cadoxton Primary
School already had initiatives such as Bocs Bwyd and coffee mornings that had a
positive impact on families and actively involved parents and carers on aspects of
school life.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Director of Social Services, in consultation with the Cabinet
Member for Social Care and Health, be authorised to undertake a competitive tender
process for the provision of Flying Start services in Cadoxton, Barry.
(2) T H A T the Director of Social Services, in consultation with the Cabinet
Member for Social Care and Health, be authorised to award the contract(s) for the
service for an initial period of two years with an option to extend for up to a further
two years, following the completion of the tender process.
(3) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Monitoring Officer/Head of
Legal and Democratic Services to prepare, complete and execute a contract with the
successful bidder.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To enable the Directorate to undertake a tender process that would provide
Flying Start childcare within Cadoxton, Barry in a cost-effective way that met the
requirements of Welsh Government Flying Start Guidance and the required
standards of the Care Inspectorate Wales (CIW).
(2) To ensure that the service was in place for the next two years with the
potential to extend it for a further two years if required.
(3) To ensure that the appropriate authority and documentation were in place to
complete the contract.
C70 VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2036 PREFERRED STRATEGY INITIAL CONSULTATION
REPORT (CEERS) (SCRUTINY – ENVIRONMENT AND REGENERATION) –
The Leader presented the report on behalf of the Cabinet Member, the purpose of
which was to advise Cabinet of the issues raised through representations received
during the public consultation exercise undertaken between December 2023 and
February 2024 in respect of the Preferred Strategy for the Vale of Glamorgan
Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) 2021-2036.
The Preferred Strategy for the RLDP had been subject to a ten-week public
consultation between December 2023 and February 2024 and the report set out the
issues raised as part of that consultation and how the responses had been
considered within the report.
The Preferred Strategy set out how much growth would be accommodated in the
Vale of Glamorgan from 2021 to 2036 in terms of population, homes and jobs, with
growth met in the most sustainable locations which reduced the need to travel,
sought to co-locate housing with employment and locations well-served by public
transport.
Engagement on the Preferred Strategy took place a number of ways, including
online and in-person engagement sessions across the Vale of Glamorgan, as well as
sessions with Elected Members, Town and Community Councils and specific
stakeholder groups such as the 50+ Forum and Equalities Consultative Forum. In
total, over 3,000 representations were made from 857 individuals and organisations.
Notably there was a representation from Welsh Government stating that they
considered the Preferred Strategy to conform with the National Development
Framework: Future Wales, with the scale of growth being at an appropriate level for
the Vale of Glamorgan’s position within a national growth area. The spatial
distribution of that growth to sustainable locations was considered appropriate and in
line with national policy. Comments were made from other stakeholders that the
scale of development was too high, and others considered it to be too low.
The RLDP made provision for 8,679 new houses, compared to 10,400 in the current
adopted Local Development Plan (LDP). The RLDP level of growth was a median
level, with higher and lower gross scenarios being tested. The housing supply was
made up of new housing allocations, committed sites and allowance for unallocated
windfall sites.
The adopted LDP included housing allocations totalling over 8,000 new dwellings.
The RLDP Preferred Strategy showed a more modest allocation of up to 2,750 new
homes on new sites, or 32% of the provision, plus a further 2,600 homes on sites in
the adopted LDP that had been rolled forward.
Key sites in the RLDP were in parts of the Vale of Glamorgan with the highest levels
of affordable housing need and provided real opportunity to deliver homes for those
in housing need through Section 106 funding.
Most of the representations made during the consultation period were objections to
the key sites identified within the Preferred Strategy, with similar issues raised
across the five key sites including the impact of new development on the natural
environment and the ability of existing infrastructure to cope with increased demand.
The initial consultation report addressed those key points and set out the prepared
evidence in support of the Development Plan and addressed the concerns raised.
The consultation allowed for new sites to be submitted as part of a second call for
candidate sites, with 14 new sites submitted as part of the process, and 24 new sites
with amendments of boundary or use which would now be assessed to determine
their suitability for inclusion in the Deposit Plan.
This was a matter for Executive decision.
Cabinet, having considered the report and all the issues and implications contained
therein
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted.
(2) T H A T the report be referred to Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny
Committee for their consideration. Should the Committee raise no further matters for
Cabinet consideration, the report be referred to a meeting of Full Council on 30th
September, 2024 for:
a) endorsement of the actions set out in the Initial Consultation Report;
b) approval of the Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP)
Preferred Strategy as a basis for the ongoing preparation of the
Deposit RLDP.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To outline to Members the issues raised during the 10-week public
consultation exercise on the RLDP Preferred Strategy.
(2) To seek approval for the proposed changes to the Preferred Strategy as set
out in the Initial Consultation Report and to allow officers to progress with
preparation of the Deposit RLDP in accordance with the Council’s approved Delivery
Agreement.
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 Licence given that a complaint has been received stating that he refused to take a journey from Cardiff train station to Penarth after allegedly saying he was available for hire
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative asserted that the driver had not broken any rules and suggested he had had been singled out by this complaint. He was not registered with the ICO and was not legally allowed to store information about customers and their trips as he was self-employed.
The Chair noted that the allegation from the witness was that the driver was asked to take someone in his cab and said yes, but then changed his mind and refused the fare. He acknowledged that Penarth was out of the Cardiff area, but the witness’ contention was that this was not why it was refused
The driver’s representative suggested that the driver was not obligated to explain to a member of the public why he wasn’t able to take a fare. The driver added that the witness did not ask him whether he was booked, and just said ‘Penarth’ as his window was rolling down. He also suggested that it wasn’t a formal rank as it was only his taxi there.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that he was out with his family on a day out, and as they worked their way down the rank they were turned down by quite a few cabs when he said they needed to go to Penarth. A few of the drivers told them to ask the first cab on the rank, which he did. After he turned down the fare, another driver advised him that this was not allowed, and so he made a complaint. His daughter told him that it was like that every weekend when she tried to get to Penarth.
The driver reiterated that he had not heard anything from the witness other than ‘Penarth’, and would not have been able to get back in time for his next booked trip if he had accepted it. He did not have a record of it but regularly took passengers to Penarth and other destinations outside of town. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he emphasised that he had no objection at all to taking passengers anywhere they asked.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he had complained about another driver too, and this driver had not been singled out.
The driver’s representative summarised that while there was an issue with some drivers cherry-picking jobs, this driver had made clear that he did not do that. He only turned this one down because he had a job booked already and wouldn’t have been able to get back in time. He had done nothing wrong legally and did not deserve to be punished.
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 Licence given that he declared he was disqualified from driving and had received a driving ban from the DVLA.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that his offence had occurred when he was having a very bad day. He was going through a lot of stress and his wife had just filed divorce papers. He was working as a chef and finished late, and had drunk two pints. He undertook another vehicle while it was raining heavily and was pulled over. After that, he lost everything and didn’t have any other opportunities for work. He hoped that Members would give him another chance to get back on the road and earn a proper living.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was still working as a chef but was only able to do occasional part-time work as he did not have a car and it was hard to travel long distances. He relied on his wife and friends to give lifts but this was not always possible.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(3)
Application 3
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.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had made some silly mistakes but he wanted to feed his family and children. He stated he was a businessman and not aggressive
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had re-applied for a Private Hire Driver’s Licence as he had previously owned a takeaway shop which he had sold and wanted to do something comfortable and easy. He had previously been in possession of a Private Hire Driver’s Licence in Newport (6 months) and Cardiff (just under a year). He had stopped after 6 months in Newport as he did not like travelling. He had not renewed either licence.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
(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 previously held a licence with the Authority but was convicted for taking his daughter out of the county without the mother’s consent in 2019. He was also referred to committee in 2019 and subsequently had his licence revoked.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he first moved to Cardiff in 1994 and his daughter was born in 2012. He was then banned from the UK for 10 years and moved back to Romania. In 2014, he was accused of kidnapping his daughter. His wife moved to London and he was unable to go to his daughter’s school or doctors. His wife and daughter then moved back to Romania, and he had attended court on six occasions to try to gain custody of his daughter as she had returned from Romania with injuries.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee the driver explained that he had not seen his daughter for 4 or 5 years and she was now 12 years of age. He had received a prison sentence for taking his daughter out of the UK without her mother’s consent. Whilst in prison he was attacked. When he came out of prison he was not feeling well so he had handed in his badge. He informed the Sub Committee that he was now fit and well and wanted to come back to work as quickly as possible. He explained that it was just a family quarrel and there was no violence involved.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
(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 applicant previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted for totting up points on his DVLA licence. He was also referred to committee and subsequently had his licence revoked.
The driver explained that he had not committed any speeding offences whilst working as a taxi driver. He had been a delivery driver with his own shop and the police had caught him on camera speeding. He now had a clean driving licence. He stressed that he had never committed any crimes and had now learnt his lesson. For one and half years had had no employment, lost his licence and lost his shop. He informed the Sub Committee that he had a security job but that only provided him with 10 days’ work per month which was not enough and asked for another chance.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee the driver explained that the court had given him the chance to drive despite his points and said that if he made another mistake he would receive a 6 month ban. The police then stopped him for a worn tyre and he lost his licence for 6 months and his shop. He said that he had tried to use the train but the last one was at 10.00 pm and there were no busses. Sometimes he slept on the sofa which was hard. He explained that he had lost his licence before his taxi licence and had disclosed this information in his last application. The car with the worn tyre was his only car and the one he used as a taxi.
RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to:
1)
Approve the decision of the Licensing Committee at its meeting on 13 March 2024 and publish the Cumulative Impact Assessment for use with effect from 1 August 2024;
2)
Authorise the Head of Shared Regulatory Services to make administrative amendments to the documents should the need arise.
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.