Sut mae'r cyngor ei hun yn cael ei redeg: ei gyfansoddiad, staff, adeiladau, TG, cwynion, a sut mae cynghorwyr yn ymddwyn.
Mae'r Cyngor llawn yn cytuno ar y cyfansoddiad. Mae pwyllgor safonau'n delio ag ymddygiad cynghorwyr; mae Ombwdsmon Gwasanaethau Cyhoeddus Cymru yn ymchwilio i gwynion.
Cwynwch i'r cyngor yn gyntaf; os nad ydych yn fodlon, gallwch fynd at yr Ombwdsmon. Mae cyfarfodydd y cyngor yn gyhoeddus, ac mae llawer yn cael eu darlledu.
| Cyngor | Eitemau | Gyda phenderfyniad |
|---|---|---|
| Bro Morgannwg | 233 | 79 |
| Abertawe | 112 | 2 |
| Caerdydd | 77 | 63 |
| Gwynedd | 13 | 0 |
| Blaenau Gwent | 12 | 11 |
| Castell-nedd Port Talbot | 11 | 1 |
| Sir Gâr | 7 | 4 |
| Ceredigion | 6 | 3 |
| Sir Fynwy | 5 | 1 |
| Powys | 5 | 0 |
| Casnewydd | 3 | 0 |
| Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr | 3 | 0 |
RESOLVED: - To make any relevant recommendations for changes to the draft Self-Assessment Report 2024/25, to be submitted via a formal letter from the Committee Chair;
RESOLVED: - To note that the Unaudited Draft Statements of Account 2024/25 are to be circulated and highlight any queries and comments; - To note that following the external audit, the Final Statements and the Audit of Accounts (ISA260) reports for 2024/25 will be reviewed by this Committee, prior to consideration by Council.
RESOLVED: - To note the contents of the Internal Audit and Investigation Team Progress Reports; - To approve a correction to the Audit Plan 2025/26, to include a 15 audit of ‘Welsh Language Standards’, replacing the duplicate entry of ‘Homelessness – Temporary Accommodation’; - That the Audit Manager meet with the Head of Democratic Services to agree the principles for notifying Scrutiny Officers where there are audit reports with impaired Audit Opinions.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted, including: - The opinion on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Council’s framework of governance, risk management and control together with a summary of the work supporting the opinion; - The statement of the level of conformance with the required Standards and the results of the QAIP that support the statement.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED: - That two minor changes be made to the Annual Report of the Governance & Audit Committee 2024/25; - That the Annual Report be approved.
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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that he behaved inappropriately and used offensive language with a passenger. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that she had booked an Uber because she was late for work when the trains were cancelled. She got into the taxi and found the driver to be chatty, which she didn’t mind. The driver mentioned having a sore neck and asked her to rub his head, resting it on the seat, and then he then made a reference to an explicit bumper sticker, making her feel very uncomfortable. She wanted to leave the vehicle but couldn’t because she was on the way to work. The interaction left her feeling intimidated and uncomfortable. After getting home and having had time to reflect on it, she decided to make a complaint. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness clarified that she was sat in the back left passenger seat, and that the driver rested his head on the headrest of the seat in front of her. She also clarified that she had made the complaint either the next day or the day after that. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver disputed that he had put his head on the seat, and suggested that the passenger could have easily left the car if she had wanted to. The witness responded that she wished she had left there and then, but she had to get to work. The driver acknowledged that he had mentioned a bumper sticker, but emphasised that this was in reference to a TV program. The driver suggested that the witness had made the complaint in order to get a refund from Uber. The witness responded that she had not asked for her fare to be reimbursed at any point, and it had not been. The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had a very high Uber rating and no history of previous complaints. 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 License given that a complaint had been received from South Wales Police stating he had admitted committing three speeding offences and falsely completing the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) form indicating that other persons had committed the offences. The complaint also alleged that the driver was suspected of falsely completing NIPs in respect of seven speeding offences in a previous taxi owned by him and licensed by Cardiff Council. Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of South Wales Police, the witness stated that he was made aware in January of three outstanding speeding offences involving a car owned by the driver, and suspicions around the validity of nominations made in relation to speeding offences. All three offences had taken place in December 2024, and in each case an NIP was sent to the owner of the vehicle asking him to identify the driver. Each form was returned with a different name, with addresses in Southampton and Romsey. The witness explained that none of the names provided, assuming they were real people, were insured either on the vehicle or as licensed taxi drivers. They had challenged the owner, who then named his wife as being responsible for the offences. She was also neither insured on it nor a licensed taxi driver. The driver then admitted to giving false details and to being the driver of the vehicle on each of the occasions. The witness added that they had looked at other vehicles the individual had owned, and found seven separate offences dating back to 2019, with details provided for seven different men living all across England. Due to procedural problems in the central ticketing office, he had avoided prosecution by giving false details. The driver was now on 9 penalty points and three more offences had come to light which would go to court. Members queried the further offences mentioned by the witness, and heard that the driver had committed three speeding offences of May of this year, all in his taxi. Members asked whether the police were pursuing any other action outside of the Sub Committee. The witness explained that there were some time constraints, as they had to take action within six months. There was a case for prosecution for perverting the course of justice, but it was not clear that there was value in taking it further as he was likely to lose his licence anyway due to totting up points. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been driving taxis for 20 years and not had a complaint until now. His son added that while he could not deny the facts of the hearing, he hoped that Members would take into account that his father was a hardworking man who provided for his children. It was a pressured and difficult job and it was only human to make mistakes. The driver added that the three recent offences were all due to the speed limit changing from 40mph to 30mph on Western Avenue, which he hadn’t noticed. The witness clarified that the speed limit had changed there several years ago, though there had been a new camera added recently. The driver suggested that when the police spoke to him, they suggested that if he accepted the points it wouldn’t go any further, so he took the 9 points and a fine. The witness disputed that he had been misleading, and added that the police had sent him a letter explaining the results of their investigation. They could have prosecuted him for perverting the course of justice, but chose to take a different approach. The driver had lied consistently, including naming his wife when it was discovered that the other named drivers weren’t real. The driver’s son reiterated that his father was a respectful, experienced and empathetic person who went the extra mile for his customers, and asked for leniency in this case. He had lied to try and protect his livelihood but understood that this was wrong. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (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 he had nine penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had collected nine points on his licence after not noticing a variable speed limit, and he didn’t realise he had committed them until he was notified. Three of the points would expire in October. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that he didn’t initially know that he had to declare the penalty points to the council, but then his brother, who was also a taxi driver, told him that he did. RESOLVED – that the driver receive an advice letter. (4) Application 4 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 he had nine penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been driving since 2005 in Cardiff with no issues until very recently. He had made several mistakes when speed limits had changed and he hadn’t realised. One instance was on Western Avenue right after the change, and he was clocked at 36mph when the limit had just changed from 40 to 30. Another was for going at 29mph in a 20 which he thought was a 30, and the last one was on Manor Way, which he thought was a 40 but was actually a 30. Members asked why he had only declared this now. The driver responded that he didn’t know that he needed to tell the authority until renewal, but he knew now. RESOLVED – that the driver receive an advice letter. (5) Application 5 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 he had six penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90) and failed to disclose the pending prosecution on his renewal application form. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had made a mistake on his renewal form in March, because he hadn’t been notified by the court at that point of his pending prosecution. He now had six points on his licence. Members queried the circumstances of his prosecution, and heard that the driver had been caught speeding in Newport. He was given three points and sent a form confirming the identity of the driver. He filled the form in and sent it back but they never received it, so he got a further three points. He did not receive any documents from the court about it and did not attend. The driver added that he did not have an excuse, only that he had a lot going at the time as his brother had recently passed away. He believed that he may have put the wrong address on the letter and that was why they never received it. 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 Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had nine penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that there had been three offences, one of which was on the motorway. The second one was a recently changed speed limit on Western Avenue which he wasn’t aware of until he’d been caught out, and the third was late at night, he was rushing to get home to his wife who wasn’t well, and went at 26mph in a 20 zone. Taxi driving was his livelihood and he needed to support his wife and children. Members queried the circumstances of his fine. The Legal Officer clarified that the first two would have been fixed penalties and then the third one went to court. Members asked why it had taken so long for the driver to notify the council. The driver acknowledged that he had done that too late and should not have waited until renewal. RESOLVED – that the driver receive an advice letter. (7) Application 7 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had six points on his licence due to failing to identify the driver of a vehicle when requested. He had been on holiday and let a friend use his car, who was caught speeding in a 50mph zone on the motorway. He received a letter about this and explained he wasn’t driving the vehicle, and gave his friend’s details. He clarified that his friend had been insured to drive the car. After some time, he received another letter asking whether he had given permission to drive the car, but he didn’t see this letter because he lived in a shared house and someone else moved it. By the time he realised this, it was too late and he was fined more than a thousand pounds for failing to give information, as the registered keeper of the vehicle. He had decided not to appeal against the court’s decision, and had his licence revoked as he had been driving for less than a year. Since then, he had retaken the theory and practical test and got a new licence. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
RESOLVED: The committee approved the annual return and authorised the chair to sign on their behalf, with the return to be submitted to Audit Wales for external audit.
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 he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had informed the licensing authority when he received the last three points on his driving licence. Each of the offences was for exceeding the limit in a 20mph or 30mph zone, when he hadn’t realised there were new cameras were in place on roads he often drove on. 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 he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence. Cllr Michael declared an interest as he knew the driver personally, and did not take part in the hearing. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that each of the offences had taken place about two years ago, and involved going at 33 or 34 in a 30mph zone. He had been working late at night and gone slightly over the limit while being distracted by difficult customers. 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 Licence given that he had nine penalty points on his driving licence but did not disclose it until three penalty points had expired. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had notified the authority when he committed two speeding offences on the same day, totalling six points. He emphasised that he had not been driving dangerously, but had gone slightly over a temporary 40mph limit on a road that was normally 50mph. Before then, he had one other speeding offence where the three points had expired in January. 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 Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had twelve penalty points on his driving licence and was disqualified for driving for six months. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for his actions, which included driving at 26mph in a 20mph zone on a road he was unfamiliar with. He wasn’t in his taxi at the time, so there were no passengers. He recognised the importance of the road traffic rules and the expectations on taxi drivers, and was committed to learning more about different routes and speed zones in Cardiff. The Sub Committee queried the circumstances of an MS90 offence where he had been convicted of failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. The driver explained that he hadn’t been in the country at the time as he was on holiday. The letter requesting the information had gone to an old address where his family no longer lived. Members asked whether he had showed evidence to the court that he wasn’t in the country at the time of the offence. The driver said he had, along with evidence of the incorrect address. He wasn’t represented by a solicitor and accepted a fine which he was still paying. He had appealed the decision, but the fine and six month ban remained in place. The Legal Officer suggested that the driver must not have attended court, because the £660 fine was a Band C fine on an assumed income. The driver confirmed that this was correct. Members asked whether he was driving the car that led to the MS90 offence. The driver responded that it was a rental, and the company he rented it from took it back when he went away. Members asked whether the driver had contacted that company to say that it wasn’t him driving. The driver responded that he had not, because he lost contact with them. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (5) Application 5 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 the driver had a previous conviction for possessing an offensive weapon in a private place. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that many years ago he had bought a replica of a weapon from an Assassin’s Creed game from a souvenir shop. The law had then changed to make items that resembled offensive weapons illegal. He wasn’t aware of that at the time, and the item had been legal at the time of purchase. In 2023, there had been an incident on his street which the police came to talk to him about, not related to the item. The police saw it on display in his house and confiscated it, leading to him being charged. There was no suggestion that he had tried to use it or threatened anyone, only that he had been in possession of it. He added that he had been driving taxis for sixteen years and working for Uber for eight years without any complaints, and had a very high star rating. Members asked what the item looked like. The driver explained that it was a hatchet with an extra point on it, and it had some feathers and the symbol of the computer game. It was now legally classed as a zombie knife as it was a blade with an additional point. Members asked where exactly the item had been, which the driver explained was only in his house rather than his car. It was decorative and was put up on a display stand. It had since been destroyed after being seized by the police. He had explained the circumstances in court and they gave him the minimum fine. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (6) Application 6 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 the driver had received a caution for common assault. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had declared the caution when he applied to renew his taxi licence. He felt he had learned his lesson from the incident, which occurred in the early hours in town with his ex-partner. They had argued and he had pushed her, and several months later he was contacted by the police, who gave him a caution for assault. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (7) Application 7 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / 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 been involved in a car accident five years ago that led to the death of someone involved, and was convicted of driving without due care and attention. The accident had happened when he tried to go around a car parked on the pavement, and he didn’t see someone coming the other way and collided with them. He had reported it to the police and turned himself in. RESOLVED – that the application be refused. (8) Application 8 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points on his licence for using a vehicle that was uninsured against third party risks. He was driving with business insurance which only allowed him to do food deliveries, rather than full personal insurance, and didn’t realise. RESOLVED – that the application be granted. (9) Application 9 This hearing was deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED THAT: a. Members note the outturn position for 2024/25 as detailed in the report and the draft Statement of Accounts for 2024/25; b. Members note the attached draft Minor Bodies Return 2024/25; c. the Committee Chair be authorised to sign the Minor Bodies Return 2024/25.
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 stating that he engaged with sexual intercourse with a female passenger after an Uber-booked journey. It was also alleged that the driver made a comment suggesting that it was not the first time he had engaged in sexual activity with a passenger. The driver did not attend the meeting. The Sub Committee were unanimous in the view that the hearing should proceed in his absence due to the seriousness of the complaint. An officer from the Licensing department addressed the Sub Committee. Members were provided with details of the complaint and the details of the officer’s enquiries into the matter. The officer provided details obtained from GPS data which indicated that the vehicle had stayed in the vicinity of the complainant’s home for 40 minutes after the journey had ended. The complainant indicated in her statement that the driver had stopped at a garage on route to the destination in order to purchase condoms. Following further investigations by the officer, Members were advised that GPS data proved that the vehicle had stopped at a garage on Newport Road for a short time during the journey. Further enquires with the garage operators indicated that there was only one customer at the garage during the times in question. A till receipt in the amount of £7.15 for condoms was provided, purchased using a debit card. Officers cross-referenced the debit card with payments made by the driver at the Cardiff Hackney Office, and the same debit card was used. Members were also provided with details of other complaints that had been received relating to the driver, including one pending allegation of assault. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (2) Application 2 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 a complaint had been received stating that he swore and shouted at members of the public and drove towards flag holders. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was not working at the time of the incident. He had been running an errand for his mother, and his younger brother was in the vehicle. The driver apologised for his actions and stated that the incident happened on the first day of fasting for Ramadan, so he had perhaps acted impatiently. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that the St David’s Day march was well-organised and the organisers were trying to manage the flow of traffic. Other vehicles were also being delayed but no other drivers acted in this way. RESOLVED – that the driver be given a written warning regarding unacceptable conduct. (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 used offensive language towards the complainant. The witness did not attend the meeting. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was working in Swansea that day but he had no recollection of the incident. He felt that he was a very experienced and professional driver, and this was supported by a number of references provided and a very high Uber rating. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had declared previous convictions and a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that the recent IN10 offence had occurred when he had driven his wife’s car without third party cover. At the time he was unaware that the insurance policy had been updated, and he was no longer a named driver. RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved. (5) Application 5 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 from South Wales Police stating that he had committed a speeding offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) form indicating that another person had committed the offence. The complaint also alleged that the driver falsely completed NIPs in respect of three speeding offences in a previous taxi owned by him and licensed by Cardiff Council. Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of South Wales Police, PC Ben Thomas explained that a vehicle owned by the driver had exceeded the speed limit and so a NIP was issued. The form was returned stating that another individual was driving the vehicle, but the police established that the vehicle was not insured for other people to drive, and the named individual did not appear on any databases other than court records. PC Thomas suggested that there was no evidence that the named individual existed. Further investigation of court records indicated that a different vehicle owned by the driver had previously exceeded the speed limit on three occasions, with the NIP for each offence stating that the same individual had been driving the vehicle, again without having insurance to do so. The driver accepted PC Thomas’ statement and apologised for a serious error in judgement. He explained that on the first occasion, the named individual was his father-in-law, and suggested that he was actually driving the vehicle. PC Thomas reiterated that there were no records to prove that this individual existed. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (6) Application 6 This item was deferred to the next meeting. (7) Application 7 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 overcharged a passenger by using the incorrect tariff for the fare, and also did not return the correct change. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that shortly after the commencement of the journey she noticed that the taxi meter was displaying ‘Tariff 2’ and queried this with the driver, who stated that Tariff 2 started at 6pm. The complainant suggested that it was 5:45pm at the time. The driver stopped the meter on route to the destination. At the destination it was alleged that the driver did not provide the correct change. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that the meter was displaying Tariff 2. He was unable to explain why this had happened, as drivers were unable to select which tariff was used. The meter automatically set the tariff depending on the time of day. The meter had since been checked by officers at the Hackney Office and was in working order. The driver denied providing the wrong change at the destination. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a verbal warning regarding his conduct. (8) Application 8 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 made unwelcomed sexual conversation and references with a customer. The driver stated that he could not remember the incident in question. He had been working as a taxi driver for 25 years without any problems. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he confirmed that he was no longer working for Cabs64. Cabs64 had provided a statement that indicated that the driver had been warned about his conduct on a number of occasions. The driver stated that he had only been asked not to ‘joke’ with customers. Members asked whether joking with customers previously had including comments of a sexual nature. The driver replied that sometimes the comments were sexual. Members asked why the driver, who was in a position of responsibility, would make comments of a sexual nature when he had previously been warned not to do so. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that at the start of her journey she had difficulty with her seatbelt. The driver made a number of offensive sexual comments and used atrocious language throughout the journey. He also placed his hand on her leg and moved it up to rub her thigh. The journey was a horrible experience, and she was frightened and scared that she would have a seizure related to a health condition. The driver denied touching his passenger. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 200 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, 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; subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police. The Sub Committee heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and all the written material. Members considered the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment. The Sub Committee heard the oral representations from a local resident and the local ward member. Having carefully considered the representations the Sub Committee did not feel that there is sufficient evidence that the granting of this licence will undermine the licensing objectives. The Sub Committee was encouraged by the fact that the applicants have been trading for 4 months without complaints. Members considered the comments relating to the use of Westgate Street after 9pm and how the granting of this licence could create a precedent, but considered that each application must be decided on its own merits. The Sub Committee therefore resolved to grant the licence subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: - Approve the recommendation of the Standards & Ethics Committee to withdraw the Cardiff Undertaking with effect from the date of this Annual Council meeting; - Authorise the Monitoring Officer to make corresponding amendments to the Constitution to remove all references to the Cardiff Undertaking.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: a. Note the determinations of the IRPW in its Annual Report published in February 2025 attached as Appendix A; b. Note the Guidance for Principal Councils, Community and Town Councils, National Park Authorities, Fire and Rescue Authorities and Corporate Joint Committees in Wales – remuneration of members shown at Appendix B; c.. Approve the draft Members’ Schedule of Remuneration 2025-26 (Appendix C) and delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer to finalise the draft Members’ Schedule of Remuneration to reflect the appointments made at the Annual Council; d. Delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer to update the Members’ Schedule of Remuneration in the Constitution and to make any necessary amendments to the 2025-2026 Schedule from time to time during the municipal year in order to reflect any changes in membership of the Council, Cabinet or Committees or as a result of any Supplementary Reports issued by the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru (DBCC).
RESOLVED: To (1) Note that the Monitoring Officer has not received any complaints under the Corporate Joint Committee’s Code of Conduct for Members during the 2024/2025 municipal year; (2) Note the findings of the recent internal audit of the adequacy and effectiveness of the internal control, governance and risk management arrangements in respect of the CJC’s Registers of Business Interests and Gifts & Hospitality; (3) Note the arrangements put in place to discharge the functions of the CJC’s Standards Sub-Committee for 2025/26; and (4) Agree that an annual report to the CJC describing how the Standards Sub-Committee has discharged its functions during the 2024/25 municipal year is produced by the Monitoring Officer of the CJC, in a draft letter format to be agreed by the Chairperson and Committee Members.
RESOLVED: to note the report.
RESOLVED to: 1. Agreed that refresher training on the Members’ Code of Conduct should be provided for all Members and Co-Opted Members of Cardiff Council 2. Agreed that refresher training on the Members’ Code of Conduct should be provided for Chairpersons. 3. Agreed the suggested topics for the refresher training as outlined in paragraph 6 of the report. 4. Agreed the training should be delivered both online and in person, 5. Agree that the refresher training on the Members’ Code of Conduct should be discretionary. However, Cllr Brown Reckless did express her view that the training should be recommended by Group Leaders to their group members.
RESOLVED to: • Note the information set out in the report and its appendices and identify any appropriate topics that could be raised at future meetings of the National Standards Committee Chairs Forum. Note the current position regarding Community Councils in Cardiff signing up to the Civility Pledge.
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 stating that the driver overcharged for a journey from St Mary’s Street to Cathays and did not use the calibrated meter in order to determine the fare. There was also a double charge on the card used to pay for the journey. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that late on a Sunday night, he saw an intoxicated woman who wasn’t being allowed back into bars on St Mary’s Street being refused by other taxis. He could see that she was frustrated and wanted to help her get home. She said that she didn’t have enough cash and wasn’t sure how to use the card on her phone, so he passed her his phone with the payment app open so she could practise paying. She asked to give a £15 tip, which would mean paying around £25 for the journey rather than around £10. Her card was declined several times before it went through. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events, emphasising that she had not asked to tip him and was entirely aware of how to pay by card using her phone. She had only realised the next morning that she had been charged two payments of £25.70, which she called her bank to cancel because they were still pending. The two payments were eight minutes apart, so it seemed that the driver had taken two separate payments at the start and end of the journey. The Sub Committee asked the driver about the double payment and heard that this may have been a technical issue with the payment app he used due to the declined payments. There was no physical receipt to give the passenger as the app sent him a notification of payments the next day. Members queried whether the driver had asked for payment before the journey began, which was not permitted for fares within Cardiff. The driver responded that he had tried to help the passenger because she wasn’t sure how to use her phone to pay. The witness reiterated that she knew how to use her phone to pay by card, and suggested that the driver had not passed her his phone. The driver’s representative suggested that there was evidence of the card being declined several times, and that the witness might have accidentally paid twice while drunk. He added that the money taken out of her account had been returned, and suggested that an honest mistake had been made. The witness emphasised that she was certain she had not accidentally tapped it twice. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he expressed sincere regret about his past actions and took full responsibility for what he had done. Members noted that the applicant had applied for a licence recently and was refused then, and asked what had changed. The applicant explained that he was working 60 to 70 hours a week to support his family as the cost of living was very high, and he could make more money driving taxis. RESOLVED – that the application be refused. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was arrested after a policeman pulled him over while driving and saw a bag of drugs in the car. He emphasised that they were not his and that he had passed a drug test, but had received a caution for possession of a Class A drug. He added that since this had all taken place, he had moved back home, gotten married and taken on new responsibilities, and was keen to drive taxis. He understood the gravity of the situation but felt he was a more responsible person now. RESOLVED – that the application be refused. (4) Item 4 was deferred to the next meeting in the absence of the witness. (5) Application 5 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 the driver drove his licensed vehicle in a dangerous manner and used demeaning language. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was being accused of hitting a pedestrian and her luggage with his car. He explained that he had been working at the coach station when a coach came towards him so he had to pull into a parking bay on the side of the road. A woman was stood there with her luggage, so he beeped his horn and then rolled down his window and respectfully asked her to move. He added that the woman then started shouting at him and accusing him of knocking over her luggage, before telling everyone else on the rank that he was a dangerous driver who had tried to hit her, which meant he got no business that night. He had driven taxis for 33 years and had been licensed in Cardiff for 26 years without any complaints being made against him, and emphasised that his car had not touched her luggage. The Sub Committee viewed videos immediately following the incident provided by the witness. Members noted that the driver had cameras on the front and back of his vehicle and asked whether this footage was available. The driver explained that he normally deleted this after a week, and had not thought it was needed in this case as he was not contacted by the police. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she knew the area well and usually ordered a cab using her phone as the coach was getting in, before waiting in the same spot where there were several empty parking spaces. There was no pavement for pedestrians, only a muddy embankment, and she used a cane to help her walk. She recalled that the taxi came by without stopping and without the driver asking her to move, and so she had to jump back to avoid being hit, with the car knocking her bags over. She asked the driver whether he had seen her and he said yes, so she asked why he had continued reversing, and he told her to shut up. Both parties disputed whether or not the driver had beeped his horn or spoken to the witness before moving into the bay, and whether or not the taxi had knocked the luggage over. The driver’s representative acknowledged that the driver could have de-escalated the situation, and suggested that he keep the dashcam footage for longer than a week in the future. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (6) Application 6 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 the driver had been issued with a caution by South Wales Police. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned in 2022 for a public order offence against a former partner who had stalked him. He did not feel he posed any danger to members of the public, and had driven taxis since 2006 with no complaints made against him. The Sub Committee asked why he had only declared the caution on his renewal form rather than as soon as it happened. The driver explained that he had mistakenly believed this was only required for convictions, and apologised for the oversight. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (7) Application 7 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 the driver had declared a previous conviction. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, namely a small hammer which he had left on the seat of his taxi after using it to fix the wheelchair ramp. He explained that a passenger had run off without paying after going from Cardiff to Cwmbran. The driver had waited outside his house for some time before speaking to someone else there, who persuaded the passenger to come out and pay up. The passenger claimed that he had followed him with a weapon and threatened him with it, so the driver called the police to explain. The Sub Committee asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had emailed the council to inform them but had misspelt the email address. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED: a. To approve the amendment of the Members’ Schedule of Remuneration 2024 – 2025 with effect from 1st March 2025 as attached at Appendix A; b. To authorise the Monitoring Officer to update the Members’ Schedule of Remuneration in the Constitution.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED – That: (1) the Committee notes the Internal Audit Strategy 2025/26 2; (2) the Internal Audit Charter 2025/26 be approved;; (3) the Internal Audit Plan 2025/26 be approved; Members considered the principle and proposed safeguards relating to the Audit Manager’s potential appointment as a Director of the Cardiff Heat Network.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED to note the information provided.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: 1. Approve the draft Corporate Plan 2025-28 (Appendix A); 2. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any minor amendments as necessary to the Corporate Plan 2025-28 following consideration by Council on 6th March 2025 and prior to publication by 1st April 2025.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 was deferred in the absence of the witness. (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 stating that he displayed dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour including shouting and cursing at a pedestrian. The driver’s representative noted that the report suggested that his licence had been suspended by the Sub Committee for 10 days in 2016, and clarified that this was not the case as no suspension was awarded upon appeal. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that two people were trying to cross the road in front of the New Theatre and the light was amber so he stopped. He didn’t know what triggered it but one of them came to his car and used foul language towards him. He straightened up his car and then drove off when the light turned green. Members asked whether the driver had seen the CCTV video of the incident, which he had. Members viewed the video and suggested that it contradicted what he had said in his statement about his taxi being stationary until the light was green. His statement also suggested that the female pedestrian was not using any sort of support to cross the road, which the video showed she was. The driver reiterated that he stood by his statement, and added that all other pedestrians had crossed the road by the time his taxi reached the crossing. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he and his wife were walking back to their car and approached the crossing as the light for it was green. As they crossed the road, the light turned flashing amber, so they continued as they had right of way, relatively slowly as his wife was using a crutch. The taxi came round the corner quickly and came close to him, which he found particularly worrying as he’d had two knee replacements. The driver used abusive language towards him regarding his age, but he did not recall using any bad language himself. The taxi drove off and he noted down the numberplate in order to make a complaint. The driver’s representative suggested that the crossing in front of the New Theatre often caused confusion between drivers and pedestrians as it lacked a crossing box. He acknowledged that the witness and the driver had different views about who had right of way, but disputed the suggestion that the driver was speeding round the corner. The driver’s representative added that the video seemed to show the pedestrian speaking to the driver first. The witness acknowledged that the video showed him going to speak to the driver, but suggested that this was only because the driver had wound down the window and shouted at him. Otherwise, he would have continued walking. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days. (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 from South Wales Police stating that the driver committed a number of speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had not been driving his vehicle on most of the occasions listed in the report. Friends of his had used the car for private use rather than as a taxi and received speeding tickets, and one of these friends who had committed three of the offences had left the country for family reasons so he was hard to contact. The driver didn’t want to lose his livelihood so he took responsibility for the offences, accepted nine points on his licence and paid a fine. After that, South Wales Police had made a complaint to the licensing authority. Members queried the details of specific offences provided in the report, where a number of different names were nominated as having been driving the vehicle at the time. The driver stated that one of the individuals was a friend of his, and another was the friend’s wife. Members noted that it had not been possible to trace either person and the police did not believe they existed. Members queried one of the offences where the driver had initially nominated his wife but then changed it to his own name and attended a speed awareness course. The driver apologised for making a mistake in this case. Members noted that the driver’s wife had nominated herself as the driver on one form, and asked if the driver understood that he was the only person insured to drive his taxi as it was a licensed vehicle. The driver suggested that a number of his friends borrowed his vehicle on occasion as it was a large van, and their insurance covered it. The Legal Officer clarified that this was not the case. Only the licensed taxi holder could use the vehicle, and it was not possible to get private insurance to drive someone else’s taxi. Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that there were historic offences going back to 2020, and the police took responsibility for failing to flag them up until now. He had been unable to track down several of the individuals nominated and suspected that they did not exist, and were certainly not insured to drive the vehicle. Other offences had been blamed on family members who had accepted they were driving at the time, which meant they would also have been uninsured. The witness also suggested that the times of the offences, several of which had occurred after midnight, including on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, suggested that the vehicle was being used as a taxi at the time. He noted that the driver had admitted to three of the offences, taking three points and paying a fine, after being challenged. It was the police’s view that the driver had been driving the vehicle on all of the occasions listed, and had done everything possible to avoid being banned. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (4) Application 4 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 alleging that the driver committed three speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had misread the date of the offence on the first letter and nominated his wife as the driver of the vehicle at the time. This was an honest mistake rather than an attempt to falsify the form. He believed that the second offence was a mistake on the part of the authorities as his Uber log showed he was driving elsewhere at the time. On the third occasion, he believed he was giving his cousin a driving lesson and allowing her to drive the vehicle, but now realised that he had been the driver at that time. Members asked how often his wife drove the taxi, and heard that he often took off the plates and allowed her to use it to go shopping. Members asked whether there had been L plates on the car when it was photographed speeding when he believed his cousin had been driving the car. The witness, representing South Wales Police, confirmed that there were not. Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that it was an easy process to check who was driving the car at the time as he had access to logs through Uber. The driver was the only person insured to drive his licensed vehicle, and his wife and cousin were not. His cousin had taken the blame and attended a speed awareness course for an offence she had not committed. Regarding the driver’s suggestion that one of the offences was a mistake by the authority, the witness noted that the job records from the time and date in question showed that the vehicle had picked up a fare close to the camera several minutes before the offence was committed. The police’s view was that the driver had dishonestly attempted to avoid punishment for speeding offences on a number of occasions. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (5) Application 5 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 the driver had nine penalty points on his licence in respect of three speeding offences. The Chair queried a pending driving offence from October 2024 referred to in the report. The driver responded that he had not received any information about this offence since then, and didn’t know why this was the case. The Chair suggested that the hearing be deferred to allow the pending offence to be resolved, so the Sub Committee could have the full information when considering the matter. RESOLVED – that the case be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee. (6) Application 6 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 the driver had declared nine points on his driving licence. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had accumulated nine points from three offences, two of which had been on the same day when a speed limit on Western Avenue changed from 40mph to 30mph. He was doing less taxi work now and more school runs. Members asked whether the driver was aware of his responsibility to inform the licensing authority as soon as the offences were committed, rather than upon renewal more than a year later. The driver responded that he had not been aware of this and apologised for failing to do so. The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had apologised for his mistake and accepted his punishment. He had been caught speeding twice in one day in an area where the limit had just changed, and on both occasions was going below the previous limit, so it was clearly an honest mistake. Members queried how many points the driver had in total, and heard that he had received three in April 2023, six more in June 2023 and had three pending as of January 2025. Members noted that if the pending offence resulted in three more points, he would have to come before the Sub Committee again. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (7) Application 7 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 the driver had six penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90). Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been convicted in January of this year, having unintentionally misidentified his wife as the driver of a vehicle he shared with her. He originally wrote her name down on the form but then realised he had been driving and took responsibility. He had received six points on his license as a result. Members queried the delay between the offence in May 2024 and declaring it to the licensing authority in January 2025. The driver explained that he had to wait until January for his court hearing, after which he had declared it to the authority. The driver also clarified that the offence took place before he became qualified as a taxi driver in Cardiff, having been licensed in Newport before. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken, (8) Application 8 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / 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. The driver had been referred to the Sub Committee and subsequently had his licence revoked. The driver explained that he had been to the Sub Committee and been refused several times before. He didn’t have any additional evidence to prove his fitness but he had been a licensed driver for twelve years and never had any problems. He had tried to work in other jobs like security since losing his licence, but taxi driving was his passion. He was trying to support his family and getting his licence back would make a huge difference. Members noted that the Sub Committee had revoked his licence in 2022 in line with its guidance after he had received 15 points, and had suggested that he reapply after five years. The driver emphasised that his offences had all been only slightly above the 30mph limit, in a private car rather than his taxi, and had been committed nearly five years ago. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
RESOLVED: that • the draft Corporate Plan 2025-28 (Appendix A), subject to any amendments authorised under recommendation 3, be approved for consideration by Council on 6 March 2025; • the responses to any recommendations made by any of the Scrutiny Committees (Appendix C) in relation to the draft Corporate Plan 2025-28 be considered and agreed; • the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, be authorised to make any minor consequential amendments to the draft Corporate Plan 2025-28 that are required to reflect the response to any Scrutiny Committee recommendations (agreed under recommendation 2), prior to consideration by Council on 6 March 2025; • Council be recommended to delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any minor amendments as necessary to the Corporate Plan 2025-28 following consideration by Council on 6 March 2025 and prior to publication by 1 April 2025.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward. Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to Cllr Weaver’s portfolio Cllr Weaver made a brief statement outlining sections in the Draft Corporate Plan and Draft Budgetary Proposals relevant to his portfolio. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments and the discussion is summarised below: Members wished to know how the new KPI’s compared to the current performance figures, and were advised that this information could be provided to the Committee. Members enquired about the dropout rate among apprentices at the Council and whether the Council monitors the progress of apprentices going on into further employment. Members were advised that the dropout rate is very low, some apprentices and trainees go on to work for the Council and in some service areas apprentice and trainee placements are very helpful in securing employment outside the Council. However, it was acknowledged that not all data may be properly captured, given the difficulties in keeping in touch with those who dropout. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward. Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Culture, Sport and Parks portfolio The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Jennifer Burke, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Parks; Neil Hanratty, Director of Economic Development; Donna Jones, Assistant Director for County Estates; Ruth Cayford, Operational Manager for Creative Industries and Culture; and Jon Maidment, Head of Parks and Cardiff Harbour Authority. Cllr Burke made a brief statement, following which Neil Hanratty gave a presentation outlining sections in the Draft Corporate Plan and Draft Budgetary Proposals relevant to Cllr Burke’s portfolio. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below: Members were advised that filming charges in Bute Park Visitor Centre have been added to the fees and charges report and will continue to be included there in future years. Members sought an explanation for the decision not to increase fees at the riding school, and were advised that there is a need to invest in the school as the infrastructure is deteriorating, and there is concern that if fees are increased customers could transfer to commercial competitors. Members were advised that there have been instances when the outdoor school has had to be closed due to the roof leaking. Officers were confident that the expected £10,000 increase in income would be forthcoming. Members sought an update on the Cardiff Story museum and were advised that it was the Cabinet’s view that it should remain in its present location until a viable alternative could be found. Members questioned why the KPI for satisfaction rate of parks was set at 72.5% and were advised that while the budget is increasing there are still pressures and areas where investment is needed. Members were advised that the development of a new parks strategy includes consultation to understand what people want from parks, and to encourage people who might not ordinarily access parks to do so. Members sought an explanation for the changes in the plans for Pentwyn Leisure Centre since the previous plans were consulted on. The Cabinet Member advised that the type of equipment that is going into the centre is on a par with the International Pool and will be a decent piece of infrastructure that is safe for families. Members sought assurance that there would no further delay to the reopening of St David’s Hall beyond the 4th quarter of 2026/27. The Cabinet Member advised Members that in recent weeks nearly all relevant applications for work to progress have been submitted, and subject to regulatory approval work should commence in the summer. Announcement has been made that the Cardiff Singer of the World 2027 will take place at St David’s Hall and the hall will be open in time for that. Members wondered whether the reopening of St David’s Hall in 2026-27 would have a significant impact on the city’s tourism sector, and were advised that alongside Cardiff Castle, Principality Stadium and the city’s grassroots venues, and forthcoming Arena, it would mean that Cardiff would have a wide variety of venues that could host a range of different performers. Cardiff is increasingly seen as a destination for live events and it was important to the Council to ensure that St David’s Hall was not only maintained but enhanced in terms of what it offered people. Members asked whether there was a mechanism to ensure that monies from the Financial Resilience Mechanism available for the sport development grant translate to improved services, and were advised that there is a sustained demand for this support which enables sports teams and clubs across the city to take on assets and improve them, working in partnership with the council. Members sought information on how the Council could ensure there was involvement for female sports initiatives in this. The Cabinet Member advised that the FAW is reporting a significant increase in women’s and girls’ participation in football clubs. Llandaff Cricket has had a record participation of young girls, and girls’ participation in rugby is improving in the younger age groups; the administration remains committed to increasing participation of under-represented groups. Members asked how much of the £1.5 million FRM was currently allocated and were advised that not all of it was already committed. Members sought an update on the Whitewater Rafting Centre, and were advised that there had been some significant budget challenges in recent years but with efficiency savings it is getting closer to being operated within budget and is very close to breaking even. Members discussed how well the Whitewater Rafting Centre was promoted, and were advised that it is a niche facility and there has been some targeted marketing, but this could be reviewed to ensure it is reaching enough people. An offer was made for committee members to visit the Centre to see first-hand the range of services on offer and to discuss marketing and promotion with officers. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward. Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Leader’s portfolio The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Huw Thomas, Leader of the Council; Neil Hanratty, Director of Economic Development; and Jon Day, Operational Manager for Investment and Tourism. Cllr Thomas made a brief statement, following which Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below: Members discussed the lessons to be learned and any governance arrangements that might need to be addressed in relation to the contract for the demolition of Aberthaw power station, dealt with via the Cardiff Capital Region body. The Leader advised that he could not comment in detail as there are ongoing legal proceedings, but at the right time all local authorities involved will want an investigation into what occurred. Members discussed the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee which is responsible for reviewing and scrutinising decisions made by the CJC. The Leader reminded the Committee that there had been discussions about the appropriateness of the scrutiny arrangements for the City Deal, and expressed the view that this was something either CJC or Welsh Government would wish to look at in more detail. He could envision a system where if a project is being delivered by CCR within the area of a LA, it would be appropriate for the relevant committee to scrutinise the work of the CCR. Members wished to know about the prospects for a project emerging from the recommendations of the Western Gateway’s independent Severn Estuary Commission on the potential for renewable energy. The Leader advised that the Commission is due to report in mid-March. Briefings he has had indicate there is a potentially deliverable project that is technologically and financially feasible, but it will be necessary to have the right regulatory and governance environment to unlock the private sector investment. Members sought information on how returns on investment in the City Deal were measured in terms of job creation and other economic opportunities. The Leader advised that there is a 5-year gateway process of assessment done jointly by UK and Welsh Governments on a CCR level, the top level metrics being job creation, GVA uplift and leverage of private money to match public money invested. Members wished to know how the Council ensures that projects invested in through the City Deal align with environmental commitments made through One Planet Cardiff and the goal to reach Net Zero. The Leader advised that the KPI’s for the City Deal were set in 2016 and did not necessarily have green objectives in mind. The CJC has to have statutory policies around things such as biodiversity and the next deal will be more of a green deal. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward. Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Investment and Development portfolio The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Huw Thomas, Leader of the Council; Neil Hanratty, Director of Economic Development; Donna Jones, Assistant Director for County Estates; and Jon Day, Operational Manager for Investment and Tourism. Cllr Thomas made a brief statement, following which Neil Hanratty gave a presentation outlining sections of the Budgetary Proposals relevant to the portfolio. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below: Members sought clarification on the source of additional income of £27,000 and were advised that it was income from renting out workshop space. Members sought clarification on SPF funding for Cardiff Indoor Market and were advised that the funding was for the Financial Year 2024/25, had been agreed and was already in place. Members sought further details on how the Council is working with the hospitality and accommodation sectors to increase accommodation options for visitors during major events. The Leader advised that the amount of hotel accommodation in the city is relatively modest, and one of the reasons for pursuing the Indoor Arena is to provide a more regular stream of visitors into the city and encourage investment in hotel development. Members discussed whether proceeds from the visitor levy could be used to benefit district shopping centres away from the city centre. The Leader advised that as currently proposed it is envisaged that the proceeds of the visitor levy are spent within the visitor economy; however, the Council would want to develop a plan for how the levy could be deployed in partnership with stakeholders, including the BID as well as stakeholders more broadly. Members questioned whether investment in new infrastructure such as the Canal Quarter Regeneration Phase 2 was the right approach when existing infrastructure such as city centre paving was not being sufficiently maintained. The Leader advised that much of the paving repair work in the city centre was due to the heavy traffic of supply trucks along Queen Street and The Hayes. Turning to the canal, he reminded Members that the plans had been signed off in 2021 when there Covid restrictions and concerns about the viability of city centres. The Council would want to see further plans, with the development of the Indoor Arena, around the Utilita Arena, developed in a strategic manner with a master plan for the whole area, with green and blue space being a key component making it somewhere people will want to spend time. Members questioned whether pursuing a target of more Grade A office space was the most sustainable approach when there is other office space that is not being used. Officers advised that there is a lack of vacant Grade A office space in the city centre, and thus a risk that there is no property available for businesses that want to invest. The Leader added that last year saw the highest level of office take-up in 7 years. Members asked whether there is a strategy for bringing surplus non-Grade A office space up to standard for reuse, and were advised that there is a market for cheaper office space for start-up and growing businesses, while other surplus office space has been repurposed for residential use. Members wished to know whether there were concerns around CO2 emissions in relation to the creation of car parks in support of the Indoor Arena. The Leader advised that the current surface area car parks are being replaced by a single multi-storey car park with fewer parking spaces, while recognising there will be people who will drive to events at the Arena and want to park to access facilities in Cardiff Bay. Most of the area will be released to make it more attractive to people on foot and for leisure purposes. Members wondered whether there were plans for more festivals or other attractions to encourage visitors to make longer stays. The Leader referred to the Cardiff City of Music Festival as a homegrown event that the Council would like to invest in and grow for the long term. Officers added that the Cardiff Live development will provide a venue able to compete for smaller business tourism events, and this will hopefully encourage visitors to stay longer and enjoy other facilities. Members discussed how to promote other things for people to see or do in Cardiff besides the major events. The Leader advised that this was the sort of thing that the Council would want to be able to enhance through funds unlocked by the tourism levy. Members discussed whether the planned investment in Cardiff Indoor Market would interfere with the improvements already taking place in the market. Officers advised that the intention of the redevelopment is to improve the market as it is rather than change what it will be doing. Work will be done to make good the roof and stop it leaking, and to improve the stallholders’ stands. Members asked whether proposals for open space or street food facilities in the city centre were seen as competing with the Indoor Market. Officers advised that businesses are generally comfortable with investments that improve the overall offer and attract more people into the city centre. The Leader advised that it was indicative that businesses and investors see the city centre as being a place where people go to socialise, eat and spend leisure time rather than for shopping. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward. Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Tackling Poverty portfolio The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Peter Bradbury, Cabinet Member for Tackling Poverty and Supporting Young People; and Helen Evans, Assistant Director for Housing and Communities. Cllr Bradbury made a brief statement outlining sections of the Budgetary Proposals relevant to his portfolio. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below: The Chair expressed gratitude for the acceptance of the KPI recommendations from the Scrutiny Performance Panel into the Corporate Plan, particularly around the Race Equality Task Force and sustainable employment. Members wished to know how much of a challenge the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions presented to the Council and what is the Council’s strategy for addressing it. The Cabinet Member advised that the Council adjusts its work according to Governments’ tax proposals, and added that he had not received many letters from employers complaining that the increase was causing problems in recruitment. Members asked whether there were KPIs around supporting people to stay in work. The Cabinet Member advised that the target for getting people into work had been raised, and that the team aims to get people into full-time and meaningful rather than temporary employment. Officers advised that most of the funding for Into Work services is grant funding and comes with a requirement that people stay and work for at least 6 months. Mentors work alongside the new employees to ensure they are sustained in that employment. Members discussed whether people pass through the Into Work service only to be seen again a few months later, and were advised that some people have multiple barriers into work. A new Connect to Work programme will be delivered next year looking at those complex barriers, helping people into work and then wrapping support around them. Members asked about the confidence levels at achieving the KPIs, and were advised that this is a key risk in 2026 as a significant amount of funding for Into Work services comes from the SPF. The Cabinet Member added that the team do remarkable work in the face of great challenges and difficulties, and it is important that funding for the next few years is secured to keep them in post. Members sought information on what contingency there was should the SPF be significantly reduced or withdrawn. Officers advised that Connect to Work would help in some respects but not in terms of overall funding. Currently posts that become vacant are not being backfilled. Should no alternative funding become available the Council would have to look to exit posts. The Cabinet Member added that he would be putting pressure on ministers to replace SPF or put in place grant funding, and he would encourage Members to do the same. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward. Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Housing and Communities portfolio The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Lee Bridgeman, Cabinet Member for Housing and Communities; Helen Evans, Assistant Director for Housing and Communities; and Rebecca Hooper, Operational Manager for Neighbourhood Regeneration. Cllr Bridgeman made a brief statement, after which Helen Evans and Rebecca Hooper gave a presentation outlining sections of the Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Housing and Communities portfolio. Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below: Members discussed the use of volunteers in hubs and libraries. The Cabinet Member advised that it was decided at an early stage not to adopt a full volunteer service. Hub and library staff are professional and qualified and cannot be replaced with volunteers. Officers added a balance had been struck between the number of volunteers in hubs and libraries and the remaining paid staff, and it is unlikely that paid staff could be reduced further. As part of an internal restructuring the Council is looking to create more specialist library roles. Volunteers receive good training and there are robust procedures in place. Members wished to know about the number of hubs that hub managers are managing and whether this was sustainable. Officers advised that this depends on the size of hub; Central Library has its own manager while for smaller hubs and libraries there may be a single manager across 3 or 4. The Council is creating more senior roles such as assistant managers and senior hub library assistants and there will be one of these in each hub or library. Members discussed the training of existing staff in specialisms and were advised that the Council is encouraging hub and library staff to enrol for a librarianship degree. Members wondered how the proposal to remove free parking periods from Council car parks would affect the viability of district and local centres. The Cabinet Member advised that car parking charges were not part of his portfolio. Officers advised that there is a coordinated approach with Transport and Highways relating to regeneration of shopping areas. Many district centres do not have free car parking and the focus is on ensuring there are good Active Travel opportunities to encourage people out of cars where possible. Members questioned why there was no reference in the Corporate Plan to 15-minute cities and sought reassurance that the Council still supports the concept. The Cabinet Member assured Members that the commitment was still there but the 15-minute city name had been dropped as there was too much toxicity around it. Members sought further information on the Roath-Adamsdown Business Corridor. Officers advised that the boundaries had not yet been defined and there have been discussions around alignment with other regeneration and Active Travel schemes. The size of the area will be part of the consultation. Members welcomed the focus on ensuring books in hubs and libraries reflect the diversity of language and sought information on how this diversity was assessed. Officer advised that this was through consultations, surveys, and conversations with library staff and customers. In addition, a new IT system being rolled out allows customer requests in specific languages to be logged. Members sought information on whether reduction of the book fund would have an impact on people who access books in community languages. Officers advised that they were confident that the Council would be able to continue to meet the requirements of community languages. Data on the percentage of purchased books are in community languages could be provided to the Committee. Members sought information on the venues used for the Learning for Life programme, and were advised that there are many such venues, including schools, churches and community halls, which are listed on the website, and in addition there continue to be some online courses available. Members were advised that adult literacy and numeracy comes under a separate programme for adult learning called Learning for Work. Members were advised that most Learning for Life participants are 50-plus retirees and that officers would be able to provide a demographic breakdown to committee if required. Members enquired about the priority for the Clifton Street area in the Roath-Adamsdown Business Corridor placemaking plan. Officers advised that the South Riverside Business Corridor placemaking plan is currently being concluded, and there is a significant project for Cowbridge Road East that officers are looking to secure funding for and take forward shortly. The target date for the Adamsdown-Roath Business Corridor to commence is June, and this includes Clifton Street. Officers are working close with colleagues to coordinate the work with plans for a Transport Corridor along Newport Road and Broadway. Members wished to know what the allocation of £1.5M for regeneration from the FRM was likely to be spent. Officers advised that ward councillors would be invited to put forward ideas that meet the criteria around regeneration. The key priority will be deliverability. The Cabinet Member urged Councillors to look out for the email from officers inviting ideas. RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.