Ffyrdd, tyllau, parcio, bysiau, beicio, cerdded a chyfyngiadau cyflymder.
Beth mae cynghorau'n ei wneud
Mae cynghorau'n gofalu am ffyrdd a phalmentydd lleol, goleuadau stryd, parcio a diogelwch ar y ffyrdd, ac yn cefnogi gwasanaethau bws na fyddai'n rhedeg fel arall. Llywodraeth Cymru sy'n gyfrifol am draffyrdd a chefnffyrdd.
Pwy sy'n penderfynu
Yr aelod Cabinet dros drafnidiaeth sy'n arwain. Mae gorchmynion traffig, fel terfynau cyflymder newydd neu gyfyngiadau parcio, yn cael eu hysbysebu cyn eu gwneud.
Dweud eich dweud
Rhowch wybod am dyllau yn y ffordd a goleuadau stryd wedi torri i'r cyngor neu drwy FixMyStreet. Gallwch wrthwynebu gorchymyn traffig arfaethedig yn ystod ei gyfnod hysbysu.
Mewn rhifau
Mae cynghorau Cymru yn bwriadu gwario £107 y pen ar hyn yn 2026-27.
Mae'n amrywio o £62 yn Bro Morgannwg i £166 yn Ynys Môn.
Pobl a laddwyd neu a anafwyd yn ddifrifol ar y ffyrdd: 38 fesul 100,000 o bobl ar draws Cymru (2025).
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATION DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT:
5a. 25/02667/FUL – CATHAYS
Former Civic Amenity Site, Wedal Road
Re-use of former civic amenity site for waste transfer facility with retention of existing storage shipping containers and proposed siting of Bulk Carrier Units.
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 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 alleging that he failed to use the meter for a journey within the Cardiff boundary and overcharged a passenger.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that when the complainant had approached his taxi and asked to go to St Mellons, he told her it would likely cost more than usual as it was an event day. She said she normally paid around £20 to get to that area. Throughout the journey she was very quiet and eventually asked to be dropped off by the roundabout by Tesco, but he felt it wasn’t safe there. She paid £20 in total but no more.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver estimated that the meter had read £25 or £26 when she got out. He was used to customers trying not to pay, especially when drunk, so he occasionally asked for a deposit, and his card machine wasn’t working at the time. He knew he had to provide that option but it had stopped working just before the journey.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that when she got in and asked to go to St Mellons, she told the driver she had £20 cash or could pay by card. He said it would be £30, and then immediately asked for the £20 cash. His meter wasn’t running, which he claimed was due to the event that day but she knew that wasn’t how it worked.
She added that the driver then insisted she pay another £5 by bank transfer. She tried to do this but her banking app wasn’t working, so he said he’d drive her to a cash machine to get the money. She didn’t feel safe doing that so she asked to get out. The driver asked for her name and address as she left, which she did not provide. She emphasised that whether or not she had been drinking was irrelevant.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver suggested that he had asked for the extra money because the meter had gone above £25. The witness suggested that the meter had not been on at any time during the journey.
The second witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, clarified that all journeys within the Cardiff boundary should be on the meter. He calculated the journey taken as being worth approximately £19.65, at most a couple of pounds more depending on stops and traffic lights. The £30 requested was significantly more than that in any case.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for 28 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 been stopped by a Licensing Enforcement Officer carrying passengers within the Cardiff boundary failing to use the meter.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been waiting at the rank for a while as it was a quiet night. The customers had approached him and asked to go to Llanishen, which he said would cost £17-18 on the meter. They were happy with this so he didn’t turn the meter on, despite knowing it was a requirement.
The witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, added that the vehicle had been pulled over during a licensing operation which found that the meter was either not on or not working. He spoke to the passengers, who confirmed that they were advised at the outset of the journey that it would be a cash fare of £17, and he cautioned the driver for failing to use the meter. He asked him to reset the meter afterwards, which he reluctantly accepted.
Members asked the driver if he had used the meter on his previous journeys that day, and heard that this was his first fare of the day. Members asked why the vehicle had been stopped in the first place, and heard that this was due to a defective numberplate light.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(4)
Application 4
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 alleging that he failed to use the meter and charged a fare in excess of the legal tariff.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t remember the exact trip or the fare he charged, but if a customer felt they had been overcharged then he understood it was a serious issue. He knew he had to use the meter correctly and charge the approved fare, and he had reflected carefully since he learned of the complaint. He suggested that personal and financial pressure may had affected his judgement, and he took full responsibility and was willing to refund the customer if needed.
Members asked why the payment receipt had showed a different name to the driver, and heard that he had been temporarily using his daughter’s card reader because his was damaged. He understood that using someone else’s account was not allowed, but wanted to be able to continue working while his was broken.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that he had been visiting Cardiff from Glasgow last summer. He had arrived at the central railway station with a lot of bags and sought a taxi from the rank there to the Premier Inn on Pentwyn Road. He didn’t have any cash so asked the driver if he had a card reader before getting in. It had been a pleasant journey where he and the driver chatted a lot, but he was shocked when the driver told him the price was £34.50. He couldn’t see any meter to prove this was a fair price but didn’t feel he could walk away without paying, so he did so by card.
The witness added that he spoke to an Uber driver the next day who was appalled when he mentioned the cost. The other driver suggested that he make a complaint as it reflected very poorly on the city for visitors to be ripped off. The witness used several more taxis during his time in Cardiff and none of the fares were anywhere close to £34.50.
The second witness, who was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, explained that he had investigated the complaint and initially found it difficult to identify the driver due to the different card reader and bank account. He had calculated the fare as having been worth approximately £19.30, and then interviewed the driver for potentially overcharging and failing to use a meter.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver reiterated that he didn’t recall the journey in question but had learned a lesson from the complaint. The witness suggested that it was unlikely he didn’t remember it, as he had a distinctive Glaswegian accent and they had spoken in detail about the city and both of their family links there. He did not want to be refunded for the journey, only to ensure it didn’t happen to anyone else.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(6)
Application 6
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 criminal conviction and a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was enthusiastic about driving and wanted it to be his livelihood. He had made mistakes in the past which had led to being disqualified, but felt he was a different person now and was fit and proper to drive taxis in Cardiff.
Members asked about his convictions and disqualification, which the applicant clarified had been for six months in 2022. He didn’t feel that his convictions had been correct decisions but he had accepted them. He had been accused of attempting to drive with a drug level above the specified limit, but emphasised that he had just been sitting in his car and not trying to drive it.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence 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 motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he wanted to contribute positively to the city. He had several convictions from 2024 but hoped he would be considered a fit and proper person. He wanted to work to support his family rather than being on benefits, and hoped he would be allowed to drive taxis as he liked driving and had a clean licence.
Members asked for more details about his convictions, which the applicant explained had been for threatening or disorderly behaviour, resisting arrest and criminal damage to a police vehicle. He accepted he had done something wrong and emphasised that he would not do it again, and had undertaken an unpaid work requirement and paid the fines. He felt that the offences had been based on a misunderstanding as he had been very new in the country at the time.
Members asked why he had not declared his convictions on his application, and heard that he had misunderstood the question as being about his driving licence rather than his personal life.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(9)
Application 9
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 motoring convictions and a previous criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he his first conviction had been in 2018 for possession of cannabis, and he had plead guilty in court and took full responsibility for his actions. He had since been sent back to court four times for not completing a community order, but felt this was partly due to an administrative error and provided evidence that he had completed the necessary requirements.
He clarified that the other offence had involved driving a family member’s car while he didn’t have a licence. He had refused to provide a specimen following this, not realising at the time that this was a crime.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(10)
Application 10
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 motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that she had been disqualified from driving for six months in 2023 after totting up points on her licence. She hadn’t been in a good place and had been going through a difficult family time, but had overcome that now and felt she’d grown up, and the points had expired. She drove coaches for a living and was seeking a taxi licence to expand her options.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
1.
To delegate authority to the Corporate Director, Resources, in consultation with the Director of Governance & Legal Services and Monitoring Officer, to proceed with the public advertisement and convening of a Member Appointment Panel for the appointment of an Independent Non-Executive Director to fill the vacancy due to arise on the Board of Cardiff Bus;
2.
To approve the establishment of a Member Appointment Panel, comprised of three Labour; one Liberal Democrat and one Conservative Member, with delegated authority to interview suitable candidates and make an appointment to fill the vacant Independent Non-Executive Director position on the Board of Cardiff Bus.
RESOLVED: that
1. the consultation plan to undertake a statutory 12-week consultation on the Draft Active Travel Network Map be approved.
2. authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport & Environment to consider the feedback to the consultation on the draft Active Travel Network Map and approve any amendments thereto that are considered appropriate
3. authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport & Environment to submit the final version of the Active Travel Network Map to the Welsh Ministers for approval in accordance with the timetable set out by Welsh Government.
RESOLVED: that
1. Authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment (in consultation with the Corporate Director for Resources and Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport) to finalise and award the Stage 2 Construction Contract to John Graham Construction Limited.
2. It be noted that this delegation is conditional upon the overall project cost remaining within the approved budget and the Project Team providing assurance to the Programme Board that the project funding is adequate.
3. authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment (in consultation with the Corporate Director for Resources and Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport) to vary the Stage 1 ECI contract to cover all costs incurred to date, to approve any future Compensation Events under the NEC contract, and to enable defined packages of enabling works, utility diversions and site?set?up activities to proceed in advance of the Stage 2 Notice to Proceed.
4. the risks included within the report be noted.
5. It be noted that several elements associated with the award of this contract are commercially sensitive and are therefore provided within the confidential appendices. These include all information relating to cost, funding and programme. This information must remain confidential to protect the Council’s commercial position, and no Notice to Proceed will be issued until the conditions set out in this report and its appendices have been satisfied.
RESOLVED: that
1. the strategic approach detailed in this report to develop an additional Green Crematorium and Wake facility be agreed.
2. Authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport & Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Waste, Street Scene & Environmental Services, the Corporate Director for Resources, and the Director of Governance and Legal Services to
· allocate funding to allow a formal pre-application enquiry for the development on the site of the Dutch Garden Centre
· develop a business case which will include extensive consultation with residents and stakeholders
· submit a full planning application for consideration by Planning Committee in early 2027.
3. It be noted that a further report will be brought to Cabinet in Spring/Summer 2027 which will include final details of design, layout and updated construction costs.
RESOLVED: that
1) the strategy set out in the report and at Confidential Appendix 1 for delivery of a permanent car park at the ISV site be approved and authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation the Cabinet Member for Investment & Development, the Legal Officer and the Section 151 Officer to:
a. Deal with all aspects of the procurement of a contractor/energy developer to deliver the car park and any associated energy infrastructure.
b. Deal with all aspects of the disposal of the area of land set out at Confidential Appendix 1 in accordance with independent valuation advice to fund any financial contribution required by the Council following the procurement process set out at (a) above, with a further Cabinet decision required if the scale of Council contribution exceeds the value of this land.
2) a soft market exercise be approved as set out at Confidential Appendix 4 to consider the potential disposal of the Cardiff Ice Arena (CIA) and return to Cabinet to consider the market response.
3) a soft market exercise be approved as set out at Confidential Appendix 4 to consider the external operation and/or disposal of the Cardiff International White Water (CIWW) and return to Cabinet to consider the market response.
4) Subject to approval of the parking strategy at (1) above, the amendment to the Option Agreement with Cardiff Peninsula Consortium Limited to include the land indicated on the plan at Confidential Appendix 2 for the delivery of obligations set out at Confidential Appendix 1 be noted.
5) a disposal or long-term lease of the Toys R Us building to the current sub-tenant of the Cardiff Ice Arena be approved subject to independent valuation advice and in accordance with the draft Heads of Terms attached at Confidential Appendix 5.
6) Subject to the formal agreement of residents, the Council taking ownership of the boardwalk at the ISV site be approved, as illustrated by the plan attached at Appendix 6 and in line with the financial plan outlined at Confidential Appendix 1.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward and will write to you to inform you of the Committee’s observations, comments and/ or recommendations.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATION GRANTED:
5c. 25/00078/VAR – LLANDAFF NORTH
64 College Road, CF14 2JZ
Single storey side extension incorporating porch. (Approved 28 January 2021 - 20/02372/DCH):-
Variation of Conditions 1 (Implementation Period) and 2 (Approved Plans) of 20/02372/DCH to amend the approved scheme as follows: 1) Increase the implementation period by five years. 2) Alter the width of the extension.
APPLICATION GRANTED SUBJECT TO S106 AGREEMENT:
5a. 25/02066/FUL – CATHAYS
Plots 4 and 5, Central Square
Mixed-use development to provide residential accommodation, flexible non-residential uses, cycle parking, landscaping and other associated works.
APPLICATION GRANTED SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CONDITION:
5b. 25/02880/RES – GRANGETOWN
Land at Channel View Road
Reserved Matters application for Phases 2 to 6 and Part of Phase 7 of 24/01342/VAR (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) for the redevelopment and extension of part of the Channel View estate for residential apartment blocks (4 to 6 storey) and houses (2 to 2.5 storey), including 1 and 2 bed flats, 2 and 3 bed duplex apartments, and 2, 3, 4, and 5 bed houses, a retail unit, communal gardens, formal and informal children's play space, landscaping, cycle paths/footpaths, drainage infrastructure, roads, green streets, and parking; the regeneration of The Marl public open space to include water features, landscaping, and cycle paths/footpaths; the provision of a new bus/cycle/pedestrian link between channel view road and South Clive street; together with associated works.
Additional condition inserted as number 11, with subsequent condition renumbered, as follows:
11. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no gates or barriers shall be placed on any part of the footpaths that cross the site unless details of such gates/barriers have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any approved gates/barriers shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, and thereafter retained.
Reason: In the interest of active travel, and to ensure acceptable forms of new infrastructure of good quality design is provided at the site, in accordance with Policies KP5 and KP6 of the Cardiff Local Development Plan 2006-2026.
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 Driver’s License given that a complaint was received alleging he placed a customer in another vehicle in danger by opening the rear passenger door of that Hackney Carriage whilst it was in
motion.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had driven taxis since 2016 and had never been before the Sub Committee. He recalled that he had been waiting a long time at the rank by the Heath hospital, and helped an elderly gentleman who needed directions before allowing another driver to take a short fare as they needed to leave soon. He then saw another driver come from the back of the rank and call over a customer, which happened regularly as customers tended not to know about the queuing system.
He walked over to the vehicle to tell the customer that she should have got in his car, and put his hand on the door. He disagreed with the witness’ recollection that he had run over to them, as he wasn’t able to run due to a series of knee operations. He recalled that the vehicle was stationary when he put his hand on the door, but it moved away and then stopped again. He asked the driver why he had jumped the queue, and the passenger got out and got into a separate cab as she didn’t want to travel in either of theirs. The driver acknowledged that the passenger had been scared and distressed and apologised for this.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness (the passenger) recalled that she had been in a hurry because she had gone to the wrong hospital and needed to get to Llandough. She knew to go to the front of the rank but saw that the first driver was talking to someone, so she went to the next available car and got in the back. As it pulled away, she realised that the passenger door was being opened, and was certain that this happened while the car was moving. The person opening the door then remonstrated with the driver, which she found very distressing. The door shut and she asked the driver to stop so she could get out. The man who had opened the door seemed out of control and was shouting and threatening.
The second witness, who had picked up the passenger and had his door opened, recalled that when the customer first came over, he told her to go to the front of the rank, but she was in a rush and the first two drivers were unavailable, so she got in and he started driving away. He was focusing on joining the lane on the right when the other driver opened the door and started shouting at him, which he found shocking as it put him and the customer in danger.
The Sub Committee viewed two videos of the incident, one being CCTV of the rank and the other having been recorded afterwards by the driver whose taxi door was opened.
Members noted that the car was clearly moving when the door was opened and asked how the driver responded to this. He suggested that he had meant it was stationary until he came near it, and he opened the door because the window was closed.
Members discussed the queuing system and noted that this was an informal arrangement between drivers. They suggested that allowing another driver to take a short fare just beforehand could have been interpreted as meaning that he was not accepting fares at that time, and that this minor misunderstanding had only escalated into a serious issue when he came over and opened the door of a moving vehicle.
The driver’s representative asked if the witness had seen the CCTV video at the time she made her statement, which she confirmed she hadn’t. The representative asked if she recalled the second driver signalling her to get in, which she was not sure about, but she remembered that at the time he seemed to be the next available car on the rank.
In summing up, the driver’s representative emphasised that his client had been waiting patiently at the front of the queue, following the system set up by council officers to ensure fairness. He felt the other driver had picked up a fare he wasn’t entitled to and sought to speak to him about it. Opening the door was a momentary situation, and he let go almost immediately as the driver stopped the vehicle. The representative also provided further references on behalf of his client.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(3)
Application 3
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 been reported for hostile behaviour and shouting and for not providing details after an accident.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that on the day in question he picked up a passenger in Whitchurch and stopped behind a bus. Moving around the bus to overtake, he saw oncoming traffic and moved back. As the bus pulled out, he tried to maintain his position and moved back into traffic. He heard beeping behind him and then the person behind him said he had hit her car so he pulled over to speak to her.
The driver emphasised that he had been respectful throughout the conversation. He had said that he didn’t think his car had touched hers because there was no damage to either, and had explained that her car was now facing the wrong way on a one way street. He took a video of both cars to show the lack of damage, and noted that any contact would have left paint marks as the cars were different colours. He added that she had asked to use his phone, and when he said no she tried to grab it, which he found intimidating. He didn’t feel she had a claim, and she didn’t ask for any details even though he was wearing his taxi badge.
Members asked whether the driver had a dashcam on his vehicle. He explained that he didn’t at the time but had since installed front and back ones. He added that his car had sensors for reversing and automatic brakes, which did not make it impossible for him to hit another car, but made it less likely.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness suggested that rather than rolling back, the driver had reversed out of a side street while she was waiting stationary to the side of the bus at a red light. She beeped her horn but his car hit hers. She had not sought to make an insurance claim afterwards, and was concerned by his behaviour rather than her car. She felt that his driving had been reckless and his tone aggressive, and he had driven away without providing details.
The driver’s representative asked if the witness had contacted Veezu afterwards. She confirmed that she had, regarding the driver’s behaviour rather than as an insurance complaint, and Veezu had advised her to contact the council. She wasn’t seeking to gain anything from the situation and felt it was about accountability.
Members viewed a video taken by the driver after the incident. The witness clarified that the incident had happened on Merthyr Road, before they pulled over in a side street. The driver had parked in a bay and the witness alongside him.
The driver’s representative asked the witness why she had asked for his phone. She explained that hers was in her car and she wanted to call her husband, having felt like the driver was being confrontational and twisting the facts to make it seem like the incident had happened somewhere else.
Summing up, the driver’s representative suggested that there was no clear evidence that a collision had taken place, with no damage to either car, and that there was no evidence to support the allegation that his client’s conduct had been poor.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(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 been reported for intimidating and abusive behaviour towards a member of the public.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he had been working at the Cardiff Central rank, and when it was his turn he said to the passenger that he was the next driver and helped put her suitcase in the boot. She explained that she always took a photo of the taxi badge when she took a cab. He responded that he was licenced by the council, and that if she wasn’t comfortable with him she could go with any other driver, and he helped get her suitcase back out. In his memory that was the end of the incident, and he didn’t use any bad language, call her a racist, or speak in any other language.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that when she got to the train station rank, the driver came straight over and took her bag so she got her phone out and took a photo of the licence plate. She had done this as a safety precaution for many years since having a bad experience in a taxi, and either took a photo of the numberplate or screenshotted the driver’s Uber profile to sent it to her husband. She felt this was entirely reasonable as it was a dark night and she was a woman on her own in an unfamiliar city.
She added that when she explained what she was doing to the driver, he thought she was accusing him of being dangerous, and said she was being racist. He took her suitcase out and put it on the road, and started shouting to other drivers and waving his arms. Two or three other drivers put up their windows and turned away from her, and none seemed willing to take her so she walked away. A different driver saw she was upset and was very helpful, and explained it was better to take a picture of the taxi badge rather than the numberplate. She emphasised that she never said she wouldn’t travel with the driver, but he made it clear he wouldn’t take her after she took the photo.
Members asked if she had told the driver what she was doing before she took the photo, and heard that she didn’t have the chance to as it happened very quickly. He picked up her bags immediately and put them in the boot so she took the photo at the same time. She did not feel it was out of the ordinary to take a photo of the numberplate, and was surprised by the reaction.
Members asked the driver why he had an issue with the passenger taking a photo of his numberplate, which he insisted that he didn’t. He had driven taxis for 27 years and had never had a problem with customers taking precautions for their own safety. He suggested that the passenger had thought he was an Uber driver, and he had assured her that he was licensed by the council. The witness disagreed with this, as she had sought directions to the official rank and knew he was a licensed Hackney Carriage driver.
Members asked whether the driver understood that saying something along the lines of ‘if you don’t like it you can leave’ might have sounded like he didn’t want to take the passenger, regardless of intention. The driver emphasised that he hadn’t been aggressive and didn’t accuse the passenger of being racist. The driver’s representative suggested that he understood how the passenger felt, and in hindsight it would be a learning point for the driver.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his future conduct.
(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 15 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that contrary to the details in the report, his first licence had been awarded in January 2010 and he had completed the BTEC course. He valued his work highly and fully appreciated the seriousness of the situation, and didn’t want to lose everything he had worked for.
He explained that none of the speeding offences concerned had been dangerous or reckless. They included going at 68mph in a 60mph variable speed limit zone on the motorway, and 62 in a 50mph zone where he had failed to see a sign, and he acknowledged that both of these were poor driving. In court, he had pleaded excessive financial hardship if he was unable to continue driving, and this was granted alongside a significant fine.
He had submitted testimonies from numerous clients and hoped this gave Members confidence in his ability to provide safe and secure passenger transfer. Most of his work involved government contracts and he had always had good reviews. He now used a speed limiter and cruise control at all times.
Members queried one of the offences which involved failing to provide information as to the identity of a driver. The driver explained that he normally waited for the reminder of a ticket to come through, and when he didn’t receive one he thought it might have been withdrawn. It was only when the summons came through six months later that he realised the seriousness of the situation.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
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.
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: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATION GRANTED SUBJECT TO S106 AGREEMENT:
5a. 25/01022/FUL – BUTETOWN
51-59 Penarth Road, Butetown
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of co-living accommodation units in a single building of up to nine storeys, commercial floorspace on the ground floor and the provision of indoor and outdoor amenity space, cycle parking and associated works.
APPLICATION GRANTED SUBJECT TO S106 AGREEMENT AND REVISED CONDITIONS:
5b. 25/01220/FUL – FAIRWATER
Former Fairwater Social & Athletic Club, Plasmawr Road, Fairwater
Demolition of the former Fairwater Social Club and construction of affordable houses together with access, landscaping, drainage, engineering, and the associated works.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED:
5a. 25/02048/FUL – PENTWYN
St Teilos High School, Circle Way East, Llanedeyrn
Proposed construction of 3G pitch, floodlighting, changing rooms and associated works.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 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 during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control.
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 nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had worked as a taxi driver for over 30 years and this was his first time before the Committee. Members were advised that the two SP30 driving offences had both occurred outside Cardiff in the early hours of the morning. The vehicle was travelling at 26mph in a 20mph zone and there were no passengers in the vehicle at the time.
The driver accepted that he was at fault, and he was now extra vigilant when it came to complying with speed limits.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(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 nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the 3 SP30 driving offences had all occurred within a short space of time. The driver had taken fares to Swansea and was unfamiliar with the area. The speeds for the offences were 22mph, 22mph and 27mph respectively.
Members were advised that the offences were reported to the Hackney Office at the time. The driver was now very vigilant as he was fully aware that any conviction for a further driving offence would affect his livelihood.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(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 alleging he failed to remain with his taxi after parking it on a rank, failed to display the interior plate and was rude and aggressive to Licensing Enforcement officers.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that on the day in question the driver parked in a taxi rank in order to go to his bank. When he returned to his vehicle he became aware of somebody taking photographs of his vehicle.
When asked, the lady identified herself as a Licensing Officer. She asked why he had parked in the rank and was ‘shouting and raving’. The driver denied that he was rude and aggressive to the Licensing Officers and suggested that the statements made by the witnesses were concocted. He stated that he was calm and respectful throughout the incident and denied using bad language.
The driver confirmed that he was aware that parking on a taxi rank was not permitted.
The Sub Committee also received representations from two Licensing Officers. The officers were invited to explain their version of the incident. Members were advised that the driver was rude and aggressive and had used phrases such as “I don’t give a shit”. The officers attempted to defuse the situation by inviting the driver to attend an interview at a later date. At that point they were accused of being “on a power trip”.
The officers stated that there was no window badge on display in the vehicle at the time of the incident.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire licence be suspended for two weeks for unacceptable conduct.
(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 abusive and threatening behaviour towards a fellow driver whilst carrying passengers.
Members were asked to consider the circumstances which had led to a disagreement between two drivers in the Kingsway area of the City Centre. The Sub Committee watched a video of a driver in a heated argument with another driver and using very strong bad language in front of passengers in his vehicle.
The driver was invited to provide details of his recollection of the incident. Members were advised that the driver was parked at the front of an unofficial rank and was next in line to collect a fare. The complainant’s vehicle parked in front of him and attempted to hail passengers.
The driver asked the complainant to move his vehicle. The complainant refused stating that it was not a legal taxi rank. The complainant then left his vehicle and came to the side of the driver’s vehicle, provoking a reaction.
The driver accepted that his response was wholly inappropriate and unprofessional. He stated that he now wished he had left the area immediately and had taken his passengers home.
The complainant was invited to address the Sub Committee. Members were advised that after overtaking the parked vehicle the driver started swearing and spitting. He therefore started to record the incident. The complainant considered that the other driver’s behaviour fell far short of the standards expected.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire licence be suspended for 60 days for unacceptable conduct.
(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 alleging that he requested a fixed price card payment once the passengers were in the vehicle and the journey had already started to an area outside of the Cardiff boundary.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had agreed a fare of £50 to first take a passenger to Barry and then make a second drop off returning to Dinas Powys. After commencing the journey, the driver asked whether the passenger would be paying by cash or card. The passenger stated that it would be a card payment and therefore the driver stopped the vehicle and attempted to take the payment before the end of the journey. The driver stated that he did this because he had had several incidents where card payments have been declined.
The driver accepted that he should have asked for the payment when the price for the fare was agreed at the taxi rank.
The complainant stated that at the start of the journey, whilst an indication of the cost had been provided, he was unaware whether the driver was using the meter or not. The vehicle stopped in Callaghan Square and the driver requested payment. The complainant considered this to be inappropriate and refused to pay until the end of the journey. The complainant felt uneasy and was concerned that this portrayed a pattern of behaviour rather than a simple misunderstanding.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
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 and had been refused a licence by another local authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that whilst working delivering food his vehicle had broken down. He therefore used his cousin’s vehicle. He updated his insurance policy to allow his to use the different vehicle. However, whilst he was able to drive the vehicle as a third party he was not allowed to use it for food deliveries. He was stopped by the police and charged with an IN10 offence. He accepted that he was uninsured at the time.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
(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 he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driving offences had occurred on the A470 over a short space of time. The driver stated that after an extended break in Canada he had returned to the UK and started working. The speed limit on a section of the A470 had changed during his period abroad and he was unaware.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(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 he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driver had received 6 penalty points after taking a telephone call from his daughter whilst stopped at traffic lights on Newport Road. The driver accepted responsibility for the offence. There were no passengers in the vehicle at the time. The driver accepted that he should have declared the conviction at the time of the offence as required.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(9)
Application 9
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 six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was working a private hire driver at the time of the offence. He had mistakenly picked up a passenger who was not pre-booked, when he was not insured to do so. Prior to the incident, the driver had 17 years’ experience in the trade without any complaints. He was now licensed as both a hackney carriage and private hire driver. He considered that after receiving six penalty points and a fine in the magistrate’s court and having to pay higher insurance, he had learned a valuable lesson.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(10)
Application 10
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 motoring convictions and a previous criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained the nature of the convictions and the circumstances surrounding the speeding offences, and that he has now addressed his behaviour and drives to a professional standard.
The Sub Committee asked the applicant to explain his conviction for money laundering. The applicant stated that the conviction had occurred whilst he was at university. A friend had asked him to create a cryptocurrency account which was then used to send money to someone else.
RESOLVED – that the application for a hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence be refused.
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: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED:
5a. 25/02085/VAR – RHIWBINA
6-8 Beulah Road, Rhiwbina, Cardiff, CF14 6LX
Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission 07/02357/W to allow the mixed shop/restaurant/gallery use (sui generis) to extend throughout the ground floor of 6-8 Beulah Road.
Variation of conditions 3 and 4 of planning permission 07/02357/W:
Condition 3 – to extend the opening hours from 7:30 am to 11pm Monday to Saturday (to be closed on Sundays).
Condition 4 – to allow outside dining within the area to the rear of Beulah Road shown on drawing no a-p-s001. (09/00363/W - Approved 19 October 2009 as modified by 10/01583/DCO -Approved 19 November 2010):
Section 73 application to vary Conditions 3 (Operating Hours), 4 (External Dining Area) and 16 (External Dining Area Doors) of 09/00363W as modified by 10/01583/DCO to amend the approved scheme as follows: 1) Vary the operating hours to allow the premises to operate on a Sunday between 07:30am – 09:00pm.
5b. 25/02406/FUL - BUTETOWN
Former Ibis Budget, Tyndall Street, Cardiff
Change of Use from 157 bedroom hotel (Class C1) to a Hostel (Sui Generis Use Class) providing supported accommodation for homeless persons (98 bedrooms with communal kitchen, dining and lounge facilities) for a period of up to three years.
(Cllr Gunter left her seat as a member of the Committee during this item in accordance with her prejudicial interest).
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 alleging he abandoned his passenger at 2am following the passenger refusing to rebook the journey with a different operator for a higher fee.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver welcomed the opportunity to put his case forward. He had been a taxi driver for ten years, worked to support his children and was a big part of his local community in Cardiff. He understood his responsibilities to his community and the city and could not understand how the incident had happened, and apologised to the witness.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had just finished work in the Red Dragon Centre, and as she didn’t drive at the time she booked an Uber home. After she got in, the driver asked where she was going and complained that it was too far, asking her to rebook it with another provider and pay cash. She had already paid through Uber, so she refused. The driver kept repeating that it was too far and got louder, so she felt uncomfortable and asked if he wanted her to leave. He said yes so she got out.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he worked for both Uber and Cabs 64. He was aware of the contracts that he was entering into as a driver when he accepted a fare, and that he should have completed the job.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness confirmed that she had cancelled the journey on Uber after getting out and had got her money back, and had booked a different Uber home.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(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 8 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received the penalty points for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. The driver’s representative added that he had a black and white hackney vehicle which he had converted to a private hire vehicle in May 2023.
On the night in question, he was due to finish his shift as a private hire vehicle before shifting to operate as a hackney carriage later in the evening. While still operating as a private hire driver, he was approached by a passenger and agreed to take them. He was only two weeks into operating as a private hire driver, using the same vehicle. He wasn’t thinking clearly and took the passenger, but knew now that he shouldn’t have taken them as they hadn’t pre-booked.
The driver’s representative noted that he had brought additional character references, and hoped the Sub Committee would take into account that his family depended on his income, as well as the difficult year that the driver had had. He suggested that the council must have been fully aware of his situation last October when the licence was renewed, and felt the matter should have been dealt with then rather than bringing the driver back to answer for it a year later.
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 declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences, the first two being shortly after the 20mph limit was brought in, both on Manor Way on the A470 late at night, and another in 2025. He had been licensed for 22 years with no other issues. Taxi driving was his livelihood and he did it to support his family.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(4)
Application 4
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 he had declared 6 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t use his phone while the car was moving but jobs appeared on it and you needed to tap the screen to accept them. He wasn’t sure when exactly the offence had taken place but emphasised that he respected the rules of the road. He had been a taxi driver since 2019 and had been driving for more than forty years.
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 he had six penalty points on his driving licence which he had not declared to the licensing authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that while picking up a member of his family before starting work in his taxi, he had been seen by a police officer touching his phone and received six points. When it came to the renewal process he forgot to declare this. He suggested that this was an oversight rather than attempt to hide it, and he understood that it was his duty to inform the licensing authority as soon as it happened.
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 he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points through a SP50 speeding offence and an MS90 offence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. He noted that the offence did not concern his taxi but rather a private car. His wife had travelled up north using the car, and let a friend drive it back, believing they were insured to do so.
The friend was caught speeding and the driver filled in the form accordingly, but was given an MS90 offence for not providing the driver’s name. The Legal Officer clarified that it was the responsibility of the person who had been driving to fill in the form.
The driver added that he had been driving taxis for nearly 40 years in Cardiff, enjoyed his job and had served the city well. The speeding points had recently expired so he now only had six.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(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 he was disqualified from driving in October 2022 but did not advise the licensing authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had obtained a taxi licence in 2018 and started driving them in 2019, working for Uber. He was disqualified from driving in 2022 due to totting up 12 penalty points, and served his six month disqualification in 2023.
When he came to renew his taxi licence in 2024, he wasn’t sure how to answer the questions on fixed penalties and points since his last renewal, as he didn’t know if he still had the points. He left it blank and intended to come back to it, but ran out of time before the deadline and wanted to ask for clarification at the taxi office.
Upon renewal, he handed the forms in and completely forgot to draw their attention to the gaps in the form. He didn’t think anything of it until this was flagged up almost a year later. He emphasised that he had not intended to deceive, and it was just a simple mistake.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
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 18 penalty points on his driving licence and had been disqualified from driving for six months.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had been before them this year and mentioned two pending offences that had since been confirmed, with his licence revoked as a result. He had since handed his licence in and was not currently driving.
The driver’s representative acknowledged that he had committed repeated speeding offences, but had learned the hard way from his mistakes. He asked the Sub Committee to consider that once he was able to drive again in four months’ time, he would be a fit and proper person who could be trusted to drive a taxi safely and responsibly.
The Chair noted that the driver had previously been suspended for seven days by the Sub Committee, and before then had received a written warning. The driver’s representative noted that the warning had been for a different offence.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that in a few years ago he had gone through a red light on an electric bike, not realising that this was not legal on a bike. Another offence had occurred a few hours after he had bought a car, when the insurance on the vehicle was not under his name at that time. These offences combined resulted in a six month ban, which he had served.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
(11)
Application 11
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence given that the applicant previously had a Private Hire Operator Licence revoked by Newport City Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was seeking an operating licence because Newport had revoked his previous one after a misunderstanding. He understood the error he had made, and would ensure full compliance if granted a licence by Cardiff to ensure it didn’t happen again. He now had a legal advisor in place to ensure compliance.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had operated in Newport from 2021 to 2025. His operator licence had been revoked after he lent friends licensed vehicles for personal use, misunderstanding the meaning of social, domestic, pleasure (SDP) insurance. His company’s compliance had also not been deemed up to standard.
He added that there had been no complaints against him as a driver, and his new company had a Cardiff office which Licensing were welcome to visit at any time. He was happy for any conditions to be attached to his operating licence to mitigate any previous concerns.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence be refused.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
1.
To delegate authority to the Council’s Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, Head of Planning, Operational Manager for Major Development and Placemaking and the Group Leader for Planning Policy to permit effective dialogue between the independent Inspector and Council representatives subject to consultation with the Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning as detailed in paragraph 14 of this report, in accordance with Welsh Government guidance and in order to facilitate the efficient operation of the examination process.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
1.
To resolve that the resolution of the Council that was passed at its meeting held on 24th July 25 which approved the submission of a Transport and Works Act Order on 22nd August 2025 is hereby confirmed by this resolution.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED SUBJECT TO S106 AGREEMENT:
5a. 24/02961/FUL – CATHAYS
Howells of Cardiff, Trinity Street, Cathays, CF10 1TT
Proposed redevelopment (Phases 4 and 5) of part of the former Howells department store, including partial demolition, to deliver apartments and studio apartments (Use Class C3), a hotel (Use Class C1) and flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and D2) including a new residential block (up to 11 storeys), re-instatement of dormer windows to St Mary Street frontage, upward extension (additional storeys) to the Wharton Street/Trinity Street corner building and an upward extension (additional storeys) to the Trinity Street buildings; new public realm; potential for future link to Cardiff Market; related infrastructure and engineering works.
The application was granted subject to S106 agreement and amendment of condition 23 regarding external finishing materials.
5b. 24/02962/LBC – CATHAYS
Howells of Cardiff, Trinity Street, Cathays, CF10 1TT
Proposed redevelopment (Phases 4 and 5) of part of the former Howells department store, including partial demolition, to deliver apartments and studio apartments (Use Class C3), a hotel (Use Class C1) and flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and D2) including a new residential block (up to 11 storeys), re-instatement of dormer windows to St Mary Street frontage, upward extension (additional storeys) to the Wharton Street/Trinity Street corner building and an upward extension (additional storeys) to the Trinity Street buildings; new public realm; potential for future link to Cardiff Market; related infrastructure and engineering works.
The application was granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement, the conditions in section 13 and referral to Cadw, with an amendment to condition 16 regarding external finishing materials.
5c. 25/00437/FUL – PLASNEWYDD
195-197 City Road, Roath, CF24 3JB
Demolition of the existing 'Gaiety' building. Redevelopment for Housing Association apartments and ground floor commercial units. Associated front and back-of-house spaces, service spaces, external private resident amenity space and secure cycle storage (72 cycles).
(Cllr Wong left his seat as a member of the Committee during this item in accordance with his prejudicial interest).
The application was granted subject to S106 agreement.
5d. 25/00727/FUL – CATHAYS
125-139 Queen Street, Cathays, CF10 2BJ
Remodelling and change of use of part of the existing building, with a new 3-storey extension plus roof-top pavilion (restaurant and sky-bar), comprising a hotel, enhancements to the external elevations of the building including renewed facade, new fenestration, external lighting; new hotel entrance; and ancillary facilities.
The application was granted subject to S106 agreement.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED:
5e. Section 116 Stopping Up Highway at John Street
A small area of adopted highway required a retrospective stopping up to reflect what had been constructed as part of the approved planning application 19/01065/MJR.
The application for Legal Services to process the Legal Order was approved.
5f. Diversion of Public Footpath Lisvane No. 14
The joint application had been submitted by Bellway and Redrow to realign the Public Footpath through the new housing developments to accommodate the new route. Substantial development had already been completed across the two housing sites, therefore this was considered a retrospective stopping up and diversion of the Footpath. This application was considered necessary to bring the Definitive Map up to date and reflect what had been approved through the planning process.
The application for Legal Services to process the Legal Order was approved.
5g. Section 116 Braunton Crescent Stopping Up
Development had been substantially completed to demolish the Llanrumney
Play Centre and construct new residential dwellings along with a new play
centre. A section of adopted highway had been made redundant as part of
the scheme and required stopping up. To alter the highway record to reflect what was constructed and built in accordance to the approved planning, a stopping up of the adopted highway was deemed necessary.
The application for Legal Services to process the Legal Order was 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 Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he refused to engage his meter or accept a card payment.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he was working on the night of the alleged incident but stressed that he never refused to use the meter as he knew it was the law.
He acknowledged that the vehicle in the picture provided was his, but felt it showed that he wasn’t at the front of the rank. He did not recognise the witness as he took many fares every night. It was clarified that the witness’ statement said that the photo was of the driver leaving the rank rather than being parked there.
The driver added that he had been a taxi driver for nearly thirty years and was now a senior citizen, and followed the rules of the taxi rank. He had been a community leader for many years too. He rejected the suggestion in the witness’ statement that he had demanded £10 up front for a short fare, and refused payment by card. He emphasised that he had been driving taxis for a long time and wouldn’t risk his livelihood for a couple of pounds.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he preferred to take payment up front when people wanted to pay by card, and refunded them at the destination if the final total was less. This was in case the card was declined at the end of the journey, and he asked politely rather than demanding it. Members suggested that while asking for a small deposit was reasonable, taking the whole fare in advance was not.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he caught taxis regularly because he worked in town. He often had issues with taxi drivers who either didn’t let him pay by card or tried to charge him to take his suitcase, but things had gotten better since the taxi wardens came in. On the night in question, he was directed to the vehicle by the warden and asked to go to Grangetown. After he had put his bags in the boot, the driver told him it would be £10.
The witness added that he immediately asked to use the meter instead because the normal fare was about £8, and the driver refused. He also said that he’d be paying by card, and the driver said ‘no card or no journey’. The witness decided that it wasn’t worth it and said he’d report him, got his bags out of the boot and took a photo of the taxi licence plate. He explained this to the taxi warden too, and they went to speak to the driver, who then left the rank.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he normally had a glass of wine after work, but only one. He also clarified that he had only added that he wanted to pay by card after the driver had refused to use the meter.
The driver denied the witness’ statement entirely and suggested that he didn’t allow passengers to put their bags in the boot before they had spoken at the window and agreed a fare. He was sure that he had not refused to use the meter or take a card payment, and did not recall the taxi warden speaking to him. Members asked how he could be sure of any of this if he didn’t remember the incident.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences in 2023, which he had declared on his renewal application. Two of the offences had happened on the same day in February 2023, the day after he had received some bad personal news which had distracted him from his driving.
Members asked why he had only declared the offences upon renewal in August 2025. The driver responded that he wasn’t aware that was part of the conditions of his licence, but knew now.
Members asked if he had received any support during the difficult time in his personal life, and how he would react to similar circumstances now. The driver explained that it was hard to stop working for more than a day or two, but he would go and see his doctor if it was really affecting him.
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 he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been a taxi driver since 2008 and took the responsibilities of his role seriously, and treated the public with respect. He understood the authority’s concern over his fitness due to his speeding offences but felt he was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi.
The driver explained that two of the offences were at the same location, when the speed limit on a road near him had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He acknowledged that it was his responsibility to ensure he was aware of all speed limits, and added that he had been driving privately rather than with a passenger in his taxi on all three occasions. He also added that he had received a previous complaint about parking, when he was in a rush to get to his mosque and parked on private property nearby.
He understood the council’s policy on taxi licensing and hoped that it could be taken into account that all three offences had occurred in a short period of time, between December 2024 and April 2025. He didn’t want to make excuses but had been going through a particularly stressful time. He was familiar with the roads in Cardiff and felt he was a safe driver who treated his customers well and undertook school run contracts. He was working to support his wife and children, and asked that the Sub Committee give him another chance.
Members asked whether the driver had notified his insurance company about the points, and heard that he had.
The driver’s solicitor added that he believed his client had addressed the licensing authority’s concerns, and that on balance he was a fit and proper person to continue driving a taxi. Two of the speeding offences had occurred in the same area within a week of each other, which he felt offered some mitigation as the driver might not have been aware of the first offence when the second happened. He had driven taxis for 17 years, and there had been no further issues of any kind since the third speeding offence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 he had declared ten penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that one of the speeding offences had been in Pontypridd in in December last year, when the weather was very bad. He had only recently started driving taxis again after renting them out for some time.
Members queried why one of the offences had resulted in four penalty points rather than the usual three. The driver was not sure, adding that he only became aware of it when he came to renew. He didn’t go to court and had not yet paid the fine, but would do so because he accepted that he was speeding.
Members asked if he had paid the previous fine as well. The Legal Officer clarified that both convictions were on the same day, so he would have received the fines at the same time.
Members queried the previous complaints the driver had received regarding the condition of vehicles for which he was the proprietor. The Legal Officer clarified that previous complaints were not relevant to this hearing.
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 Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had unintentionally driven a car without insurance, not realising that he was not covered to do so. He had two different types of insurance from the same company, one of which was fine to drive the vehicle and the other one that wasn’t. It was a stupid mistake and one that wouldn’t happen again. He had been driving since 2017 and this was the first issue he’d had.
The Chair clarified that due to a recent change in the law he would not be able to drive any car regardless of comprehensive insurance, only the named vehicle.
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 he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he now had six points as three had expired in August. The offences had occurred in 2022 and 2023, and two of them were in 20mph zones when he had been going under 30mph. He had since upgraded his car to one with a speed limiter that was easier to keep within the limit.
He didn’t feel he was a reckless driver and had not had any other incidents in the last two years, and had declared the offences on his renewal application. He understood that it was his responsibility to stick to the rules and ensure he was aware when they changed.
Members asked why he didn’t declare the convictions until 2024. The driver responded that he didn’t realise he had to at the time.
The driver clarified that he did have a BTEC qualification, contrary to the papers provided, and was first issued a taxi licence in 1999 rather than 1980.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he used to buy and re-sell cars, and was in Caerphilly at the time. His car was slightly damaged so he used a different one for the journey, and made sure to get himself insured on it. He forgot to take himself off the insurance, and the car was later used by someone else who was caught speeding. He was advised that he was unlikely to win the case in court as he didn’t know who the driver was, so he accepted the punishment. However, he was able to show that he was in Wolverhampton and not where the offence was committed.
Members explained that the Sub Committee was only able to go on what the court had said. Members asked if the offence had taken place in his taxi, and heard that it hadn’t.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
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 had a clean licence for many years but had received nine points in the last six months. He worked for Uber and got a job through on the app, taking a fare to town via Cathedral Road. He was then offered a job on Westgate Street and did a U-turn, and his phone fell on the floor of his vehicle because the holder was broken. When his car was stopped at a red light, he leant down and picked up the phone to put it back in the holder. A cyclist next to him recorded this on a camera on their helmet, and reported him for using his phone while driving.
He had tried to fight the decision but the authorities told him that he should have known better as a professional driver. He emphasised that he never used his phone while driving, and didn’t even answer it over Bluetooth when he had a passenger. He felt it would have been much riskier to leave the phone on the floor as it was connected to a charger and the cable was next to the pedals. The court had made their judgement and fined him more than £700. He went to a solicitor who advised that he was unlikely to win on appeal, so he took the points and the fine.
Members queried the second offence, which the driver clarified was for doing 26mph in a 20mph zone in Coryton. Members asked what he would do if the same thing happened again, and heard that he would pull over and turn the engine off before touching his phone.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(10)
Application 10
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 24 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the number of points and explained that he wasn’t working as a taxi driver since 2017. He had a job in Cwmbran and his daily commute was on the M4, and at the time he didn’t realise that the limit had changed to 50mph. He tended to rush home at 8pm each day to see his child before bed, and was clocked numerous times going between 50mph and 70mph in the 50mph zone.
He added that the letters making him aware of this went to the transport manager of the company he worked for, because the vehicle was registered to the company, and he wasn’t told. He argued his case in court and was given a total of 31 points, seven of which had since expired. He apologised for the offences and noted that in court the judge had not deemed him to be a dangerous driver. His insurance costs had gone up hugely since.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that all the offences were caught by the same camera on the M4. He had renewed his licence several times since 2017 as a backup in case he lost his job. He had not declared the offences when they happened because he wasn’t driving his taxi at the time, so it didn’t occur to him to inform the licensing authority. He added that he had not received any complaints from members of the public when he was driving taxis between 2011 and 2017, and felt he was a fit and proper person.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(11)
Application 11
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
1.
To receive nominations and approve the appointment as listed below:
Organisation
Party Group
Nomination
Cardiff Bus
1 x Liberal Democrat
Councillor Naughton
2.
To delegate authority to the Corporate Director (Resources), in consultation with the Director of Governance & Legal Services and Monitoring Officer, to proceed with the public advertisement and convening of a Member Appointment Panel (referenced in recommendation 3 below) for an appointment to the independent Non-Executive Director position on Millennium Stadium Plc;
3.
To approve the establishment of a Member Appointment Panel, comprised of three Labour; one Liberal Democrat and one Conservative Members, with delegated authority to interview suitable candidates and make an appointment to the independent Non-Executive Director position on Millennium Stadium Plc.
RESOLVED: that
• the City Parking Plan be approved (attached at Appendix 3)
• the Parking Policies be approved (attached at Appendix 4)
• the Director Governance and Legal Services be instructed to carry out the statutory consultations to make any Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) that may be required to ensure compliance with recommendation 2 outlined above, and subject to there being no unwithdrawn objections, that the TRO be made.
• Authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport & Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport and the Council’s Section 151 Officer, to prepare and to approve:
a) The Parking Design Standards specified within section 1.2 of the Parking and Traffic Regulation Policies and Operational Standards 2025
b) Any future amendments that from time to time may be considered necessary to the Operational Standards contained within the Parking and Traffic Regulation Policies and Operational Standards 2025
c) The Phase 2 (Medium Term) and Phase 3 (Long Term) Zonal Programme
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
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 upon renewal of his licence there was an issue with the DBS process.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had not been informed of the DBS issue when he most recently renewed his plates in April, and had not received any correspondence from the council either. His updated DBS had arrived at the end of May and he had provided it to the council in September but not had any confirmation that they had received it.
The driver presented his full DBS certificate to the Sub Committee. The driver’s representative noted that there were no new matters to report on the certificate, and in their view the matter was closed.
RESOLVED – that no further action 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 he had declared six penalty points on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had picked up two passengers in town and taken them to Roath, before being told by a licensing officer that he shouldn’t have taken the fare because he was a private hire driver and lacked the correct insurance. He acknowledged his mistake and apologised, explaining that he was on autopilot during a busy night.
The driver added that he had received six points and paid a £940 fine for the offence. Members noted that the papers referred to a fine of £350, which the Legal Officer clarified was likely to have been one part of a combined penalty for the separate offences of plying for hire and driving without the appropriate insurance.
The driver’s representative noted that the driver had already been punished for the offence in court, and emphasised that it was an honest one-off mistake after more than 30 years of driving taxis with a clean record. The driver also acknowledged that he should have informed the licensing authority as soon as he received the points.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(4)
Application 4
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 Licensing Department had received six complaints regarding refusal of fares between 2018 and 2025, and that during the investigation of the most recent complaint on the 23rd June it was alleged that the driver may also have provided a statement contrary to CCTV obtained.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative emphasised that the driver was not plying for hire, but was rather waiting to pick up his daughter after a concert. It was a very busy night after a Millennium Stadium event and many roads were closed, so he parked on Mill Lane opposite the taxi rank with his light off to wait for his daughter.
The representative suggested that the evidence provided by the licensing department was inaccurate, as the vehicle was not at the front of the queue as it wasn’t in the official rank. He suggested that rather than accepting a fare from a passenger he didn’t know, as the statement from Licensing alleged, he had picked up his daughter’s friends before driving to pick up his daughter from outside a takeaway restaurant. He emphasised that if the driver had been plying for hire, he would have parked on the other side of the rank and put his light on. He also disputed the witness’ suggestion that the driver had been rude to her.
Members asked whether the driver felt Mill Lane was a suitable pickup spot for a journey back to Gabalfa. The driver’s daughter explained that she was not very familiar with the roads in Cardiff, so it seemed easier to pick her up from the place where he normally worked from. The driver added that a lot of roads were closed because of the concert.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she hadn’t realised how difficult it would be to get a taxi after the concert, having moved away from Cardiff some time ago. She and her friends had followed the crowds towards the Mill Lane rank to try and get a ride back to Penylan, and tried asking the taxi drivers there after they had no luck with Uber. She asked the driver in question if he was available, but he ignored her.
The witness added that she then saw the driver talk to other people who needed a ride and type their postcodes into his phone before turning them down, which made her think he was cherrypicking fares. One of the friends she was travelling with was neurodivergent and disabled, while the other had a young child and was desperate to get home.
The Sub Committee viewed CCTV footage of the taxi rank and confirmed that the vehicle had been parked on the other side of the road to the main rank, and that the light on top of the vehicle was off. Members viewed the taxi driving off after two women got in, whom the driver’s daughter confirmed were her friends.
The driver’s representative emphasised that it had not been the driver’s intention to refuse or offend anyone, and that he wasn’t plying for hire because he was waiting for his daughter.
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 declared nine penalty points on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences in the same 30mph zone on Western Avenue by the Gabalfa interchange.
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 he had declared nine penalty points on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had 14 years’ experience as a taxi driver and worked for Uber as well, and felt he was a good driver. He had committed three speeding offences, with the first occurring in June 2023.
He wasn’t sure of the details of all of the offences, but recalled that one of them was for going 27mph in a 20 zone near Pentwyn Leisure Centre, and noted that the 20 sign there was very close to the corner so it was easily missed.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that the conviction was for an incident that happened 35 years ago, when he was in his early 20s, and he hadn’t been in any sort of trouble since. He had been imprisoned for 18 months and released after six for good behaviour.
He added that when he applied for his licence, he didn’t realise he needed an enhanced DBS disclosure and instead applied for a basic one. He had been under the impression that if it happened more than ten years ago, it did not need to be disclosed, but realised now that he had been mistaken.
He added that he had spent the last decade working across the UK in the gas industry for various companies, but had decided to come home and do a different job. He had always worked in customer care and liked working with people.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted.
(9)
Application 9
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 motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been disqualified from driving last year after driving a friend’s car when he didn’t realise he wasn’t insured on it. On another occasion since then he had been stopped by the police because his brake light wasn’t working, and they found an issue with his tyre.
Members noted that he had been disqualified due to totting up points, and asked what other offences were involved. The driver clarified that there had been two insurance offences, both of which involved the same car that belonged to his friend. The second offence had happened before he was informed about the insurance issue.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(10)
Application 10
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, as well as one pending speeding offence which would bring his total points to twelve.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative clarified that the pending offence had now been confirmed, so the driver had twelve points on his licence. He had been driving taxis since 2001, and though there were two matters reported in that period, neither had been upheld.
He explained that he had received six points for accidentally driving through a red light in 2024 and had committed two speeding offences in January 2025, both at the junction of Newport Road and Claremont Avenue. All of the offences had occurred in the early hours of the morning after he had dropped off customers.
The driver’s representative added that when the case went to court, the driver had pleaded exceptional hardship as he was the principal breadwinner for his family, and supported his wife and child as well as his parents, which had enabled him to continue driving despite the twelve points. He was a law-abiding driver of long standing who was aware that any further offences would result in the loss of his licence.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.