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 – T H A T in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee,
the following applications be determined as indicated and any other necessary
action be taken.
Minutes - AR
No.
2021/01710/FUL Received on 23 September 2022
(p70)
APPLICANT: Business Loan Services (UK) Ltd Pension Scheme C/o Agent,
AGENT: Mr Andrew Ayles Office 14, 35 Stow Park Circle, Newport, NP20 4HF
Former Eastbrook Methodist Chapel, Chapel Row, Eastbrook, Dinas Powys
Demolition of chapel building and the erection of a dormer bungalow, on-site car
parking and amenity provision and associated development thereto.
Councillor Gilligan declared a prejudicial interest in relation to this item and
therefore withdrew from the meeting for the entirety and did not take part in any
related vote.
In presenting the report, the Principal Planner highlighted a drafting error on page
96 of the report whereby text had not been omitted from the recommendations as
intended. Therefore, the text set out on the page between the Recommendation
Heading and Recommendation 1, should be amended to “approve subject to
conditions”, and the following erroneous text be deleted: “Subject to the relevant
person(s) first entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement or undertaking to
include the following necessary planning obligations:
• to pay a financial contribution to the sum of £27,631.20 for an off site
affordable housing contribution.”
A recorded vote was called for the Application, based on the recommendations
within the report as amended, with the results as follows:
Member For Against Abstain
G. Bruce √
I. Buckley √
Mrs. C.A. Cave √
C. Champion √
M. Cowpe
Mrs. P. Drake √
A. Ernest √
W. Gilligan
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson √
H. Payne √
S. Perkes √
I. Perry √
C. Stallard √
N. Thomas √
E. Williams √
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 7 6 2
Minutes - AR
No.
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as amended and contained within the
report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00087/FUL Received on 27 January 2023
(p102)
APPLICANT: Loft-Co Urban Regeneration Company Limited C/O Agent,
AGENT: Gwen Thomas Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park,
Cardiff, CF23 8RS
Crossway Methodist Church, Court Road, Barry
Proposed development of 15 no. affordable flats and associated works
A recorded vote was called for the Application, with the results as follows:
Member For Against Abstain
G. Bruce √
I. Buckley √
Mrs. C.A. Cave √
C. Champion
M. Cowpe
Mrs. P. Drake √
A. Ernest √
W. Gilligan √
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson √
H. Payne √
S. Perkes √
I. Perry √
C. Stallard √
N. Thomas √
E. Williams √
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 10 5 0
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
Minutes - AR
No.
2023/00895/FUL Received on 29 August 2023
(p128)
APPLICANT: Mr Huw Llewellyn Great House Farm, Penllyn, Cowbridge, CF71
7RQ
AGENT: Ms Bethan Evans Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park,
Cardiff, CF23 8RS
Great House Farm, Penllyn
Proposed change of use from agricultural use to glamping visitor accommodation
comprising 3 yurts, separate kitchen units and conversion of the existing barn to a
shower block and farm storage.
DEFERRED – to a future meeting of the Committee, given the need to re consult
neighbours for a consultation period of 21 days, following the submission of an
amended certificate of ownership.
Minutes - AR
RESOLVED: that
1. (subject to minor amendments in accordance with recommendation 5) the draft City Parking Plan (attached at appendix 1) be approved.
2. the commencement of public consultation on the draft City Parking Plan (attached at appendix 1) be approved.
3. (subject to minor amendments in accordance with recommendation 5) the draft amendments to the Council’s Parking Policies (attached at appendices 3-6) be approved.
4. the commencement of public consultation on the draft amendments to the Parking Policies (attached at appendices 3-6) be approved.
5. Authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet member for Transport and the Council’s Section 151 Officer, to:
i. Prepare and undertake public consultation on the draft City Parking Plan and the draft amendments to the Council’s Parking Policies; and,
ii. Make minor amendments to and approve the City Parking Plan and the changes to the Council’s Parking Policies following any recommendations made after closure of public consultation.
RESOLVED: that
i) It be noted that the market exercise for the redevelopment of land marked as Area B on the plan attached at Appendix 1 and authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Investment and Development, the Section 151 Officer and the Legal Officer to:
a. negotiate and enter into an exclusivity agreement with the ‘Preferred Bidder’.
b. negotiate an option agreement contract with the ‘Preferred Bidder’ and to return to Cabinet for final approval.
ii) the amended car parking strategy for the Atlantic Wharf regeneration scheme as set out at Confidential Appendices 4 be notedand the alteration of the Indoor Arena Development Fund Agreement with Live Nation be authorised to reflect this new approach.
iii) the acquisition of the Pierhead Street MSCP be authorised on the terms set out at Confidential Appendix 6 and authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Investment and Development, the Section 151 Officer and the Legal Officer to complete the acquisition.
iv) the appropriation of land for planning purposes as set out at Appendix 7 be approvedand authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development to appropriate future parcels as outlined.
v) the proposal for Lloyd George Avenue as set out at Appendix 8 & Confidential Appendix 9 be noted and a consultation exercise to consider the proposal be authorised.
RESOLVED – That the following item was confidential and exempt from publication as it contained exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and that the public be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
The Committee received a confidential update on the Cardiff Bus Interchange project. Officers from Transport for Wales were invited to the meeting to provide Members with a presentation and respond to questions raised during a question and answer session.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to Transport for Wales on behalf of the Committee to convey any comments, observations and recommendations made during the way forward.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee to convey any comments, observations and recommendations made during 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 SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
22/02673/FUL – PENTWYN / LLANRUMNEY
Cardiff East Park and Ride, Eastern Avenue, Old St Mellons, Cardiff, CF23 8HH
Demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of the site to provide commercial floorspace (Use Classes B1, B2, B8, A3) and/or ancillary Class A1), associated drive-thru and car parking; the re-provision of the park and ride; a bridge across the Rhymney River; site wide landscaping and associated works.
Subject to the amendment of Conditions 7, 18 and 19 (as set out in the Amendment Sheet and Late Representations dated 11.0.24).
APPLICATION GRANTED
23/01427/ FUL – HEATH
35 St Isan Road, Heath, Cardiff, CF14 4LU
Construction of two storey extension to side and rear of existing building, roof alterations including raising of ridge height and dormers, extending existing Pharmacy and creating 2no. additional flats with provision of amenity space and bike store.
(Councillor Garry Hunt left the meeting during consideration of this application in accordance with his personal and prejudicial interest)
APPLICATION REFUSED
20/00187/MJR – LLANDAFF
Land at De Braose Closer, Danescourt, Cardiff
Residential development comprising 36 dwellings together with associated infrastructure, public open space and woodland management
(Councillor Adrian Robson t left the meeting during consideration of this application in accordance with his prejudicial interest)
REASON:
This application was considered Planning Committee on 7 December 2023. It was resolved to defer the application to the next meeting of the Committee for reasons for refusal based on the objections raised by the Committee.
The application was refused for the following reasons:
1.
The development, by reason of its location within a significant identified area of Open Space, would exacerbate the existing deficiency of Open Space within the Llandaff ward, as identified by the Open Space Survey (2022), contrary to the provisions of Policy C4 of the adopted Local Development Plan (2016) and guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales (Edition 11, February 2021) (paragraph 4.5.3).
2.
The creation of an extensive, engineered vehicular access through the significant woodland, including the removal of trees, would cause unacceptable harm to the established character and appearance of the existing mature and established woodland and public footpath network which cannot be mitigated by replanting, or the translocation scheme proposed, or outweighed by any other benefits of the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of KP5, EN6, EN7 and EN8 of the Local Development Plan (2016), Supplementary Planning Guidance Green Infrastructure (including Technical Guidance Notes relating to: Ecology and Biodiversity and; Trees and Development) (November 2017), as well as Chapter 6 of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 11, February 2021 – with Chapter 6 updated October 2023) and Policy 9 (Resilient Ecological Networks and Green Infrastructure) of Future Wales: The National Plan 2040.
3.
The development, by virtue of its siting and the quality of proposed connections for both walking and cycling, does not provide safe, legible and otherwise well designed connectivity to nearby shops, facilities and schools for the proposed affordable housing development, contrary to Policies KP5, T1 and C6 of the adopted Local Development Plan (2016) and guidance within the adopted Cardiff Residential Design Guide
Caerdydd, Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee,
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 control 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
23/02286/FUL - CATHAYS
HOWELLS OF CARDIFF, 14 – 18 ST MARY STREET, CATHAYS, CARDIFF, CF10 1TT
Proposed redevelopment (Phases 2 and 3) of part of the former Howells department store, including partial demolition, to deliver studio apartments (Use Class C3) and flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and D2); restoration of Bethany Chapel and Sunday School plus upward extension (additional storeys) to the Percy Thomas Wharton Street block; public realm; related infrastructure and engineering works.
23/02287/LBC – CATHAYS
HOWELLS OF CARDIFF, 14 – 18 ST MARY STREET, CATHAYS, CARDIFF, CF10 1TT
Proposed redevelopment (Phases 2 and 3) of part of the former Howells department store, including partial demolition, to deliver studio apartments (Use Class C3) and flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and D2); restoration of Bethany Chapel and Sunday School plus upward extension (additional storeys) to the Percy Thomas Wharton Street block; public realm; related infrastructure and engineering works.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police.
The Sub Committee considered that granting the application would not negatively impact on the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control 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.
(Councillor Adrian Robson, in accordance with his declaration of a prejudicial interest, left the meeting remotely during discussion of Application No: 20/00187/MJR)
APPLICATIONS DEFERRED
APPLICATION 20/00187/MJR – LAND AT DE BRAOSE CLOSE, DANESCROFT, CARDIFF
Residential development comprising 36 dwellings together with associated infrastructure, public open space and woodland management
REASON: In order for officers to draft reasons for refusal
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog.
The driver stated that he was driving on the 7th May at about 11:30pm and was flagged down by two gentlemen from the other side of the road. They crossed the road, entered the taxi and started videoing him. He didn’t realise they had an assistance dog so he said he couldn’t take it. He stopped a police officer and explained the situation, and the passengers explained that it was a guide dog so he agreed to take them.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver explained that he had not realised it was an assistance dog until the police explained after a few minutes. He had never had a guide dog in his taxi before and did not recognise it at first, but he had no issue with taking an animal.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, explaining that he had been on the opposite side of the road when his partner flagged down the taxi, and they often had to do this because otherwise taxis wouldn’t pick them up. He added that they had explained the requirement to take the assistance dog to the police since they didn’t seem to know it.
The driver apologised for the confusion and inconvenience and suggested that being recorded had made the situation more stressful. The complainant asked whether the driver had received training on his legal obligations, and added that the guide dog’s harness clearly showed that it was an assistance animal. They suggested that if the driver was unable to see they had a guide dog, then he was not fit to drive a taxi.
RESOLVED – 4 days’ suspension and a written warning
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog.
The driver stated that he had just dropped off a passenger and was feeling tired very late in the evening, so he was not looking for a long fare. The complainant knocked on his window and asked to go to St Donat’s, which he said was too far away. He emphasised that he had not refused to take their assistance dog but was very tired and wanted to go home.
The complainant asked why the driver was still on the rank if he was very tired. He also clarified that he had told the driver St Donat’s Road, which was much closer than St Donat’s. The issue started as soon as the driver saw the dog. The driver of the taxi behind had agreed with them that the situation was out of order.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, stating that the three of them had approached the taxi with the dog and asked to go to St Donat’s Road, to which the driver locked the door. He didn’t say that he was too tired, just that he didn’t want to take the fare.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver explained that he had misunderstood their destination as being far out of town, and he was too tired for a long journey, having been working since 2pm. He also clarified that he had only been on the rank for two or three minutes before the incident. After he didn’t take the complainants, he went straight home.
The driver added that he had no issue with taking dogs in his taxi, having worked in the trade for more than a decade. Members noted that the video showed the driver saying ‘no dog’ after being told it was a guide dog. The driver suggested that he had not heard that it was a guide dog, and only turned them down because of his tiredness and his misunderstanding of the destination. The complainant acknowledged that the driver was tired but suggested he should not have been on the rank if he was not willing to take a fare. The driver responded that the official rank was on the other side of the road.
RESOLVED – 7 days’ suspension and a written warning
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog.
The driver stated that he was dispatched to a job by Dragon Taxis and didn’t know who he was picking up. The dog jumped in at the same time as the customers, and he didn’t realise it was an assistance animal so he said ‘no dog’. He was caught off guard and got out of his cab, at which point the customers started recording him. Once he got out of the cab he was able to calm down and spoke to the customers, and he agreed with them about the requirement to take the dog. He put the meter on and took them home as requested, and was sorry about the inconvenience.
The complainant noted that he was not required to inform the taxi driver in advance that he had a guide dog, and asked whether the job would have been accepted if he had known. The driver responded that he would have accepted it, he had been driving for 15 years and had no problem with taking animals but just preferred to know in advance.
The complainant appreciated the driver’s apology but suggested that he should not have needed to explain the situation for so long before being taken home. It was a constant battle with taxi drivers in Cardiff and an everyday occurrence which the council could do a lot more to tackle.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver clarified that he hadn’t realised it was a guide dog at first. He had panicked because of the way the dog entered the car and the customers’ tone.
The complainants suggested that they did not feel the driver should lose his licence, but that he needed some training. The Chair noted that the driver had already received disability and equality training as part of his BTEC qualification, and the video showed that he understood the legal requirements.
The driver’s representative added that the driver’s usually high standards had briefly slipped, and that he had apologised for any offence caused and assured them it would not happen again. The driver had been taken aback at first by the dog but knew his responsibilities and carried out the journey as requested. He added that the driver had not worked for Dragon Taxis since then.
RESOLVED – written warning
RESOLVED – T H A T in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee, the
following applications be determined as indicated and any other necessary action be
taken.
2020/01218/HYB Received on 29 October 2020
(P. 103)
APPLICANT: Mr. Phil Worthing c/o Agent
AGENT: Mrs. Emma Fortune, Brunel House, 2 Fitzalan Road, Cardiff, CF24 0EB
Leckwith Quay, Leckwith Road, Leckwith
Hybrid planning application for residential development for up to 228 dwellings
(submitted in OUTLINE), associated highway and bridge improvement / realignment
works (submitted in FULL). Development involves the demolition of all buildings on
site and of the existing B4267 Leckwith Road Bridge.
RESOLVED – T H A T subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106
agreement to provide for the following:
• Procure that 10% (up to 23) of the dwellings built on the site pursuant to the
planning permission are built and thereafter maintained as affordable housing
units in perpetuity;
• Pay a contribution of £240,000 for the provision or enhancement of education
facilities to meet the needs of future occupiers;
• Pay a contribution of £60,000 for the off-site planting of trees to mitigate loss
as a result of the development.
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2021/00476/FUL Received on 27 April 2023
(P. 189)
APPLICANT: Westbourne School, Hickman Road, Penarth, CF64 3EF
AGENT: Mr. Liam Griffiths, Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park,
Cardiff, CF23 8RS
GM2 House, Plymouth Road, Penarth
Full planning application for a proposed 2 storey extension and associated works.
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00337/FUL Received on 29 March 2023
(P. 226)
APPLICANT: Ceri Jones, 7 Sycamore Close, Llandough, Penarth, Vale of
Glamorgan, CF64 2NP
AGENT: Nicky Watkins, Studio 1, The Platform, Hemmingway Road, Cardiff,
CF10 5LS
7 Sycamore Close, Llandough, Penarth
Proposed two storey extension to rear elevation with hipped roof.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to issue an
Enforcement Notice under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended) to require:
(i) The removal of the development;
or
(ii) The completion of the development in accordance with planning
permission 2023/00337/FUL.
(2) T H A T in the event of non-compliance with the Notice, authorisation be
granted to take such legal proceedings as may be required.
APPROVED – Subject to an amendment to Condition 3 to amend the position of the
bird boxes on the building and to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reasons for decisions
The decision to recommend planning permission has been taken in accordance with
Section 38 of The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that,
in determining a planning application the determination must be in accordance with
the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The
Development Plan for the area comprises the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Local
Development Plan 2011-2026 and Future Wales – the National Plan 2040.
Having regard to Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy), MD2 (Design of New
Development), MD5 (Development Within Settlement Boundaries) and MD9
(Promoting Biodiversity) of the Vale of Glamorgan Adopted Local Development Plan
2011-2026 and Future Wales – the National Plan 2040 and Supplementary Planning
Guidance on Residential and Householder Development; and national guidance
contained in Planning Policy Wales (11th Edition), and TAN12 (Design); the revised
proposal is considered acceptable in terms of the design and visual impact, impact
up on neighbouring properties, parking, amenity space and will secure biodiversity
enhancements.
Having regard to the Council’s duties under the Equality Act 2010 the proposed
development does not have any significant implications for, or effect on, persons
who share a protected characteristic.
It is considered that the decision complies with the Council’s well-being objectives
and the sustainable development principle in accordance with the requirements of
the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
The appropriate marine policy documents have been considered in the determination
of this application in accordance with Section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access
Act 2009.
RESOLVED – That members of the public be excluded during the consideration of the following item at it includes exempt information as defined in described in paragraphs 14 and 21 of parts 4 and 5 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee to convey any comments, observations and recommendations made during the way forward.
RESOLVED:
Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control 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 RESOLVED TO BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
21/00783/MJR – BUTETOWN
LAND AT CURRAN EMBANKMENT, BUTETOWN, CARDIFF
Demolition of existing buildings/structures and the comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment to provide up to 2,5000 new homes (class C3), business space (class B1), and a mix of complementary leisure, food and drink, hospitality, retail and health and wellbeing uses (class A1, A2, A3, C1, D1 and D2); creation of new open space (including a new riverside park and water taxi stop); new pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access points, pedestrian footbridge; vehicular and cycle parking facilities; landscaping; public realm and other associated ancillary and highways works. all matters reserved other than vehicular access.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED
23/02009/FUL – PENYLAN
7 LADY MARGARET COURT, COLCHESTER AVENUE, PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 9AW
Change of use to class A3 Café/Coffee Shop with ancillary takeaway use.
22/00687/FUL – RADYR & MORGANSTOWN
RADYR COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL, HEOL ISAF, RADYR, CARDIFF, CF15 8XG
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that alleged a driver refused to take him and his disabled wife from Heath Hospital to Llandaff North, and also told them he would not take a fare for less than £10. It was further alleged that the driver had used abusive language towards another driver who challenged him about not taking them.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee, stating that he had not refused the fare and had instead sought to give it to the next driver in the rank because he was aware that that driver was soon leaving the rank to attend to a school run. He did not recall using any abusive language and suggested that the other driver involved had a personal problem with him.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, reiterating the sequence of events outlined in his witness statement. The driver had refused to take him and his wife to Llandaff North, saying that he was waiting for somebody and then saying he did not take fares less than £10.
The complainant approached the second taxi on the rank. He explained what had occurred to the driver but was still within earshot of the first driver. The second driver asked his colleague why he had refused the fare. The first driver told him to ‘fuck off and mind your own business’, followed by ‘fuck off’ again. The complainant stated that it was at this point the first driver accepted another fare and left the rank.
The complainant stated that the driver of the second vehicle was unhappy and he himself was upset. He asked the driver for information on how to lodge a complaint and was provided with the relevant details.
The Sub Committee discussed the two versions of events and agreed that the witness provided more credible evidence. Members asked why the driver now had a full recollection of the incident, in contrast to the written statement he provided where he indicated he could not recall any details of the incident.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 28 days for refusal of a fare and unacceptable conduct.
(2)
Case 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from Dragon Taxis regarding an incident that had been recorded on video by a member of the public and subsequently provided to them. The Licensing Manager stated that they had also received a video of the incident by a friend of the driver.
Members viewed three video clips of the incident, and were advised that the videos showed an altercation involving the driver of a licence vehicle displaying Dragon Taxis livery and a number of other individuals. However, the vehicle was not a Dragon taxi and the driver was not employed by them. The Committee clarified the identities of those involved.
The Sub Committee asked how the incident had started. The driver stated that a car was blocking a junction causing traffic to back up. He asked the driver of the vehicle to move. The other driver got out of his car, approached him and used abusive language. The driver stated that he felt threatened, so he pretended to get a weapon from the boot of his vehicle in order to scare his assailant off, but it was actually a hat in his hand.
Members discussed the incident and agreed that the driver may well have been frustrated by the road being blocked, but had lost his temper and escalated the situation.
The Committee was not convinced by the driver’s suggestion that he had only been holding a hat, as the video appeared to show a sharp object in his hand. The witness also described the driver as ‘holding a sharp object threatening to stab somebody’ during the commentary on the video. Members felt that he had clearly made a threatening gesture, regardless of what the object was.
Members also noted that the driver had a Dragon Taxis logo on his car despite not working for them, which could be considered fraudulent or misrepresentation.
The driver left the hearing and the hearing proceeded in his absence.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire licence be revoked.
(3)
Case 3
The Sub Committee were asked to determine whether a taxi driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that a motoring conviction for IN10 (using an uninsured vehicle) was returned on his DVLA check as part of his licence renewal.
The driver stated that his conviction had nothing to do with his role as a taxi driver. He had purchased a private vehicle and was driving that at the time of the offence. Members were advised that the vehicle was purchased with a number of mechanical faults. He took the vehicle to a garage using temporary insurance cover for 1 hour. He had not realised that the cover had expired when the mechanic recommended that he drive the car further than was necessary on his homeward journey in order to ensure the car was in good working order. He was stopped by the police who found the car was uninsured. However, his was unable to use his phone to demonstrate that the car had been insured earlier that day. He had received 6 points on his licence and a fine.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had first applied for a taxi licence in 2020, and the incident had happened in January 2023. He had no points on his licence other than the six he had received for this offence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence. Members were advised that that the applicant had been convicted of the offence of battery in 2017.
The driver’s representative stated that the driver had not intended to deceive anyone by not declaring his conviction. There was some confusion because the website used to complete the application contained out of date or misleading information.
The driver’s representative stated that the conviction was the result of a domestic incident in October 2017. The applicant was extremely remorseful. The applicant and his wife were still together and happily married after 35 years. They had run a shop together for many years, during which time he obtained a personal licence to sell alcohol, demonstrating that he was a responsible individual.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that in 2017 he and his wife had a heated argument that involved extended family in India on a mobile phone. The wife took the phone and asked to speak with them. When attempting to retrieve the phone from his wife, this this caused her to hit her head on a wall. The police were called. His wife was present and stated to the Sub Committee that nothing had occurred since this incident. The family worked together very well. The driver added that he was confident he could handle the stresses of the job in the future.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be approved.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence Members were advised that the applicant had a relevant conviction on his DBS relating to an offence from 1994.
The driver stated that he was reapplying for a licence, having previously held one until 2008. Since then he had worked full time as a coach driver for National Express and Cardiff Bus. He was experienced in working with the general public, including vulnerable adults and children, and had never once had a problem in all that time. The conviction was from about 30 years ago when he was young and foolish, and he accepted that he had made a mistake which he had been punished for.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be approved.
(6)
Case 6
The Sub Committee was asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that that the driver attempted to charge £6 to take an assistance dog and had discriminated against the complainant.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident which had been submitted by the complainant.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was not notified on the booking that there would be a dog. He arrived at the pickup location and the dog was a few metres away and not wearing any high-vis, so he explained to the passengers that he would have to start the meter at £6.
The passenger asked whether the driver understood what the high-vis harness the dog was wearing was. The driver responded that he did. He had no problem with dogs, only that it wasn’t mentioned on the booking.
The complainants stated that they called the office to clarify that there should be no charge for an assistant dog. By then they felt uncomfortable, so they left the taxi and got into another one. The complainant described the incident as an unnecessary and embarrassing experience.
Members sought to clarify whether the driver was aware of the operators policies on assistance dogs and pets. The driver stated that for a pet dog the meter will start at £6. For assistance dogs there is no additional charge. Members asked why it would matter whether there was notification that a dog was mentioned at the time of the booking. The driver stated that he didn’t see the assistance dog it at first because of the poor visibility he was therefore surprised.
Members asked why the driver had insisted on a £6 fee after being told it was a guide dog. The driver stated that he was unaware and his English language skills are not the best. The video highlighted that there was a language barrier.
The complainants reminded Members that that the driver initially claimed to be allergic to dogs but he could not provide an exemption certificate when asked.
The complainant stated that in his experience incidents like this are a regular occurrence with taxi drivers in Cardiff. The complainant considered that the matter should be before Magistrates. The language barrier was not considered to be a major factor in the incident as the driver kept saying that he understood. Blind people should not be left out in the street.
Committee in agreement that the video clearly showed that it was not just a misunderstanding, and the driver was trying to charge and additional fee. It was confirmed that all drivers have assistance dog training as part of their SQA qualification. The Sub Committee acknowledged that the driver had no history of offences, but refusing a fare to someone because of a protected characteristic was unacceptable.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days for refusal of a fare and attempting to overcharge.
(7)
Case 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine whether a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License after a complaint was received stating that he refused to take an assistance dog and claimed he had a medical condition.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that as he picked the complainants up from their house they were recording him on a mobile phone, which had confused him. He was sneezing and dizzy at the time, but he took them to their destination.
Members asked whether the driver had an allergy and an exemption certificate. The driver confirmed that he did not have an exemption certificate and had not seen a doctor about getting one since the incident. He was not allergic to dogs.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, emphasising the driver would have known he was visually impaired because his guide dog’s harness was clearly labelled. He and his partner had to spend 10 minutes explaining to the driver why he had to take them and the dog, which they shouldn’t have had to do. They had missed a train because of the delay which affected their work.
The complainant’s partner added that he had started filming because he saw the driver looking at them while they approached the car and suspected he would refuse to let the dog in.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days for unacceptable conduct.
RESOLVED – T H A T in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee, the
following applications be determined as indicated and any other necessary action be
taken.
2020/01218/HYB Received on 29 October 2020
(P.51)
APPLICANT: Mr Phil Worthing
AGENT: Mrs Emma Fortune, Brunel House, 2 Fitzalan Road, Cardiff, CF24 0EB.
Leckwith Quay, Leckwith Road, Leckwith.
Hybrid planning application for residential development for up to 228 dwellings
(submitted in OUTLINE), associated highway and bridge improvement / realignment
works (submitted in FULL). Development involves the demolition of all buildings on
site and of the existing B4267 Leckwith Road Bridge.
DEFERRED For Planning Committee Site Visit.
Minutes - AR
2021/01046/RG3 Received on 14 August 2021
(P.135)
APPLICANT: Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council, The Alps, Quarry Road,
Cardiff, CF5 6AA.
AGENT: Mr John Griffiths Tecta Associates Limited, Blacksmiths Shop, The Forge,
Cantref, Brecon, LD3 8LR.
10, Dyffryn Close, St. Nicholas.
Retrospective application for the reinstatement of chimney stack and replacement
roof tiles.
Councillor Perkes withdrew from the meeting for the item.
Deemed planning consent be GRANTED subject to the conditions contained in the
report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2021/01047/RG3 Received on 14 July 2021
(P.148)
APPLICANT: The Vale of Glamorgan Council The Alps, Quarry Road, Cardiff, CF5
6AA.
AGENT: Mr John Griffiths Tecta Associates Limited, Blacksmiths Shop, The Forge,
Cantref, Brecon, LD3 8LR.
12, Dyffryn Close, St. Nicholas.
Retrospective planning for the reinstatement of chimney stack and replacement roof
tiles.
Councillor Perkes withdrew from the meeting for the item.
Deemed planning consent be GRANTED subject to the conditions contained in the
report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
Minutes - AR
2023/00740/FUL Received on 12 July 2023
(P.161)
APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Richard and Anne Prosser 16 Heol-y-Frenhines, Dinas
Powys, CF64 4UH.
AGENT: Mr and Mrs Richard and Anne Prosser 16 Heol-y-Frenhines, Dinas Powys,
CF64 4UH.
16, Heol Y Frenhines, Dinas Powys.
Retention of a 6ft fence to the side / rear of the property to enclose the garden. The
fence is set back from the boundary line approximately 20cm.
RESOLVED – T H A T, contrary to the recommendation of officers, planning
permission for the retention of the fence be granted subject to the suggested
conditions.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting
Minutes - AR