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.
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.
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.
| Cyngor | Eitemau | Gyda phenderfyniad |
|---|---|---|
| Caerdydd | 56 | 47 |
| Bro Morgannwg | 36 | 12 |
| Abertawe | 32 | 6 |
| Castell-nedd Port Talbot | 8 | 3 |
| Sir Fynwy | 7 | 1 |
| Casnewydd | 5 | 0 |
| Powys | 4 | 0 |
| Gwynedd | 3 | 0 |
| Blaenau Gwent | 2 | 2 |
| Rhondda Cynon Taf | 2 | 1 |
| Sir Gâr | 2 | 0 |
| Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr | 2 | 0 |
| Ceredigion | 1 | 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 – (1) T H A T the content of the report at Agenda Item 9(b) – Budget 2026/27 and MTFP 2026/27 to 2030/31 Supplemental Report – providing additional details regarding updated Standard Spending Assessment Figures Assessment as supplemental information to Agenda Item 9(a) – Draft Budget 2026/27 and Medium Term Financial Plan 2026/27 to 2030/31 – be noted. (2) T H A T a Council Tax increase of 6.5% be approved. (3) T H A T the budget for 2026/27 be approved. Reasons for decisions (1) Having regard to the contents of the report with the most up to date figures as part of its final budget deliberations and for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that all relevant matters were considered as necessary. (2) Setting the annual rate of Council Tax was a key policy decision for Council. (3) Setting a balanced budget was a statutory responsibility and decision for Full Council. CAPITAL STRATEGY 2026/27 AND FINAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME PROPOSALS 2026/27 TO 2030/31 (REF) The Leader presented the report which outlined the Council’s approach to capital finance for the forthcoming years and highlighted a range of schemes to undertaken in the medium and longer term, to the value of approximately £0.5billion. They outlined that where possible there would best endeavours to ensure minimal slippage and that the proposals included schemes such as schools, housing and wider infrastructure alongside decarbonisation activity, and the Western Vale Gateway. They further noted that the emerging conflict in the Middle East would have an impact due to oil and gas prices, but budgets included contingency arrangements. Councillor Franks queried how the Council would manage potential slippage and sought assurance for how deliverable this strategy would be. Councillor Dr. Johnson raised concerns over year-on-year slippage and the completion of plans, citing Western Vale Gateway as an example, and further raised the lack of a second Welsh medium secondary school in a rural area within the Strategy. The Leader responded that there would inevitably be slippage as elements outside of the Council’s control such as school holidays, but the Council was building resilience in its Project Management capacity. They noted that Western Vale Gateway scheme had taken a number of years as it had required negotiations with the Health Board as site owners, but they would be moving forward imminently, and that information around a new Welsh Medium secondary school would be provided when available. RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Capital Strategy 2026/27 as set out in Appendix 1 to the report be approved. (2) T H A T the final Capital Programme for the years 2026/27 to 2030/31 as set out in Appendix 2 to the report be approved. (3) T H A T officers be granted delegated authority to vire £10k or below between schemes that were already approved within the five year Capital Programme. (4) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance/Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated authority to make additions, deletions or transfers to or from the: i. 2026/27 to 2030/31 Housing Improvement Programme as appropriate. ii. 2026/27 to 2030/31 Asset Renewal budgets as appropriate. iii. S106 funded schemes subject to Member consultation as required under the existing process. iv. Decarbonisation Schemes v. Sustainable Communities for Learning programme. vi. Discretionary Adaption Grant Schemes. vii. Pride in Place Impact fund viii. Plan for Neighbourhood ix. Transforming Towns x. Local Growth fund. Reasons for decisions (1) To approve the Capital Strategy for 2026/27. (2) To set and approve future Capital Programmes to 2030/31. (3) To enable officers to progress schemes more quickly where low value virements below £10k were required. (4) To enable the Housing Capital budget, Asset Renewal budgets, S106 schemes, Decarbonisation Schemes, Sustainable Communities for Learning programme, Discretionary Adaption Grant Schemes, Pride in Place Impact fund, Plan for Neighbourhood, Transforming Towns and Local Growth Fund to be managed effectively. TREASURY MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2026/27 AND UPDATE FOR 2025/26 (REF) The Leader provided an overview of the report, which demonstrated how the Council managed it finances prudently, and thanked attendees of a recent briefing session surrounding treasury management. They highlighted Appendix 1, containing an update to the review strategy and updated prudential indicators and Appendix 2 which included areas such as the investment strategy and CIPFA reporting framework. RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the proposed 2026/27 Treasury Management and Investment Strategy including the following specific resolutions (detailed in Appendix 2 to the report) be approved: • The Authorised Limit for External Debt be set at £265.800m for 2025/26, £308.472m for 2026/27, £370.857m for 2027/28 and £435.486m for 2028/29. • The Operational Boundary for External Debt be set at £237.168m for 2025/26, £278.201m for 2026/27, £339.237m for 2027/28 and £402.998m for 2028/29. • The Section 151 Officer be granted delegated authority within the total Authorised Limit and Operational Boundary as estimated for individual years to effect movement between the separately agreed limits for borrowing and other long-term liabilities. • An upper limit of £0m for 2025/26, £10m in 2026/27, £10m in 2027/28 and £10m in 2028/29 be set for total principal sums invested for over 364 days. • The amount of projected borrowing that is fixed rate maturing in each period as a percentage of total projected borrowing that is fixed rate be set as shown below and further detailed in Appendix 1. Table 1 – Upper and lower Limits for fixed rate borrowing Upper Limit Lower Limit Under 12 months 20% 0% 12 months and within 24 months 40% 0% 24 months and within 5 years 40% 0% 5 years and within 10 years 40% 0% 10 years and above 100% 0% • Any breaches of the Prudential Indicators will be reported through to the next meeting of Cabinet, with the exception of the Authorised Limit for External Debt which would require prior Council approval. (2) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Head of Finance/Section 151 Officer to approve the Treasury Management Policy Statement and Treasury Management Practices. (3) T H A T delegated authority be granted as set out in paragraph 2.34 of the report, to enable the assigned officers to place investments with the Debt Management Account Deposit Facility (DMADF) in line with the daily cash flow projections. Reasons for decisions (1) In order for the Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy as prepared be approved as required by the Local Government Act 2003. (2) In order for the Treasury Management Policy Statement and Treasury Management Practices to be approved. (3) In order for smooth running of daily cash flow. BIGLIS TO DINAS POWYS ACTIVE TRAVEL ROUTE (REF) The Deputy Leader presented the report, noting that this work had been underway for several years, but that this would allow the Council to move into construction on both phases in line with regulations. They indicated that they were seeking to utilise 8 pieces of land owned by 4 landowners, with the preferred approach being negotiation ahead of Compulsory Purchase Order. They noted that this active travel route was essential in supporting people’s health, providing an alternative form of transport and improving safety on a particular route. Councillor Dr. Johnson said that this route was long awaited, with initial plans for this to be delivered in 2020, and that this would be considered by Planning Committee in the future. They highlighted the twin track approach outlined by Welsh Government, with the emphasis being upon discussions, which could take several years. Councillor Ernest indicated that this this could be an opportunity to revive the Dinas Powys bypass project and provide better links for road users. Councillor Penn stated that many people were put off cycling to Barry due to safety concerns and welcomed anything that could be done to facilitate active travel. The Deputy Leader emphasised that negotiations were due to get underway as quickly as possible, and that the scheme had significant preparation work over many years, and they hoped it would help the aim of reducing car users and improving safety. RESOLVED – T H A T the use of delegated powers regarding the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders be approved. Reason for decision To comply with governance requirements, as Cabinet does not hold delegated powers to authorise the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders and in order to maintain legal and constitutional integrity. PAY POLICY 2026/27 (REF) The Leader presented the report, noting that the median and mean pay gap had reduced significantly from 2019 to 2025 to 1.6% and 2.3%, respectively. ONS had reported that the average UK figure for the previous year had been 7% and so reflected a positive position for the Council as a position of parity was worked towards. RESOLVED – T H A T the Council’s Pay Policy, as attached at Appendix A to the report to Cabinet on 8th January, 2026 (Minute No. C180), be approved. Reason for decision To respond to the legal requirement under the Localism Act 2011 and to provide openness and accountability in relation to how the Council rewards its staff. N.B. All Chief Officers, save for two Democratic and Scrutiny Services Officers servicing the meeting and the Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development, left the meeting when this item was considered. The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development remained in the meeting, until the matter was to be voted upon, in order to provide any clarification required by Elected Members.
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 – (1) T H A T the reports and the feedback received in respect of observation visits undertaken by Independent Members of the Standards Committee be noted. (2) T H A T where matters following observation visits were highlighted by Independent Members as issues requiring further attention or further visits and / or requests were made by the Monitoring Officer / Head of Legal and Democratic Services for visits to be undertaken, those be arranged as and when required. (3) T H A T a proposal for observations to be held within the 2026 – 27 Municipal Year be presented to Committee at its next meeting scheduled for 26th March, 2026. Reasons for decisions (1) Having regard to the observations undertaken and the role of the Standards Committee. (2) To maintain a watching brief having regard to the role of the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer. (3) To complete the two year observation cycle, as previously agreed by the Committee, having regard to the outcomes of the 2025 Boundary Commission for January 29 Minutes and DN (AR) Wales Community Review.
RESOLVED – T H A T, having considered the information supplied under Part II of the agenda, arrangements be made for the land to be advertised for sale via an informal tender process at the appropriate time as determined by the Head of Corporate Landlord with the results of the tender process to be reported to Committee thereafter. Reason for decision Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
RESOLVED – T H A T the detail and recommendations be considered so that a decision on the matter could be taken under Part II of the Committee agenda. Reason for decision In order that Committee may consider the further advice received and enable a decision to be made under Part II of the agenda.
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.