3,726 items
Decided: The Committee noted the Appeals Report for 10 April to 20 August.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been made alleging that he refused to provide service to a disabled passenger. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s wife stated that the driver had been working that day for Uber, but didn’t recall the job in question. She emphasised that the accusation had caused him considerable stress. He had driven taxis since 2007, transporting countless disabled passengers since then with no complaints, and had worked with the council for several years on a city centre mobility scheme. He regularly looked after people with mobility issues, including her mother, and had a very good Uber rating and no points on his licence. She added that as soon as he was made aware of the complaint in January, he offered to provide his dashcam footage from that night. He was informed that Uber did not need it as they were treating the incident as feedback rather than a complaint, so it was never reviewed. He maintained that the incident as described in the witness’ statement did not happen, in particular because the shape of Rhymney Street made it difficult to pull in. She suggested that although he did not remember the particular journey, he might not have been aware that the passenger was disabled because her mobility aid would not have been visible between the cars. It was not uncommon for Uber drivers to cancel, and he often had to use the toilet in a hurry as he needed an operation. Members asked why the driver might cancel a fare without warning. The driver’s wife explained that he might need the toilet, or she might phone needing something, as they sometimes had emergencies relating to her mother. She felt there was no reason why he would have cancelled while so close to a job. Members discussed the Uber complaints process and heard that the company had not provided any evidence of the job being booked and cancelled. The driver and passenger did not automatically receive any record of cancellations. Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness stated that she had been waiting outside her son’s house on Rhymney Street. She had recently come out of hospital and was staying with her son for a few days. The taxi she had booked pulled up, then the driver looked at her and drove off. She looked at the app and saw that the fare had been cancelled as soon as he went round the corner. She re-booked the journey with another driver. Members asked what the witness’ rollator looked like, which the witness showed them. She recalled that the taxi had been a Toyota with a normal boot, so her rollator would have fit in. Addressing the Sub Committee, the second witness stated that he was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, who had investigated the complaint. It had taken some time to get details from Uber about the incident, and then he had sent a questionnaire to the driver, to which he had responded very quickly. Members asked if it was typical of Uber not to provide that information quickly. The second witness explained that they were normally very fast, and hadn’t mentioned any sort of issue in getting the data. The request for the full log of bookings and communications was sent to them on 20th February, and though there was a response it was not the full set of data requested. Members asked if the delay between the incident in January and the driver being contacted in April was normal. The second witness explained that they had been waiting on different statements coming in before they could go to the driver for his statement. Summing up, the first witness explained that if the driver had spoken to her about needing to cancel, she would have understood. Uber had not been able to give her the driver’s details, and it was only when the Licensing officer rang her that she knew who he was. Summing up, the driver’s wife explained that without the Uber data or the dashcam footage the driver had offered to provide, they felt it would be unfair to revoke his licence. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been disqualified from driving for six months. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been disqualified for totting up offences, having driven through a red light early in the morning and not realised. At the time he had 9 points on his licence, having committed several speeding offences in 20mph zones. He worked six or seven days a week, normally starting at 4:30am and working for 8-10 hours at a time. For each of the 20mph offences he had been caught going under 30mph. Three of the points had now expired, but as he had nine when the red light offence happened it made twelve in total and led to a ban. The driver’s representative added that his client had more than thirty years’ experience as a taxi driver, and if the offence had happened slightly later he would not have been banned as three of his points were about to expire. He was very contrite about it, and he was supporting his son through university, so the ban had already had a significant impact on his family. The driver added that the ban meant he couldn’t drive until February, but he was keen to carry on after that point. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his future conduct. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had six points on his licence. He had received three points for defective tyres, after he was pulled over for a headlight being out, on top of three more for a speeding offence. He worked as a delivery driver for Uber Eats. Members asked why he had only declared 3 points on his application, and not mentioned the offence with the tyres? The applicant explained that he didn’t know about those points then. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance which he did not declare on his application form. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had an accident in 2020 and went to court, where he was banned from driving for six months. He took a course afterwards and felt he had grown since. He had been convicted for failing to stop after an accident, and for driving without due care and attention. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that he had been working as a delivery driver on a 125cc scooter and had collided with someone. He had to complete his delivery and had returned afterwards, but was convicted of failing to stop. He was still working as a delivery driver at his shop and wanted to drive taxis. Members asked when the applicant got his driving licence, which he clarified was in June last year. Members asked why he had failed to declare his convictions, which the applicant explained was because his English wasn’t very good at the time, and the offence had been several years ago. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared previous criminal and motoring convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been rejected for a taxi licence in the past. He had made serious errors in the past but felt he was a different person now and provided character references to prove this. He had also gained his HGV licence and was a safe and conscientious driver. He explained that when he was young, he fell in with the wrong crowd. He had done a lot of stupid things but wasn’t the same person any more. The most recent offence was in 2017 for being drunk and disorderly, and he didn’t remember it well but as a result didn’t drink any more. He hoped Members would look upon his new application favourably. Members asked if he had done any lorry driving work. The applicant responded that he worked for Müller and had previously worked for Owens and Tesco. He had obtained his Class 1 HGV licence in 2022. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared motoring convictions contrary to the guidance and previously had his licence revoked by Cardiff Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he appreciated the opportunity to have his application reviewed. He understood that the offences he had committed were wrong and had been punished by having his licence revoked. He had never had any complaints from customers in his time as a driver. Responding to questions from Members, he explained that he had committed three speeding offences after struggling to adapt to the 20mph limit. Two of the offences were in the same place on Newport Road within the space of a week, and the other was a few months later. He had then filled out the Notice of Intended Prosecution form inaccurately to say that someone else was driving. Members asked when the speeding points would expire. The driver explained that this would be between December 2027 and May 2028. Members asked when he was first licensed as a taxi driver, which he clarified was in 2013. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance issued under Section 182 of the Act, and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application. The Sub-Committee heard from the Pollution Control Officer and considered all of the oral and written evidence presented at the hearing. The Sub-Committee gave regard to the Licensing Act 2003, the Statutory Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Act and the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy. Members further noted that the applicant did not attend the hearing and was therefore unable to address the concerns raised within the representations or answer questions from the Sub Committee regarding the operation of the premises during the extended hours sought. The Sub-Committee attached significant weight to the representations made by Pollution Control. Members accepted Ms Jones' evidence that the premises is situated within a residential area and that the proposed operating hours would extend activity at the premises into the early hours of the morning when nearby residents would reasonably expect a greater degree of peace and quiet. Members carefully considered the concerns relating to delivery drivers and associated vehicle movements. Whilst the applicant had proposed that delivery drivers be permitted to wait inside the premises, Members were not satisfied that this measure adequately addressed the wider impact of vehicles arriving and departing from the premises throughout the proposed operating period. Members accepted the evidence presented by Ms Jones that complaints relating to delivery drivers and riders are a recognised issue associated with late-night takeaway premises and considered that there remained a genuine risk of disturbance to nearby residents. The Sub-Committee also considered the written representations submitted by other persons. Members attached weight to the concerns expressed regarding noise disturbance, delivery activity and the effect that extended late-night trading may have on residential amenity in the surrounding area. Members noted that South Wales Police had withdrawn their representation following agreement with the applicant in respect of additional conditions. However, Members were satisfied that the concerns relating to the prevention of public nuisance remained unresolved. The Sub-Committee noted the discussion regarding nuisance odours. Whilst no complaints had been received by Pollution Control in respect of cooking smells from the premises, Members considered that the principal issue before them was the likely impact of extended operating hours and associated delivery activity rather than odour nuisance. Having considered all of the evidence before it, the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the application would promote the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that complaints had been received relating to inappropriate sexual language used towards female passengers. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t remember the particular passengers who had complained, having driven thousands of people around, and didn’t feel there was any evidence against him that was strong enough to merit any consequences. Responding to questions from Members, he explained that he felt the incidents didn’t happen and that the complaints were false feedback. He had a dashcam but it deleted footage after 24 hours so he couldn’t prove otherwise. Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness explained that she had ordered an Uber from Cardiff Central. The driver was pleasant and chatty at first but then asked if she was rich and called her a ‘high value woman’. He said she was very attractive, then talked about his own sexual experience and made suggestive comments about her body. Members asked if the experience had affected her confidence in getting taxis. The witness explained that she had made the complaint because she didn’t want it to happen to other people. It was the first bad experience she had had with Uber, and it made her question how they monitored their drivers. She felt that he was using his job to try to pick up women, and that young women could not feel safe and comfortable in his taxi. Addressing the Sub Committee, the second witness explained that she had booked a short journey with Uber because she was running late, but the driver went a very long way around and took a while to get there. They chatted about normal things at first but then the driver asked if she was a lesbian. She said no, and he said that must mean she would like his dick. She reported this to Uber at the time, and emphasised that he should not be allowed to drive young women around. The driver added that he didn’t recognise either witness, and asked if they had any video or audio evidence. The Chair clarified that Members would take the witness statements from all parties into account when making their decision. The second witness added that she had spoken to friends about it as soon as she got to their house. The driver added that he was married with children and had no intention of harassing women in his taxi. He felt that Uber did not care about drivers, as it didn’t have a process like the Sub Committee where he could make his case in response to complaints. He drove for Bolt and Veezu too without any issues. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that he parked his licensed vehicle in a bay subject to a temporary suspension, failed to comply promptly with instructions from authorised personnel to move his vehicle, and behaved in an aggressive and confrontational manner. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had driven taxis for 20 years and was used to major events. He was on Fitzhamon Embankment when someone in a high-vis came over and said ‘bloody taxis think they can park anywhere’, which he felt was rude. He wound his window down and spoke to the official, who said he was going to get him sacked. Members asked whether the driver accepted that he had parked in a temporarily suspended bay. The driver acknowledged that he had. The whole street was normally temporary parking but the cones were moved depending on the event. What he disputed was the witness’ suggestion that he had been rude and aggressive. Members asked how long it had taken him to move after he was asked, which the driver felt was about 5 minutes. Members asked why he had been on that particular street, which the driver explained because he lived close by. He had been waiting for a resident to pull out so he could use the resident bay. He pulled into a pay and display bay which was suspended for the day because of the rugby, and wasn’t picking up or dropping off a passenger. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he had worked in Transport Services for more than 30 years, and was doing his usual walkabout to make sure the road was safe for buses to pick up and park. Two council officials had asked the driver to move, and he had told them to ‘piss off’ and to mind their own business. The witness went over to the driver himself, who refused to move several more times, so he told him he would be reported. He estimated that 15 minutes passed in total before the driver finally moved. Members asked how the traffic management system worked on major event days. The witness explained that he and other officers tried to keep vehicles away to ensure that buses could safely park and pick up, but taxis refusing to leave was a recurring issue that affected public safety. The driver would only have been allowed into the coned off area by Clare Gardens if he lived there or was dropping off a passenger who did. Even if he lived there, he should have moved when asked. The driver suggested that it wouldn’t have made sense for him to refuse to move, when he could lose his licence if Transport Services made a complaint. He lived in the area, and reiterated that he would have moved if asked. He had just been waiting for a residential parking bay to open up, and hadn’t sworn at anyone. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for 7 days. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been disqualified from driving for six months. (Cllr Driscoll left his seat as a member of the Sub Committee for this item in accordance with his prejudicial interest.) The driver was not in attendance. RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License 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 coming from Newport towards Rover Way, tried to turn left and was caught by a red light. He didn’t receive a letter about this, and only found out when he was given six points for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. Members asked why he hadn’t received the letter, and why he hadn’t reported the points to the licensing authority. The driver explained that his post often went to a neighbour whose house had the same number, and he hadn’t realised at the time that he was obligated to report any offences to the council. Responding to questions from Members, the Legal Officer clarified that the £660 fine was likely due to the driver not attending court. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License 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 he had received 6 points on his licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver after being caught speeding on Manor Way, after the limit had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He had received a letter about the offence but didn’t respond, and plead guilty to this in court. Members asked why he had failed to report the points. The driver explained that he wasn’t aware at the time of the obligation to report them to the licensing authority, but was now. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (6) Application 6 was deferred to the next meeting. (7) Application 7 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared a major motoring conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received 12 points for driving without the correct insurance on two occasions. The first time, he had been pulled over while driving a friend’s car. He had third party insurance and thought that was enough. The second time, he was driving a new car and believed that his insurance would carry over, but had not informed his insurer of the change of vehicle. The driver added that he also had a conviction for driving with a defective tyre, after being pulled over for a broken brake light. The two insurance offences had led to a six-month disqualification from driving in 2024. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused. (8) Application 8 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance and had previously had his licence revoked by Cardiff Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been convicted of domestic abuse in 2013. He had worked hard since arriving in the country and felt he now had a good reputation and had demonstrated good character. He had worked as a mechanic for many years but wasn’t able to do tough physical work any more and wanted to drive taxis instead. Members asked about the circumstances of his conviction. The applicant explained that he had been convicted of domestic abuse after pushing his wife, and during the probation was prohibited from contacting her. He wasn’t aware of this and sent her a letter asking to see his daughter, not realising that this wasn’t allowed. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved. (9) Application 9 The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had motoring convictions and criminal convictions contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant felt he was a fit and proper person to drive taxis, and that he had learned from his experiences. He had been fined and disqualified from driving for six months in 2025 for totting up points. This was partly due to receiving six points for failing to provide details of the driver, after an offence was committed while he was out of the country getting married, and he believed someone else had been driving his car. Members asked whether the offence had been committed in his own vehicle. The applicant explained that it was, though it was hired from the fleet operator. He was registered as the vehicle operator but was on holiday at the time, so someone else must have been driving it. He didn’t know at the time that he could appeal the conviction, as he was trying to cope with a lot of different things and didn’t fully grasp what was going on with the case. The applicant explained that another offence related to school runs, when the private fleet operator who hired him assigned him to specific school runs that he wasn’t qualified for or comfortable doing. He also explained that he had been convicted of possession with intent to supply Class C drugs in 2008. This was many years ago, and he had been young and stupid and felt he was a very different person now. Members queried the circumstances of one of the motoring offences, which related to using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. The applicant clarified that this involved a personal vehicle rather than a taxi. It had a mechanical fault and he put temporary insurance on it, which he thought covered six hours, but he did this in a rush on the phone so may have made a mistake. RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused.
RESOLVED – T H A T the report and feedback received in respect of the observation visit undertaken by an Independent Member of the Standards Committee be noted. Reason for decision Having regard to the observation undertaken and the role of the Standards Committee.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the draft Annual Report attached at Appendix A to the report be approved and presented to Full Council. (2) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Monitoring Officer / Head of Legal and Democratic Services and the Chair of the Standards Committee to incorporate any amendments arising from the meeting and finalise the report prior to submission to Full Council. (3) T H A T a copy of the finalised report, following consideration by Full Council, be forwarded to each Vale of Glamorgan Town and Community Council Clerk and the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. Reasons for decisions (1) To comply with the requirements of Section 63 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021. (2) To enable any comments made at the Standards Committee meeting to be incorporated into the final version of the Annual Report. (3) For information and dissemination of good governance practice.
RESOLVED – T H A T under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 4 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Act, the relevant paragraphs of the Schedule being referred to in brackets after the minute heading.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the verbal representations made by Group Leaders present at the meeting be noted. (2) T H A T the Group Leader Code of Conduct Compliance Pro-forma (Appendix A) and Threshold Criteria (Appendix B) remain fit for purpose. (3) T H A T the completed Group Leader Code of Conduct Compliance Pro- formas be considered under the Part II report later on the agenda. Reasons for decisions (1) To meet the Standards Committee duty to establish whether it was content that Political Group Leaders had complied with the duties of the 2021 Act. (2) To ensure the Committee continued to have effective mechanisms for assessing compliance with statutory duties. (3) To assist the Committee in determining whether Political Group Leaders had complied with their statutory responsibilities.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the completed Group Leader Code of Conduct Compliance Pro- formas, attached at Appendices C – F of the report, be noted. (2) T H A T the Standards Committee Annual Report be amended to reflect the Committee’s satisfaction, following assessment, that the statutory duties placed on Group Leaders had been met. (3) T H A T a training session proposal be shared with all Standards Committee Members by the Monitoring Officer in relation to Part II requirements for the Committee. Reasons for decisions (1) To meet the duties placed upon Political Group Leaders in line with Section 52 of the Local Government 2000 Act as amended by section 62 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021. (2) Having regard to discussions held at the Standards Committee meeting with political Group Leaders and the completion of the Group Leader Code of Conduct Compliance Pro-Formas and the Vale of Glamorgan Political Group Leader Threshold Criteria. (3) To ensure that all Standards Committee Members were fully aware of the Committee's responsibilities and obligations in relation to Part II business, enabling them to discharge their duties effectively, consistently and in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted. (2) T H A T the verbal update provided by the Monitoring Officer at the meeting be noted. Reasons for decisions (1) To apprise the Committee. (2) Having regard to the information provided.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Part I content of the report in relation to correspondence received from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales be noted. (2) T H A T the Part II version of the report be considered in private session. Reasons for decisions (1) To ensure the Committee was informed of relevant correspondence and could fulfil its role in overseeing standards of conduct and the ethical framework within the Council. (2) To ensure that confidential or sensitive information was handled appropriately in accordance with statutory requirements and the Council’s procedures.
RESOLVED – T H A T the content of the report, including the matters discussed at the Monitoring Officer meeting with Town and Community Council Clerks held on 4th June 2026, be noted. Reason for decision To ensure the Committee was informed of recent engagement with Town and Community Councils, including any emerging issues, themes, and guidance provided in relation to the Code of Conduct, in support of its oversight role.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Part II content of the report and the correspondence received from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales be noted. Reason for decision To ensure the Committee was informed of relevant correspondence and could fulfil its role in overseeing standards of conduct and the ethical framework within the Council.
RESOLVED – T H A T the dispensations as set out in the schedule below be granted up to the date of the next Local Government Elections: Member Requesting Paragraph(s) of the Decision Dispensation Standards Committee (Grant of Dispensations) (Wales) Regulations 2001 Under Which Dispensation is Granted and as applied for Llantwit Major Town (d) and (f) To Speak, Vote and remain Councillor P.D. Ellis in meetings of Llantwit Major Town Council when matters relating to the Local History Society are discussed. Llantwit Major Town (d) and (f) To Speak, Vote and remain Councillor G. Morgan in meetings of Llantwit Major Town Council when matters relating to the Local History Society are discussed. Llantwit Major Town (d) and (f) To Speak, Vote and remain Councillor P. Dickson in meetings of Llantwit Major Town Council when matters relating to the Local History Society are discussed. Reason for decision Having regard to the applications submitted and discussions held at the meeting.
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 4th June 2026 be approved as a correct record.
Decided: 5a (26/00051/FUL), Rainbow Bargain Ltd, Bangor Street, Roath: deferred for reasons for refusal. The reason given is the overbearing relationship of the proposed extension to a neighbouring home, contrary to Policy KP5 of the adopted Local Development Plan 2016. 5b (26/00052/LBC), the listed building consent for the same site: listed under the same deferred heading, with no separate reasons recorded. 5c (26/00518/FUL), housing on land south of Willowbrook Drive, Trowbridge, St Mellons: granted subject to a Section 106 agreement. 5d (26/00577/FUL), an 11-apartment supported living complex at the former Ely Housing Office site: granted. 5e (26/01163/HSE), a garden room replacing a shed at 30 Hazelhurst Road, Llandaff North: granted.
Decided: The committee noted the applications decided under delegated powers between 25 June and 22 July.
RESOLVED - That the public be excluded during the discussion on the following item of business on the grounds that, if members of the public were present during the discussion, because of the nature of the business to be transacted there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and as described below: Paragraph 12 – Information relating to an applicant to become an employee of the Authority; and Paragraph 13 – Information which was likely to reveal the identity of an individual.
RESOLVED – That 1. Jonathan Day be appointed as Assistant Director – City Development 2. the selection process had been conducted in accordance with the appointments process and each candidate had been treated equally and fairly. The successful candidate was appointed on merit.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the request for flexible retirement for D be approved with effect from 1st August 2026. (2) T H A T the flexible retirement of D be agreed with a proposed start date from 1st August 2026 and end date of 31st July 2028, subject to no other circumstances arising in the interim whereby the employment was to be terminated for a different reason. Reasons for decisions (1) To support the employee’s request for flexible retirement whilst also securing the employee’s continued employment for a period of up to 24 months, during which time, the employee’s skills and experience would continue to be an asset to the Learning and Skills Directorate. The period allowed for planned succession building and sharing of knowledge and skills. (2) To determine the flexible retirement application within the regulations and to allow for eventualities that may not be known at this time.
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 25th June 2026 be approved as a correct record.
RESOLVED – T H A T under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 4 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Act, the relevant paragraphs of the Schedule being referred to in brackets after the minute heading.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T Charlotte Raine be appointed to the role on a two-year secondment basis in the first instance. (2) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Director of Place and the Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development, to complete any remaining employment and contractual arrangements following the Committee's decision. Reasons for decisions (1) Following the interviews of the candidates by the Committee. (2) To conclude the recruitment process efficiently.
RESOLVED – T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 27th May 2026 be approved as a correct record.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the final interviews for the post of Head of Regeneration and Strategic Project Delivery be conducted to determine whether a suitable candidate should be appointed to the role on a two-year secondment or fixed-term contract basis in the first instance. (2) T H A T delegated authority be granted to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Director of Place and the Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development, to complete any remaining employment and contractual arrangements following the Committee's decision. Reasons for decisions (1) To enable an appointment to be made in accordance with the Council's Constitution and the recruitment arrangements previously approved by the Committee. (2) To conclude the recruitment process efficiently.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the Statement on Compliance with the Financial Management Code and the Contents of the Review as set out in Appendix 1 to the report be noted and forwarded to Cabinet to its consideration. (2) T H AT the following comments for areas for improvement be referred to Cabinet for consideration: • Greater involvement and engagement with the Youth Council particularly in regard to Scrutiny; • Focus and greater emphasis on Corporate Complaints following the shift in responsibility from CIV to Democratic Services to ensure that that function remains effective and to ensure timescales around responding to complaints are reviewed; • Greater emphasis on Member involvement around Directorate self- assessments and budget setting processes. (3) T H A T Cabinet be requested to consider the introduction of a Budget Working Group to allow Elected Members to delve deeper into budgetary and saving proposals. Reasons for decisions (1) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting. (2) To allow Cabinet, the Chief Executive and the Section 151 Officer to consider the comments made by the Governance and Audit Committee. (3) To ensure more robust scrutiny within the Council’s budget setting process.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the findings from Audit Wales’ national review of Capital Planning in Councils in Wales (Appendix A to the report) and the response to the review findings and Audit Wales’ recommendations (Appendix B to the report), be noted. (2) T H A T the report be referred to Cabinet for its oversight and endorsement of the proposed Council actions (Appendix B) to address the recommendations. Reasons for decisions (1) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting. (2) To ensure the Council responds appropriately and implements areas of improvement as identified by Audit Wales.
RESOLVED – (1) T H A T the unaudited Vale of Glamorgan Council Statement of Accounts for 2025/26 be noted. (2) T H A T the unaudited Joint Committee Shared Regulatory Services Statement of Accounts for 2025/26 and the Shared Regulatory Services Annual Governance Statement be noted. (3) T H A T a commentary note be added to provide more detail around the Council reserves for schools, the Housing Revenue Account and Capital grants. Reasons for decisions (1&2) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting. (3) To provide an explanation around the level of Council budgetary reserves.
RESOLVED – T H A T the existing processes in place for the management of risk and governance in relation to major projects be noted. Reason for decision Following assurance that the processes for managing risk and governance in relation to major projects were effective and fit for purpose.
RESOLVED – T H A T the schedule of items for the next meeting on 21st September 2026 be endorsed. Reason for decision Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.