RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the passed building regulation applications, as listed in Section A of
the report, be noted.
(2) T H A T the rejected building applications, as listed in Section B of the report,
24-02-22 (GD)
be noted.
(3) T H A T the serving of Notices under Building (Approved Inspectors Etc.)
Regulations 2000, as listed in Section C of the report, be noted.
(4) T H A T the proposed service of Notices in respect of the Building Regulations
Applications as outlined in Section D of the report, be noted.
RESOLVED – T H A T in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee, the
following applications be determined as indicated and any other necessary action be
taken.
24-02-22 (GD)
2020/00620/FUL
Brigam Farm, Llanharry, Pontyclun
REFUSED AND AUTHORISE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T planning permission be refused for the following reason: Insufficient
information, by virtue of the lack of technical specifications and lack of secondary
containment, has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal does not pose an
unacceptable pollution risk to the natural environment. Accordingly the application
fails to comply with the requirements of Policies SP1 (Delivering the Strategy,
criterion 6) and MD7 (Environmental Protection, criterion 1, 2 and 8) of the Vale of
Glamorgan Local Development Plan (Adopted 2017).
(2) T H A T the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to serve an
Enforcement Notice under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended) to require:
(i) The removal of the storage tank and any associated structures.
(3) T H A T in the event of non-compliance with the Notice, authorisation be
granted to take such legal proceedings as may be required.
Reasons for decisions
(1) It appears to the Council that the above breach of planning control constituting
operational development has occurred within the last four years.
(2) Insufficient information, by virtue of the lack of technical specifications and
lack of secondary containment, has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal
does not pose an unacceptable pollution risk to the natural environment. Accordingly
the application fails to comply with the requirements of Policies SP1 (Delivering the
Strategy, criterion 6) and MD7 (Environmental Protection, criterion 1, 2 and 8) of the
Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan (Adopted 2017).
(3) It is considered that the decision complies with the Council’s well-being
objectives and the sustainable development principle in accordance with the
requirements of the Well Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.
MEETING WAS THEN ADJOURNED TO BE RECONVENED AT A LATER DATE.
24-02-22 (GD)
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application.
The Sub Committee understood the concerns of the objectors in relation to the problems which already existed in the area. However, Members considered that the premises was not located in an area covered by a cumulative impact policy and did not consider that the granting of the licence would undermine the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the addition of a condition stating that there would be no sale of individual cans of beer, cider or lager.
Members accepted that there were issues associated with problem street-drinkers in the area and that a condition restricting the sale of single cans was appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. Members accepted the concerns raised by local residents in relation to the undercroft and the use of the car park. However, the undercroft was beyond the direct control of the premises and did not form part of the application.
Members did not feel that any evidence had been presented that the licensing objectives would be undermined except for the issue in relation to the sale of single cans. Members therefore agreed to approve the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the additional condition set out above.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s License given that one of the directors had been prosecuted by the local authority for his involvement in a case that resulted in an unlicensed driver undertaking a journey in a private hire vehicle for a school transport service.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that his former business partner had given a vehicle to an unlicensed driver without consulting him and stopped paying insurance, and this was what led to the prosecution. He highlighted that he held a clean operator’s licence in the Vale of Glamorgan and had driven taxis for more than 20 years without any issues.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant confirmed that he had an operator’s licence in the Vale of Glamorgan and was seeking a Cardiff one too so he could seek contracts for school and airport runs in the city. At the moment the company could only use drivers licensed in the Vale.
The Sub Committee asked how he would ensure that the previous issue with the unlicensed driver would not happen again. The applicant assured them that he would have a safeguarding system in place, with each vehicle and driver registered internally. He owned the vehicles himself and would be responsible for insuring them.
RESOLVED – application refused
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging the refusal of a fare and questioning driver conduct.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not recognise the details in the witnesses’ statements, as he only ever drove with a meter. He did not recall the incident in question and did not recognise the witnesses.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he would have been working in his taxi at the time of the incident and that the badge number the witnesses had reported was his. Nobody else had access to his vehicle or badge, so the wrong number might have been written down.
The Sub Committee queried a previous complaint against the driver alleging refusal of a fare. The driver recalled that he only ever refused a fare when the passenger was particularly drunk or aggressive.
The witnesses addressed the Sub Committee, stating that they were going to a show at the Millennium Centre and got into a taxi on St Mary’s Street, which normally cost £8-£9, but the driver asked them for £16.50. They settled on £10 which was still above the usual fare for this journey. The witnesses noted down the badge number and contacted the local authority. They were certain that it was the same driver.
The witnesses did not recall seeing a meter in the vehicle but had not queried this at the time. They suggested that if the fare had been legitimate and the meter running, the driver would have just shown it to them when they challenged the fare. The Sub Committee discussed where the meter would normally be in a taxi, and heard that in Cardiff it was generally attached to the dashboard above the radio but could also be attached to the rear-view mirror. The driver confirmed that his meter was attached to the rear-view mirror, and added that if a passenger ever asked where the meter was then he was obligated to show it to them.
In response to questions from the driver’s representative, the witnesses stated that they had made a note of the badge number as the taxi was driving off. They added that the vehicle was a black and white Prius, and the driver confirmed that he drove one of these. The driver’s representative suggested that this was a common vehicle for taxis in Cardiff, and the witnesses may have confused it with another one with a similar badge number.
RESOLVED – suspended for 7 days
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour, including making rude and abusive hand gestures.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver highlighted his clean record. He had driven taxis for many years and conducted school transport for special needs children for 14 years. He did not recall the incident itself but strongly refuted the allegation that he had made offensive gestures.
The driver added that he was unaware that the complainants had followed him into the car park afterwards, and suggested that this indicated they were hoping to have an altercation. As a taxi driver he understood that he had to negotiate a number of potentially stressful situations every day and maintain professionalism. He suggested that the complainants were not qualified to judge what constituted good driving.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses stated that the taxi had cut across them on Cogan Spur without indicating and nearly caused an accident, before braking hard without warning. The sudden stop caused one of the witnesses’ back pain to get worse. The witnesses contested the driver’s claim that he did not make any gestures towards them, and emphasised that they were not following him around the car park, but rather looking for a disabled bay which could be difficult to find when it was busy.
The witnesses stressed that taxi drivers were meant to set an example, as they were representing Cardiff Council and had the logo on the back of their vehicle. One of the witnesses added that he was a former driving instructor qualified to Grade 6 and also a former Special Constable, so he understood the definition of dangerous driving. He had known the driver personally for many years and would not have made this complaint unless he felt that it was very serious. The incident had been entirely unnecessary and put people in danger.
RESOLVED – written warning
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging the refusal of a fare and questioning driver conduct.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that a customer had entered his taxi upon leaving the Motorpoint Arena at about 11pm and asked to go to an address in Gwaelod Y Garth. He put in the wrong postcode by mistake and thought the destination was outside Cardiff, so he suggested a fare of £50. He then realised his error and tried to let the customer know but they had already left and got into another taxi.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had misheard the address as CF35 when he asked the passenger where they wanted to go. The actual postcode in Gwaelod Y Garth was CF15. The CF35 address was 24 miles away so he estimated that this would cost about £50, going by his usual £2 per mile price for trips out of Cardiff.
The Licensing Officer confirmed that while any in-district fare had to be calculated using the meter, there was no standard procedure for calculating fares outside of Cardiff as long as the fare was agreed with the customer before the journey began.
RESOLVED – written warning
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee were 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 upon renewal of his licence his DBS returned a recent conviction from August 2022.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he had been convicted of domestic violence in 2022 and had since undertaken all of the community service and rehabilitation programs required by the court. He had been a taxi driver for more than a decade and had a very high Uber rating. He hoped he could prove to the Sub Committee that he was a professional and reliable individual who could be trusted to drive a taxi. He was trying to be a positive role model for his son and had learned a lot from the rehabilitation program.
The driver’s representative added that the driver had intended to appeal the conviction but had been unable to do so for financial reasons. He had been licensed in Cardiff for 15 years with an exemplary record, had participated in a rehabilitation course and had declared his conviction to the licensing authority at the earliest opportunity. He had no other source of income and was a single parent, so he depended on his license for his livelihood.
RESOLVED – license revoked
Application 6
The Sub Committee were 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 disclosed a conviction for plying for hire without a licence to do so, and received 8 points on his licence for driving without insurance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been driving taxis for 23 years and otherwise had a clean record. He had always driven a hackney carriage but had taken it to the garage the day before and was driving a private hire vehicle instead. While driving along Mill Lane, he saw two young women who did not seem to be getting picked up by anyone else, and he didn’t want to leave them on their own.
As they got in, he realised that he was in the wrong vehicle, but he took them to their destination anyway. He accepted that this was an error and apologised to the Sub Committee. This was the first mistake he had made in a long career and it would not happen again.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, he accepted that he took them to their destination despite knowing that he shouldn’t. He suggested that he thought they might cause trouble if he asked them to leave. He confirmed that he understood the consequences of taking them as he did not have the correct insurance for a trip that wasn’t pre-booked.
The Licensing Officer clarified that licensed drivers in Cardiff were dual-badge, meaning that they could drive both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, and it was the vehicles themselves where the insurance varied. The insurance depended on the trip being pre-booked, and if it wasn’t pre-booked then it wasn’t insured. It was an offence to ply for hire without the required insurance.
The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee, asking the panel to consider the driver’s length of service and his spotless record. He had been a fit and proper person to drive a taxi for many years and this was a serious lapse of judgement which would never happen again. The representative added that the driver had already been punished for the offence with fines and points on his license.
RESOLVED – 28 day suspension
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – T H A T having considered the conclusions in connection with the
Application, and taken into consideration the debate from all parties at the
meeting, that the Application to permit the use of corporate branding on vehicles
owned by Veezu be approved. The Committee agreed that the Applicant had
satisfied the statutory tests under section 48 of the Local Government
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, for the reasons set out in the report and its
appendices.
Reason for decision
In order for the Council to discharge its duty to determine the Application, in
accordance with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
Minutes - KB
RESOLVED to note and agree the Work Programme 2022/23 as set out in Appendix A, (with the addition of the matters noted above and, taking into account its terms of reference and available resources, to agree with the Interim Monitoring Officer any amendments and how it wishes to progress the various items or topics contained therein)
Vale of Glamorgan, Governance and Audit Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted.
(2) T H A T the report be referred to Cabinet for its oversight.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
(2) To enable Cabinet’s oversight of the Audit Work Programme.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the status of the high and medium recommendations as listed in
the report be noted.
(2) T H A T in relation to the outstanding recommendations for the audit of
Ysgol y Deri and St. Cyres building compliance, for the responsible officer to be
invited to attend the next meeting of the Governance and Audit Committee in
order to provide an update on progress and to outline reasons for slippage.
Minutes - GD
No.
(3) T H A T in relation to outstanding recommendations for the audit relating to
pot hole repairs, for the responsible officer to be invited to the next meeting of the
Governance and Audit Committee in order to provide an update on progress and
to outline reasons for slippage.
Reason for recommendations
(1-3) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the actions taken by the Internal Audit team following the further
work undertaken be agreed.
(2) T H A T a full and comprehensive report be presented to the Governance
and Audit Committee when appropriate to outline lessons learnt as a result of the
review undertaken.
Reason for decisions
(1&2) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
RESOLVED – T H A T the matter be deferred to next meeting of the Governance
and Audit Committee in order for a full report to be presented to outline all the
necessary financial and contractual arrangements prior to a formal decision.
Reason for decision
In order for the Governance and Audit Committee to have a full picture prior to any
recommendations to Cabinet requesting that the Vale of Glamorgan Council
continue to host the Shared Service.
Minutes - GD
No.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Treasury Management Interim Report for the period 1st April to
31 December, 2023 be noted.
st
Minutes - GD
No.
(2) T H A T the policy for making minimum revenue provision in 2024/25 be
endorsed.
(3) T H A T the proposed 2024/25 Treasury Management and Investment
Strategy including the following specific resolutions as detailed in Appendix 1 to
the report be endorsed:
• The Authorised Limit for External Debt be set at £240.9699m for 2023/24,
£271.200m for 2024/25, £303.939m for 2025/26 and £336.893m for
2026/27.
• The Operational Boundary for External Debt be set at £226.147m for
2023/24, £255.687 for 2024/25, £287.406m for 2025/26 and £320.338m for
2026/27.
• The Section 151 Officer be given 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 2023/24, £10m for 2024/25, £10m in 2025/26 and
£10m in 2026/27 is 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 for
2024/25 be set as:
Table 1 – Upper and lower Limits for fixed rate borrowing
Upper Lower
Limit Limit
Under 12 months 20% 0%
12 months and within 24 months 20% 0%
24 months and within 5 years 30% 0%
5 years and within 10 years 40% 0%
10 years and above 100% 0%
• The Prudential Indicators set out in Appendix 1 be approved.
• The Treasury Management Policy Statement set out in Appendix 2 be
approved.
Reason for decisions
(1-3) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Quarter 2 position of Corporate Risks (April 2023 – September
2023) as outlined in the risk summary report (Annex A) be noted.
(2) T H A T the comments of the Governance and Audit Committee be referred
to Cabinet for their consideration. The comments of the Governance and Audit
Committee being:
• For Cabinet to clearly indicate the specific reasons why Brexit remains on
the Risk Register and what are the residual actions that remain.
• That Cabinet reconsider the inclusion of Covid and Brexit as risks on the
register with the view of the Governance and Audit Committee that both
risks should be removed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
Minutes - GD
No.
(2) To advise Cabinet of the views and comments of the Governance and Audit
Committee.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Forward Work Programme be endorsed.
(2) T H A T the schedule of items for the next meeting on 11th March, 2024 be
endorsed with the inclusion of invites to the responsible officers for the Ysgol y
Deri and St. Cyres Building Compliance Audit and the pot hole repairs audit.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
(2) To confirm attendance and information requirements.
Minutes - GD
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted.
(2) T H A T the Governance and Audit Committee continues to receive annual
reports in relation to policy implementation and incidents.
(3) T H A T the Governance and Audit Committee continues to receive annual
reports in relation to staff survey results.
(4) T H A T the recommendation of the Standards Committee for all staff to be
made aware of the Whistleblowing Policy and for the policy to be a part of the Staff
Induction and Refresh Programme be agreed.
(5) T H A T the Whistleblowing Policy be considered as part of the review of
mandatory training for staff, and for the matter to be referred to the Corporate
Performance and Resources Scrutiny Committee.
Reasons for decisions
(1,2&3) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the
meeting.
(4) Following consideration of the recommendations of the Standards
Committee made on 2nd February, 2024.
(5) In order to consider the inclusion of Whistleblowing as mandatory training.
RESOLVED:
a. To note the questions identified by the Standards and Ethics Committee set out in Appendix A.
b. To consider the proposed questions for the Neurodiversity survey as set out in Appendix B.
c. To approve the plans for the delivery of the surveys as outlined in paragraph 16 above.
d. To delegate the authority to make any subsequent amendments to the planned questions for the Neurodiversity survey to the Head of Democratic Services in consultation with the Chair of the Democratic Services Committee and the Cabinet Member responsible for the Neurodiversity Survey.
RESOLVED:
a) To provide comments on the content of the Committee’s Annual Report 2023 which would be used to update the report in readiness for consideration of the next meeting of the Committee and prior to its submission to Council in June 2024.
RESOLVED:
a To note the content of the report and the initial assessment of current research facilities for elected Members at Appendix B undertaken by the HDS.
b To consider the questions in Paragraph 13 and the proposed categorisation of research as set out in paragraph 18 and provide direction for the development of the Research Protocol.
c To agree that a draft version of the Research Protocol be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee on 15 April 2024.