Climate change, net zero, flooding, energy, biodiversity, parks and green spaces.
What councils do
Every Welsh council has declared or responded to the climate emergency and has plans to cut its own emissions, from buildings, vehicles and the things it buys. Councils also manage flood risk on local rivers and streams.
Who decides
The Cabinet agrees climate plans; scrutiny committees check progress.
Having a say
Ask your councillors how the council is doing against its own targets, and respond to its consultations on plans.
Loading
By council, last 12 months
How many agenda items on this topic each council dealt with, and how many had a decision recorded.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had declared a major motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that in 2020, he had been the second driver on his cousin’s car, so he could help him with his work while studying at university. His cousin made a mistake typing the vehicle registration number so he wasn’t correctly insured.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted.
(2)
Application 2 was deferred to the next meeting.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver refused the fare of a wheelchair user.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver referred to the statement he had submitted. He had arrived at the rank and was approached by the marshal when it was his turn. The marshal immediately said that he didn’t have sufficient wheelchair access and directed the passengers to another cab. The driver emphasised that he did not refuse disabled customers, and that a folded-down wheelchair would fit in his vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses explained that they had approached the rank and waited until they were next in line to get a taxi. They spoke to the driver and asked to put the wheelchair in, and he said he didn’t have room. They noticed that he had seats up in the boot to take additional passengers, so they asked if he could fold them down. He said he wasn’t able to do this, so one of the passengers disclosed that she worked for Shared Regulatory Services and knew what taxi drivers were required to do. The marshal came over and spoke to him, before taking them to a different taxi which took them home.
Members asked if there was a conversation between the marshal and the driver. One of the witnesses confirmed that there was but she hadn’t heard it. The Licensing Enforcement Officer added that after she received the initial complaint she had contacted the driver, who gave her the telephone number of the marshal. She rang the marshal, who told her over the phone that he was unaware that every taxi had to take a wheelchair, and thought it was only specially adapted vehicles that could. She had only been able to speak to him once since then, when he agreed to provide a statement which was very short on detail. His statement only said that he didn’t recall it very well and didn’t remember the driver.
The driver added that only a few seconds passed between the marshal coming up to him and taking the customers to a different taxi.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was illegally parked and swore at a member of the public.
The complainant was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative noted that the complainant had not witnessed anyone being picked up or dropped off, and that the driver had provided a screenshot of the Veezu booking in response to this. He added that the customer had come out of their house and got into the car, at which point the driver realised there was a safeguarding issue with them.
The driver’s representative added that due to the nature of the customer, the driver had waited for a few minutes after dropping them off to ensure they were alright. It was a difficult area to park in and he acknowledged that it was not ideal to have to wait there, but he was only there for a few minutes. He emphasised that his client had not used the language he was accused of, and that he understood the responsibilities of a professional driver.
Members asked what conversation had taken place, and heard that the driver assumed at first the complainant was his passenger, and asked him what was wrong. The complainant had knocked on his window twice before taking a photo.
Members noted that he had been parked on double yellow lines, and asked if he had his engine or hazard lights on to show he was only there temporarily. The driver responded that his engine was on but not his indicator or hazards. He understood that yellow lines were there for a reason, but sometimes it was the only way to pick up and drop off quickly.
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 a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was illegally parked and swore at a member of the public.
The complainant was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he worked for Veezu and took a job on Bishops Road. The address didn’t include a number so he pulled in and phoned the customer, then someone knocked on the window and told him he was parked on double yellows. He didn’t answer at first because he was on the phone, but the person knocked again and took a photo. As the driver pulled away to pick up the customer, he told the complainant his name and called him a dickhead.
The driver added that although he admitted to swearing, he didn’t feel the complainant’s statement was entirely accurate. He was accused of having said ‘you’re one of those pricks’ when he was first approached, but he had been on the phone at the time and hadn’t said anything. He accepted that he should not have used bad language towards a member of the public.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had been parked for about three minutes in total, and was on the phone to the customer for most of that time. He wasn’t sure if his indicators or hazards were on, but his engine was running and he was clearly not permanently parked.
The driver’s friend added that the photo submitted by the complainant showed that there was plenty of space on the road, and that the driver was not blocking any entrances or preventing anyone else from getting through. He had driven taxis for almost thirty years with no blemishes on his record.
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 License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver parked in a disabled bay and swore at a member of the public.
The driver and complainant were not in attendance.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(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 been the subject of an immediate revocation of his Cardiff Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence following an allegation of sexual assault and false imprisonment, and in respect of which the Licensing Authority had subsequently been notified by South Wales Police that there would be no further action.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver understood why his licence had been revoked when the information first came to light. He had been working as a taxi driver for just over a year when he was arrested, after providing regular lifts for free to several young women. The representative felt that the allegations against the driver were false, and suggested that he was a victim who had lost his livelihood as a result of his naivety. He was appealing his revocation but this was a long and expensive process, so he was re-applying to make the case that he was a fit and proper person.
Members noted that the driver’s statement acknowledged that he had engaged in sexual activity in his taxi but emphasised that it had been consensual. The driver explained that he hadn’t been working that night and wasn’t on duty, although he was in his licensed vehicle. He had intended to work, but he had then been contacted by the alleged victim, and had picked her up instead. Members queried whether activities that took place in a taxi while it was being used for private purposes were relevant to their assessment of fitness and propriety, which the Legal Officer clarified that they were.
Members asked how the driver came to know the alleged victim, and heard that they met through a friend after exchanging messages. The evening in question was the first time they had met. The driver’s representative suggested that his client had been gullible and foolish, and felt that he had been the victim on this occasion. The driver added that he had made a mistake and regretted it.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused.
(8)
Item 8 was deferred to the next meeting.
(9)
Item 9 was deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following persons to current Local Authority Governing Body vacancies as follows:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Applications
Received
Baden Powell Primary School
Splott
01/07/2026
Jake Lloyd
Bryn Celyn Primary School
Pentwyn
11/07/2026
Bryn Deri Primary School
Radyr & Morganstown
01/08/2026
Cantonian High School x 3
Fairwater
01/07/2026
01/07/2026
15/07/2026
Ann Lewis
Michael James
Richard Hember
Cardiff High School
Cyncoed
01/07/2026
Grangetown Nursery School
Grangetown
27/03/2026
Greenhill School
Rhiwbina
02/07/2025
Rhys Purnell
Hawthorn Primary School
Llandaff North
18/07/2026
Lakeside Primary School
Cyncoed
01/07/2026
Llanedeyrn Primary School
Pentwyn
30/04/2026
Llysfaen Primary School
Lisvane & Thornhill
01/08/2026
Abby Waters
Marlborough Primary School
Penylan
01/07/2026
Meadowbank School
Llandaff North
13/07/2026
Yasir Syed
Meadowlane Primary School
Trowbridge
01/08/2026
Mount Stuart Primary School
Butetown
24/07/2026
Peter Lea Primary School
Fairwater
01/07/2026
Pontprennau Primary School
Pontprennau & Old St Mellons
01/08/2026
Springwood Primary School
Pentwyn
20/07/2026
Siobhan Wison
St Cuthbert's R.C Primary School
Butetown
13/07/2026
St Francis RC Primary School
Ely
08/03/2025
St Joseph's R.C Primary School
Gabalfa
27/04/2026
Ysgol Cynefin
East- Llanrumney
West-Fairwater
01/05/2026
Windsor Clive Primary School
Ely
02/07/2026
Ysgol Gynradd Gwaelod Y Garth Primary School
Pentyrch & St Fagans
02/07/2026
Fflur Rowlands
Ysgol Pencae
Llandaff
27/11/2024
Cllr Driscoll declared a prejudicial interest in the application relating to Danescourt Primary and left the meeting for consideration of the application.
Cllrs Driscoll & Williams declared prejudicial interests in the application relating to Llanishen High School and left the meeting for consideration of the application.
The Committee received and considered applications to future vacancies against criteria, matching skills to vacancies.
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Re-appointment requested
New Application Received
Bryn Celyn Primary School
Pentwyn
28/09/2026
No
Cathays High School
Gabalfa
25/11/2026
No
Danescourt Primary School
Llandaff
28/11/2026
Marie John
Eastern High
Trowbridge
25/11/2026
No
Glyncoed Primary School
Pentwyn
25/11/2026
Nicola Rylett
Llanishen High School
Llanishen
30/11/2026
Cllr John Lancaster
Ninian Park Primary School
Grangetown
30/11/2026
Joseph Edwards
Pentrebane Primary School x2
Fairwater
28/09/202630/09/2026
No
No
Pontprennau Primary School x 2
Pontprennau & Old St Mellons
30/11/2026
30/11/2026
John Morley
No
Radyr Primary School
Radyr & Morganstown
28/09/2026
No
Roath Park Primary School
Plasnewydd
30/09/2026
No
Zoe Spencer Biggs
Springwood Primary School
Pentwyn
30/11/2026
Sian Sarwar
St Paul's C.I.W Primary School
Grangetown
24/11/2026
Julie Longville
The Rainbow Federation
Llanrumney
25/11/2026
Kyle Boddy
The Western Learning Campus
Caerau
30/09/2026
No
Willows High School
Splott
28/09/2026
No
Anna Grace
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Plasmawr
Fairwater
25/11/2026
Awen Penri
Ysgol Gymraeg Coed-Y-Gof
Fairwater
25/11/2026
No
Ysgol Gymraeg Melin Gruffydd
Whitchurch & Tongwynlais
30/09/2026
No
Ysgol Gymraeg Treganna x 2
Canton
30/09/2026
27/11/2026
No
Cllr Susan Elsmore
Ysgol Mynydd Bychan
Gabalfa
24/11/2026
Cadi Rhys Thomas
Decided: It refused 26/00051/FUL, for repair, alteration and extension of Rainbow Bargain Ltd, Bangor Street, with external landscaping and a change of use to a flexible mixed-use development. It refused 26/01181/FUL, for a bungalow on land adjacent to 1 Whitland Close, Fairwater. It granted listed building consent (permission for works to a listed building) for 26/00052/LBC at Bangor Street, subject to conditions. An advisory note says planning permission has not been granted for the external alterations and extensions, so no such works are authorised unless and until it is granted.
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.
Decided: Cabinet approved starting a competitive tender for Phase 1a, using the South East Wales Highway Framework (Lot 9) and a notice on Sell2Wales. It approved scoring bids 60% on cost, 30% on quality and 10% on social value. It delegated the award of the contract, and the steps to start and deliver the work, to the Assistant Director of Planning and Transport, after consulting the Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport, the Section 151 Officer (the officer responsible for the Council's finances) and the Director of Governance and Legal Services. It noted that the Assistant Director will act as Senior Responsible Owner, accountable for delivering the project's aims and benefits.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, REFUSED the application.
Members noted that the applicant demonstrated a significant lack of understanding of the licensing objectives and the legal requirements of the licensing regime. In particular, the applicant was unable to explain the licensing objectives when asked and provided inconsistent information regarding the operating hours of the premises. In particular, the applicant initially suggested that the premises had previously operated until 3am, which was later clarified as incorrect following advice from the Licensing Officer, and subsequently revised again during the hearing. The Sub Committee considered that this inconsistency reduced the weight that could be attached to the applicant’s evidence.
Members further noted that the applicant was unable to provide clear or detailed explanations as to how the licensing objectives would be promoted. In particular, limited detail was provided in relation to staff training, with reliance placed on unspecified training to be delivered by a franchisor, without any clear understanding of its content or implementation. There was insufficient evidence of measures to manage customers during late night hours, including how difficult or intoxicated individuals would be dealt with. No robust dispersal policy or noise management measures were outlined, despite the premises seeking to operate until the early hours of the morning. The Sub Committee also found that the applicant did not demonstrate an understanding of the risks associated with late-night operation in a busy and densely populated area.
The Sub Committee took into account the representations of the Ward Member, who highlighted existing issues on Crwys Road relating to noise, anti-social behaviour, and crime, particularly during late night hours. It was noted that the road already contained a substantial number of licensed premises and that residents had raised complaints about disturbance, waste management, and sleep disruption. The Sub Committee considered that the introduction of an additional premises operating until 3am was likely to add to the potential for noise and disturbance in the area, particularly in the absence of robust control measures.
Whilst the Sub Committee acknowledged the applicant’s submission that the premises had not previously been the source of complaints, it gave this limited weight given that the premises had not been operating under a premises licence permitting late-night refreshment beyond 11pm.
The Sub Committee also gave weight to the fact that this was the applicant’s first experience of the licensing process. However, this did not outweigh the concerns regarding the lack of understanding and the absence of appropriate safeguards.
Having carefully considered all of the evidence, the Sub Committee was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that the licensing objectives would be promoted. In particular, the Sub Committee found that granting the application would be likely to undermine the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance, having regard to the nature of the area, the proposed hours, and the lack of adequate control measures.
The Sub Committee resolved to refuse the application.
Decided: The Committee approved the proposed governance changes, with its own amendments. The main points are: (1) Applications to vary conditions, make small changes, discharge conditions or approve reserved matters (details left for later) will be decided by officers, unless the Committee formally asks for one to come back to it. (2) Applications go to Committee if they are for 250 or more homes, more than 2,500 square metres of commercial floorspace, sites over 10 hectares, or major developments with an Environmental Impact Statement. (3) Requests from members to refer an application will be decided by the Chair, who must keep a record of decisions and reasons and report it regularly to the Committee. (4) The Chair can ask for an application to come to Committee. (5) The Chair will be consulted where five or more objections come from five or more households. (6) All applications from officers in the Planning Service who make planning decisions will go to Committee. Each speaker gets 4 minutes, and more than one ward member may speak at the Chair's discretion. (10) An updated Members' Planning Code of Good Practice and a single Planning Guide will be prepared. On petitions, the Committee voted to recommend to Cabinet that petitions with 50 or more signatures no longer automatically send an application to Committee. These would instead go to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chair, and the Petition Scheme would exclude subsequent or technical applications. Officers were given delegated authority to finalise the Constitution amendments, which go to the Constitution Committee and then full Council. The Petition Scheme changes go to the Constitution Committee and then Cabinet. The Head of Planning was given authority to finalise the other procedure notes and protocols. Confirmation of the final arrangements will be sent to all members.
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following persons to current Local Authority Governing Body vacancies as follows:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Applications
Received
Cantonian
Fairwater
11/04/2026
Eastern High
Trowbridge
06/05/2026
Dylan Rees
Fairwater Primary School
Fairwater
26/03/2026
Tomos Dillon
Grangetown Nursery School
Grangetown
27/03/2026
Greenhill School
Rhiwbina
02/07/2025
Hywel Dda Primary School
Ely
03/09/2025
Russell Meade
Llanedeyrn Primary School
Pentwyn
30/04/2026
Meadowbank School
Llandaff North
23/04/2026
Russell Melbourne
Marlborough Primary School
Penylan
01/05/2025
Ninian Park Primary School
Grangetown
25/04/2026
Davina Guignard
Radnor Primary School
Canton
12/12/2025
Matthew Russell
St Alban’s RC Primary School
Splott
06/02/2026
Charlotte Husnjak
St Francis RC Primary School
Ely
08/03/2025
St Joseph's R.C Primary School
Gabalfa
27/04/206
St Peters RC Primary School
Plasnewydd
30/04/2026
Michelle Matthews
The Saints Federation
Pentwyn
09/09/2025
Lee Davies
Ysgol Cynefin
East- Llanrumney
West-Fairwater
01/05/2026
Whitchurch Primary School
Whitchurch & Tongwynlais
28/10/2025
Abigail Monk-Jones
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf
Llandaff North
01/05/2025
Owain Jones
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Plasmawr
Fairwater
08/12/2025
Zoe Hayne
Ysgol Gymraeg Pwll Coch
Canton
30/06/2025
Gareth Jones
Ysgol Gynradd Groes-Wen Primary School
Pentyrch & St Fagans
01/02/2025
Gareth Howells
Ysgol Pencae
Llandaff
27/11/2024
The Committee received and considered applications to future vacancies against criteria, matching skills to vacancies.
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Re-appointment requested.
New Application Received
Baden Powell Primary School
Splott
28/09/2026
Stuart Parsons
Bryn Celyn Primary School
Pentwyn
28/09/2026
Cantonian High
01/07/2026
School
Fairwater
01/07/2026
Corpus Christi R.C. High School
Lisvane & Thornhill
17/09/2026
Kath Brown
30/09/2026
Gordan Plant
Eastern High x 2
Trowbridge
30/09/2026
Martin Weinel
Gabalfa Primary School
Llandaff North
30/09/2026
Thomas Wooley
Lakeside Primary School
Cyncoed
01/07/2026
Llanederyn Primary School
23/07/2026
Nicola Whitefield
Llanishen High School
Llanishen
30/09/2026
Barbara Cooke
Stephen Hudson
30/09/2026
Llysfaen Primary School
Lisvane & Thornhill
01/07/2026
Cllr Sian Melbourne
Marlborough Primary School
Penylan
01/07/2026
Andrew Twyman
Meadowlane
Primary School
Trowbridge
31/07/2026
Moorland Primary School
Splott
30/09/2026
Cllr Margaret Lewis
Pentrebane
28/09/2026
Primary School
Fairwater
30/09/2026
Peter Lea Primary School
Fairwater
01/07/2026
Radyr Primary School
Radyr &
Morganstown
28/09/2026
Rhiwbeina Primary School
Rhiwbina
30/09/2026
Dr Samuel Williams
Roath Park Primary
23/07/2026
Cllr Peter Wong
School
Plasnewydd
30/09/2026
Springwood Primary School
Pentwyn
20/07/2026
Standard and Ethics Sub Committee - Hearings Panel,
RESOLVED:
The Hearings Panel determined unanimously to proceed with the Hearing in public, noting that such matters would ordinarily be an open Hearing and that Cllr Latif’s representations did not raise issues of a sensitive nature which would warrant the matter being heard in private.
As there were no further procedural matters and no submission of late evidence, the Panel proceeded to consider findings of fact.
Cllr Latif confirmed that he did not dispute the key facts set out in the Investigation Report.
As the facts of the case were not in dispute the Chair of the Panel determined to combine Stages 1 and 2 of the procedure (findings of fact and whether a Code of Conduct breach had arisen) and sought representations initially from Mr. Morris and thereafter Cllr Latif.
Philip Morris drew attention to the facts, referring to page 39 of the papers, stating that:
· The actions of Cllr Latif on 3 June 2024 related to the criminal offence of locking on which is a relatively new offence under the Public Order Act 2023
· When the matter came before the Magistrates Court in May 2025 Cllr Latif pleaded guilty and received a conditional discharge and was ordered to pay costs amounting to £750 and a surcharge of £26
· Cllr Latif continued in his role as Councillor throughout
· The incident gave rise to media articles (as referred to in Appendix 9 of the Investigation Report) and Social Media attention (as referred to within Appendix 9, pages 139-162 of the agenda pack). There were mixed views with some comments in support of Cllr Latif’s actions.
· The investigation of breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct relates to Paragraph 6.1(a), the duty to not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute, as referred to at Paragraph 8 of the Investigation Report.
· When interviewed Cllr Latif had provided a balanced account and had been open in terms of his actions, he’d shown remorse and had made a self-referral to the Ombudsman
· The Investigation Report sets out undisputed facts at Paragraph 26-38. One disputed fact was whether Cllr Latif attended the protest as a Councillor. Albeit Paragraph 6.1(a) applies in public as well as in private life, it is submitted that on the facts as Cllr Latif had introduced himself to the police as being a Councillor, that he did attend the protest in his capacity as a Councillor rather than as a private individual.
· References made to Paragraph 44 of the Investigation Report, and that Cllr Latif had expressed remorse from the start.
· References made to the role and requirement to uphold the law being a key principle to be adhered to by members.
· The Panel’s attention was drawn to Paragraph 53 of the Investigation Report which concluded that there was sufficient indication by the Ombudsman that Cllr Latif’s actions were suggestive of a breach of Paragraph 6.1(a) of the Code of Conduct and contrary to the principle that members have a duty to uphold the law.
The Hearing Panel discussed the issue of a breach to the Code of Conduct and bringing the Council into disrepute.
Cllr Latif openly expressed remorse, explaining that he did plead guilty at the Magistrates court.
The Hearing Panel noted the Nolan Principles and paragraph 6.1 a of the Code which stated:
You must:
Not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably by regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.
Cllr Latif had prepared the following statement:
“Thank you for considering my statement. I take my role as a councillor seriously and deeply regret being before you.
I offer my sincere and unreserved apology. I recognise the importance of public trust and accept responsibility where I have fallen short. It was never my intention to bring the Council into disrepute, and I have reflected carefully and learned from this experience. I have also completed a refresher course on Standards and Ethics Committee requirements at the beginning of the year to strengthen my understanding and practice.
I remain committed to serving my community with integrity. I will also continue to stand firm in my principles, including speaking out for Gaza and Palestine and against oppression wherever it occurs, while ensuring I do so responsibly and in line with the standards expected of my role.”
The Hearing Panel had no questions
The Hearing Panel adjourned to deliberate in private.
The Hearing Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision.
RESOLVED:
The Chairman announced that a unanimous decision had been reached by the Panel; that they were satisfied that the facts of the case had been established; and that with regard to whether Cllr Latif had attended the protest in a personal or Councillor capacity, they were satisfied that as he had introduced himself to the Police as a Councillor, he indeed was present at the police station in his capacity as a Councillor.
Given the facts, specifically, the public order nature of the offence of locking on, the guilty plea, the conviction and sentence of 18 months conditional discharge, together with £750 costs and surcharge of £26, together with the fact that the Cllr had introduced himself as a Councillor and the media coverage, with headlines referring to him as a Cardiff Councillor, and social media commentary, some of which was negative, and having regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on the Code of Conduct, paragraph 6.1(a) duty, the Panel were satisfied that the Cllr had brought the office of Councillor and the Council into disrepute, and therefore, paragraph 6.1(a) (and the principle of upholding the law underpinning the Code of Conduct) had been breached by Cllr Latif.
The Hearing Panel moved on to Stage 3 of the Hearing Procedure to discuss sanctions and invited representations from Mr Morris and Cllr Latif.
Mr Morris submitted that there were a number of mitigating factors including remorse shown by Cllr Latif; that he had made a self-referral; that no previous complaints had been received by the Ombudsman’s office against Cllr Latif; and that he had attended refresher training on the Code of Conduct.
Cllr Latif submitted that his actions were wrong and the situation could have been avoided; he had definitely learned from the experience; that the outcome that he had wanted to achieve at the police station could have been achieved without locking on and sitting down. There was a lot of noise in the police station and at the time he was ill (and was on sick leave from work). He had heard via social media about the protest and thought he’d be able to help. In future he would not get involved again.
Rashpal Singh asked Cllr Latif about his goal/purpose in attending the police station. Cllr Latif explained that he knew a number of Police Officers and he thought that he would be able to calm down and resolve the situation; that as a local councillor he felt that he could open up a channel of communication, however he was wrong as he was only there for forty five minutes, whereas protesters had been there from early afternoon.
Cllr Latif said he had hoped his actions could make a difference, but on reflection he now believed that he had over estimated his abilities and had been very ambitious.
Louise Evans asked Cllr Latif what the impact had been on him from the reporting of the incident and criminal conviction. Councillor Latif provided a full answer which contained personal information.
The Hearing Panel adjourned to consider potential sanctions in private.
The Hearing Panel was re-convened to announce the Panel’s decision.
RESOLVED:
Having regard to the undisputed facts of the case as set out in the Investigation Report, including the seriousness of the criminal offence of locking on pursuant to the Public Order Act 2023 and the sentence issued by the Magistrates Court together with Cllr Latif’s comments during his interview with the Ombudsman’s investigating officer during which Cllr Latif had commented (as set out at page 8 of the Investigation Report) that ”the police officers were in an intense situation” and “the atmosphere was very charged”, the Panel took the view that in that situation, a public office holder would reasonably be expected to act responsibly and lawfully and walk away if necessary.
The Panel also considered the sanctions guidance issued by the Adjudication Panel for Wales, noting the seriousness of the breach, and the consequences for the reputation of the Council and the Councillor (having regard to the media headlines referring to him as a Cardiff Councillor and social media commentary on Cllr Latif’s conviction by the Magistrates Court), and the various mitigating factors, as outlined by Mr Morris.
Having regard to all of the above, the Panel determined that Cllr Latif be suspended as a County Councillor for the City and County of Cardiff for two months.
The Panel noted that a decision notice would be provided to Councillor Latif setting out the reasons for the decision within five working days. The rights of appeal would also be outlined in the decision notice. The Panel noted that an appeal would have to submitted within 21 days.
A brief email would be sent to Cllr Latif today, outlining the Panel’s decision.
Decided: It granted 26/00507/FUL (temporary live events on part of Blackweir Fields, Cathays), 25/02030/FUL (a foot and cycle bridge at Central Quay), 25/01468/FUL (a foot and cycle bridge at the Marl and Hamadryad Park) and 26/00360/HSE (extensions at 23 Charlotte Square, Rhiwbina). It granted 25/02351/FUL (a co-living building on land bounded by Custom House Street, Bute Street and Hope Street, Cathays) subject to a Section 106 agreement. This is a legal agreement that sets out what the developer must provide or pay for.
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 for the grant of a Personal Licence.
The Sub Committee noted the applicant’s reasons for applying, namely that he and his wife had been offered an opportunity and that obtaining the licence would enable him to return to employment and give back to the community. This was taken into account as part of their overall consideration.
However, Members attached significant weight to the fact that he did not declare his conviction on the application form. This non-disclosure meant that his application did not present a full and accurate account of his background. Members considered his explanation for this omission, which was that it was an error on his part and that he had relied on advice from the licensing office.
Members also considered the nature and circumstances of the conviction, which arose from an offence of failing to provide a specimen at the roadside. The applicant had explained that this occurred after a long day, that he had panicked when approached by the police, and that he suffered from breathing difficulties following Covid-19. He further acknowledged that this was a significant mistake in his life.
Members attached significant weight to the seriousness and recency of the conviction, which was recorded in November 2024. They did not find that the explanation provided for either the offence itself or the failure to declare the conviction was sufficient to allay their concerns regarding the applicant’s reliability, judgment, and ability to uphold the responsibilities associated with holding a Personal Licence.
Having weighed all of the evidence before them, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to refuse the application for the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
RESOLVED – The Sub?Committee heard from the applicant, considered all evidence, submissions, and written material, and reviewed the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the National Licensing Policy Framework, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, and the Cumulative Impact Assessment. The Sub?Committee also heard the oral representations made by the local ward member on behalf of a local resident.
The Sub?Committee noted that the premises had been trading for a significant number of years and had established a positive track record of management. It also noted that no representations had been received from either South Wales Police or Environmental Health, and the Sub?Committee attached appropriate weight to the absence of objections from the responsible authorities.
The Sub?Committee considered the explanation provided on behalf of the applicant that the current door restriction was imposed more than two decades ago in different regulatory circumstances, and that subsequent planning decisions had permitted later use of the Westgate Street entrance. The Sub?Committee also acknowledged the applicant’s position that extending the operational hours of that entrance would improve customer flow and support effective management, particularly during peak times, without undermining the licensing objectives.
However, the Sub?Committee also acknowledged the concerns raised by the local ward member on behalf of residents, particularly in relation to the unique characteristics of Westgate Street, its proximity to the Principality Stadium and Cardiff Arms Park, and the limitations faced by some residents due to conservation area restrictions preventing the installation of double glazing. The Sub?Committee accepted that residents regularly experience elevated levels of disturbance during major events and that the reopening of an additional access/egress point could potentially increase the risk of public nuisance if not carefully managed.
The Sub?Committee had regard to the fact that the objections centred primarily on the prevention of public nuisance and considered whether the proposed variation, if granted, would adversely impact that licensing objective. In doing so, the Sub?Committee took account of the applicant’s assurances regarding continued responsible operation, the existing use of door staff, and the willingness of the applicant to adopt additional controls through a formal management plan.
Balancing all the evidence, the Sub?Committee concluded that the premises had demonstrated a history of compliance, that responsible authorities had raised no objections, and that the proposed variation could be permitted without undermining the licensing objectives, provided that additional safeguards were applied. The Sub?Committee therefore considered it appropriate and proportionate to grant the variation subject to additional conditions designed to address concerns relating to public nuisance, particularly on major event days.
Accordingly, the Sub?Committee resolved to GRANT the application subject to the following additional conditions:
• There will be no exiting from the doors on Westgate Street on major event days after 9pm.
• The premises shall operate a documented door management plan designed to minimise disturbance to nearby residents. The plan must outline procedures for controlling entry and exit, managing external areas, preventing noise from patrons, and addressing any incident that may impact local residents. The plan shall be kept on the premises and made available for inspection by authorised officers.
The Sub?Committee further noted that the application sought to include the following wording:
“The entrance doors to the Westgate Street frontage shall not be used by customers or staff for the purpose of exit/egress to and from the premises between the hours of 23:15 and 09:00 Monday to Saturday and between 22:45 and 09:00 on Sundays except in the case of emergency.”
For clarity, the Sub?Committee resolved to amend this to read:
“entrance/egress to and from the premises.”
The Sub?Committee considered that these conditions struck the appropriate balance between supporting the needs of the business and addressing the concerns of local residents. The Sub?Committee concluded that, with these measures in place, the licensing objective of preventing public nuisance would be promoted.
RESOLVED: that
1. Authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment (in consultation with the Corporate Director for Resources and Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport) to finalise and award the Stage 2 Construction Contract to John Graham Construction Limited.
2. It be noted that this delegation is conditional upon the overall project cost remaining within the approved budget and the Project Team providing assurance to the Programme Board that the project funding is adequate.
3. authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment (in consultation with the Corporate Director for Resources and Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport) to vary the Stage 1 ECI contract to cover all costs incurred to date, to approve any future Compensation Events under the NEC contract, and to enable defined packages of enabling works, utility diversions and site?set?up activities to proceed in advance of the Stage 2 Notice to Proceed.
4. the risks included within the report be noted.
5. It be noted that several elements associated with the award of this contract are commercially sensitive and are therefore provided within the confidential appendices. These include all information relating to cost, funding and programme. This information must remain confidential to protect the Council’s commercial position, and no Notice to Proceed will be issued until the conditions set out in this report and its appendices have been satisfied.
RESOLVED: that
1) the strategy set out in the report and at Confidential Appendix 1 for delivery of a permanent car park at the ISV site be approved and authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation the Cabinet Member for Investment & Development, the Legal Officer and the Section 151 Officer to:
a. Deal with all aspects of the procurement of a contractor/energy developer to deliver the car park and any associated energy infrastructure.
b. Deal with all aspects of the disposal of the area of land set out at Confidential Appendix 1 in accordance with independent valuation advice to fund any financial contribution required by the Council following the procurement process set out at (a) above, with a further Cabinet decision required if the scale of Council contribution exceeds the value of this land.
2) a soft market exercise be approved as set out at Confidential Appendix 4 to consider the potential disposal of the Cardiff Ice Arena (CIA) and return to Cabinet to consider the market response.
3) a soft market exercise be approved as set out at Confidential Appendix 4 to consider the external operation and/or disposal of the Cardiff International White Water (CIWW) and return to Cabinet to consider the market response.
4) Subject to approval of the parking strategy at (1) above, the amendment to the Option Agreement with Cardiff Peninsula Consortium Limited to include the land indicated on the plan at Confidential Appendix 2 for the delivery of obligations set out at Confidential Appendix 1 be noted.
5) a disposal or long-term lease of the Toys R Us building to the current sub-tenant of the Cardiff Ice Arena be approved subject to independent valuation advice and in accordance with the draft Heads of Terms attached at Confidential Appendix 5.
6) Subject to the formal agreement of residents, the Council taking ownership of the boardwalk at the ISV site be approved, as illustrated by the plan attached at Appendix 6 and in line with the financial plan outlined at Confidential Appendix 1.
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following persons to current Local Authority Governing Body vacancies as follows:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Applications Received
Baden Powell Primary School
Splott
03/02/2025
Steve Carroll
Bryn Celyn Primary School
Pentwyn
14/02/2026
Jean Fudge
26/06/2025
Carylon Mason
Ffederasiwn y Ddraig x 2
Trowbridge
06/10/2025
Vanessa Morgan
Glyncoed Primary School
Pentwyn
03/09/2025
Martin Pollard
Grangetown Primary School
Grangetown
26/11/2025
Emily Jenkins
Greenhill School
Rhiwbina
02/072025
30/06/2025
Hywel Dda Primary School x 2
Ely
03/09/2025
Lauren Reilly
Lansdowne Primary School
Canton
01/09/2025
Laura Roberts
Marlborough Primary School
Penylan
01/05/2025
Peter Lea Primary School
Fairwater
13/10/2025
Ashleigh Bairstow
Radnor Primary School
Canton
12/12/2025
St Alban’s RC Primary School
Splott
06/02/2026
St Francis RC Primary School
Ely
08/03/2025
The Saints Federation
Pentwyn
09/09/2025
Tremorfa Nursery
Splott
27/01/2026
Sarah Fitzgibbon
Whitchurch Primary School
Whitchurch &
Tongwynlais
28/10/2025
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf
Llandaff North
01/05/2025
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Plasmawr
Fairwater
08/12/2025
Ysgol Gymraeg Pwll Coch
Canton
30/06/2025
Ysgol Gynradd Groes-Wen Primary School
Pentyrch & St Fagans
01/02/2025
Ysgol Pencae
Llandaff
27/11/2024
Ysgol Y Wern
Llanishen
01/08/2025
Iestyn Wyn Lewis
The Committee received and considered applications to future vacancies against criteria, matching skills to vacancies. RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Re-appointment requested.
New Application Received
Adamsdown Primary School
Adamsdown
01/07/2026
22/06/2026
Cllr Owen Jones
Cllr Ferguson-Thorne
Cantonian High
Fairwater
22/06/2026
School
Jean Fudge
01/07/2026
Mudassir Dehghani
01/07/2026
Danescourt Primary School
Llandaff
22/06/2026
Cllr Sean Driscoll
Lakeside Primary
School
Cyncoed
01/07/2026
Llysfaen Primary School
Lisvane & Thornhill
01/07/2026
Marlborough
Primary School
Penylan
01/07/2026
Deferred
Mary Immaculate High School
Caerau
01/07/2026
Josse Prosser
Millbank Primary
School
Caerau
18/03/2026
Jacob Pockney
Moorland Primary
School
Splott
01/07/2026
Obiajulu Okonkwo
Peter Lea
Primary School
Fairwater
01/07/2026
Rumney Primary
School
Rumney
22/06/2026
Stella Dunstone
St Illtyd's Catholic High School
Rumney
19/03/2026
Amz Wafa
Stacey Primary
School
Adamsdown
01/07/2026
Cllr Ferguson-Thorne
The Hollies
School
Pentwyn
27/06/2026
Cllr Joel Williams
The Pear Tree
Federation
Whitchurch &
Tongwynlais
27/03/2026
Hannah Hawoldar
The Rainbow Federation
Llanrumney
01/06/2026
Georgina McGarry
Thornhill Primary School
Lisvane & Thornhill
01/06/2026
Ysgol Y Berllan
Deg
Pentwyn
01/07/2026
Samantha Vaugan
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following persons to current Local Authority Governing Body vacancies as follows:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Applications Received
Baden Powell Primary School
Splott
03/02/2025
Bryn Celyn Primary School
Pentwyn
12/12/2025
Thomas Breeze
Cardiff West Community High School
x 2 vacancies
Caerau
31/12/2024 15/10/2025
Anita Batten
Katy Bennett
Coed Glas Primary School
Llanishen
1011/2025
Lauren Charles-Nelson
Ffederasiwn y Ddraig
x 2 vacancies
Trowbridge
26/06/2025
06/10/2025
Glyncoed Primary School
Pentwyn
03/09/2025
Grangetown Primary School
Grangetown?
26/11/2025?
Greenhill School
Rhiwbina
02/072025
Hywel Dda Primary School
x 2 vacancies
Ely
30/06/2025
03/09/2025
Lansdowne Primary School
Canton
01/09/2025
Pentyrch Primary School
Pentyrch & St Fagans
23/10/2024
Zoe O’Regan
Peter Lea Primary School
Fairwater
13/10/2025
Radnor Primary School
x 2 vacancies
Canton?
26/11/2025
20/12/2025
Donald Sargeant
St Francis RC Primary School
Ely
08/03/2025
The Saints Federation
Pentwyn
09/09/2025
Willows High School
Splott
29/09/2024
Sian Chase
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf
Llandaff North
01/05/2025
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Plasmawr
Fairwater
08/12/2025
Ysgol Gymraeg Pwll Coch
Canton
30/06/2025
Ysgol Gynradd Groes-Wen Primary School
Pentyrch & St Fagans
01/02/2025
Ysgol Pencae
Llandaff
27/11/2024
Ysgol Y Wern
Llanishen
01/08/2025
Barbara Connell left the meeting during discussion of her application relating to Cantonian High School.
Councillor Merry in accordance with her declaration of interest, left the meeting during discussion of the application relating to Ysgol Cynefin. Cllr Lister took over the role of Chair during this time.
Councillors Williams and Driscoll in accordance with their declarations of interest, left the meeting during discussion of the application relating to Pear Tree Federation.
The Committee received and considered applications to future vacancies against criteria, matching skills to vacancies.
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Re-appointment requested
New Application Received
Albany Primary School
Plasnewydd
28/01/2026
Saqib
Siddique
Cantonian
High School
Fairwater
23/03/2026
Barbara Connell
Creigiau
Primary School
Pentyrch & St Fagans
18/03/2026
Fiona Girdler
Herbert Thompson Primary School
Ely
18/03/2026
Cllr Maliika
Kaaba
Millbank Primary School
Caerau
18/03/2026
Deferred
Pencaerau Primary School
Caerau
28/01/2026
Lindsey Riella
Radnor Primary School
Canton
28/03/2026
Cllr Susan
Elsmore
Ysgol
Cynefin
Llanishen
28/03/2026
Cllr Garry Hunt
The Pear Tree Federation
Whitchurch
&
Tongwynlais
27/03/2026
27/03/2026
27/03/2026
Nicholas Ashby
Sharron Dore
Mike Jones-Pritchard
Ton-Yr-Ywen Primary School
Heath
28/01/2026
Cllr Julie
Sangani
Ysgol Gymraeg
Coed-Y-Gof
Fairwater
18/03/2026
Ryan Williams
Ysgol Y Berllan Deg
Pentwyn
27/03/2026
Nicholas Webb
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 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.
RESOLVED: that
1) Authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport & Parks, the Section 151 Officer and Director of Governance and Legal Services, to deal with all aspects of the proposed procurement (including determining delivery model, setting the evaluation methodology, commencing procurement and to deal with any ancillary matters) and thereafter to report the outcome at a future Cabinet meeting for approval of award of contracts.
2) It be agreed, subject to interest in the opportunity, to advertise the proposed disposal of the land as indicated within the attached plan at AppendixB, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 and to report back the outcome at a future Cabinet Meeting.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
1.
To delegate authority to the Council’s Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, Head of Planning, Operational Manager for Major Development and Placemaking and the Group Leader for Planning Policy to permit effective dialogue between the independent Inspector and Council representatives subject to consultation with the Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning as detailed in paragraph 14 of this report, in accordance with Welsh Government guidance and in order to facilitate the efficient operation of the examination process.
RESOLVED: that
• the City Parking Plan be approved (attached at Appendix 3)
• the Parking Policies be approved (attached at Appendix 4)
• the Director Governance and Legal Services be instructed to carry out the statutory consultations to make any Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) that may be required to ensure compliance with recommendation 2 outlined above, and subject to there being no unwithdrawn objections, that the TRO be made.
• Authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport & Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport and the Council’s Section 151 Officer, to prepare and to approve:
a) The Parking Design Standards specified within section 1.2 of the Parking and Traffic Regulation Policies and Operational Standards 2025
b) Any future amendments that from time to time may be considered necessary to the Operational Standards contained within the Parking and Traffic Regulation Policies and Operational Standards 2025
c) The Phase 2 (Medium Term) and Phase 3 (Long Term) Zonal Programme
RESOLVED: that
a) support for the submission of the 2035 FIFA Women’s World Cup bid be approved.
b) the submission of the the Host City Agreement and all associated guarantees be approved for submission to UKSport and the FAW by the deadline of the 31st October 2025 subject to written confirmation of an ‘in principle financial support’ being available as set out in Confidential Appendix A
c) Delegate authority to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member (Culture Sport and Parks), Monitoring Officer and S.151 Officer to consider any further matters relating to or arising from the bid.
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.
[AH1]I think Cllr Burke had left by then so didn’t give a statement..
RESOLVED: that
1. authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport & Environment, in consultation with the Director of Economic Development, Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport, and Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities, to approve the commission of the masterplan for the recently acquired Pengam Green site in Tremorfa.
2. the development of proposals for a temporary Gypsy Traveller site to alleviate overcrowding on the existing Rover Way site be approved and authority be delegated to the Corporate Director for People Communities (in consultation with the Corporate Director of Resources, the Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities and the Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation & Performance) to progress such proposals subject to all required planning approvals and verification of grant funding to support a viable business plan and subject to such verification, to return to Cabinet for approval to implement that proposal.
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 stating that he engaged with sexual intercourse with a female passenger after an Uber-booked journey. It was also alleged that the driver made a comment suggesting that it was not the first time he had engaged in sexual activity with a passenger.
The driver did not attend the meeting. The Sub Committee were unanimous in the view that the hearing should proceed in his absence due to the seriousness of the complaint.
An officer from the Licensing department addressed the Sub Committee. Members were provided with details of the complaint and the details of the officer’s enquiries into the matter. The officer provided details obtained from GPS data which indicated that the vehicle had stayed in the vicinity of the complainant’s home for 40 minutes after the journey had ended.
The complainant indicated in her statement that the driver had stopped at a garage on route to the destination in order to purchase condoms. Following further investigations by the officer, Members were advised that GPS data proved that the vehicle had stopped at a garage on Newport Road for a short time during the journey.
Further enquires with the garage operators indicated that there was only one customer at the garage during the times in question. A till receipt in the amount of £7.15 for condoms was provided, purchased using a debit card. Officers cross-referenced the debit card with payments made by the driver at the Cardiff Hackney Office, and the same debit card was used.
Members were also provided with details of other complaints that had been received relating to the driver, including one pending allegation of assault.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence 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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he swore and shouted at members of the public and drove towards flag holders.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was not working at the time of the incident. He had been running an errand for his mother, and his younger brother was in the vehicle. The driver apologised for his actions and stated that the incident happened on the first day of fasting for Ramadan, so he had perhaps acted impatiently.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that the St David’s Day march was well-organised and the organisers were trying to manage the flow of traffic. Other vehicles were also being delayed but no other drivers acted in this way.
RESOLVED – that the driver be given a written warning regarding unacceptable conduct.
(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 stating that he used offensive language towards the complainant.
The witness did not attend the meeting.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was working in Swansea that day but he had no recollection of the incident. He felt that he was a very experienced and professional driver, and this was supported by a number of references provided and a very high Uber rating.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(4)
Application 4
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 declared previous convictions and a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that the recent IN10 offence had occurred when he had driven his wife’s car without third party cover. At the time he was unaware that the insurance policy had been updated, and he was no longer a named driver.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved.
(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 from South Wales Police stating that he had committed a speeding offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) form indicating that another person had committed the offence.
The complaint also alleged that the driver falsely completed NIPs in respect of three speeding offences in a previous taxi owned by him and licensed by Cardiff Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of South Wales Police, PC Ben Thomas explained that a vehicle owned by the driver had exceeded the speed limit and so a NIP was issued. The form was returned stating that another individual was driving the vehicle, but the police established that the vehicle was not insured for other people to drive, and the named individual did not appear on any databases other than court records.
PC Thomas suggested that there was no evidence that the named individual existed. Further investigation of court records indicated that a different vehicle owned by the driver had previously exceeded the speed limit on three occasions, with the NIP for each offence stating that the same individual had been driving the vehicle, again without having insurance to do so.
The driver accepted PC Thomas’ statement and apologised for a serious error in judgement. He explained that on the first occasion, the named individual was his father-in-law, and suggested that he was actually driving the vehicle. PC Thomas reiterated that there were no records to prove that this individual existed.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(6)
Application 6
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 a complaint had been received stating that he overcharged a passenger by using the incorrect tariff for the fare, and also did not return the correct change.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that shortly after the commencement of the journey she noticed that the taxi meter was displaying ‘Tariff 2’ and queried this with the driver, who stated that Tariff 2 started at 6pm. The complainant suggested that it was 5:45pm at the time. The driver stopped the meter on route to the destination. At the destination it was alleged that the driver did not provide the correct change.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that the meter was displaying Tariff 2. He was unable to explain why this had happened, as drivers were unable to select which tariff was used. The meter automatically set the tariff depending on the time of day. The meter had since been checked by officers at the Hackney Office and was in working order. The driver denied providing the wrong change at the destination.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a verbal warning regarding his conduct.
(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 a complaint had been received stating that he made unwelcomed sexual conversation and references with a customer.
The driver stated that he could not remember the incident in question. He had been working as a taxi driver for 25 years without any problems. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he confirmed that he was no longer working for Cabs64. Cabs64 had provided a statement that indicated that the driver had been warned about his conduct on a number of occasions. The driver stated that he had only been asked not to ‘joke’ with customers.
Members asked whether joking with customers previously had including comments of a sexual nature. The driver replied that sometimes the comments were sexual. Members asked why the driver, who was in a position of responsibility, would make comments of a sexual nature when he had previously been warned not to do so.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that at the start of her journey she had difficulty with her seatbelt. The driver made a number of offensive sexual comments and used atrocious language throughout the journey. He also placed his hand on her leg and moved it up to rub her thigh. The journey was a horrible experience, and she was frightened and scared that she would have a seizure related to a health condition. The driver denied touching his passenger.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to:
a.
Note the determinations of the IRPW in its Annual Report published in February 2025 attached as Appendix A;
b.
Note the Guidance for Principal Councils, Community and Town Councils, National Park Authorities, Fire and Rescue Authorities and Corporate Joint Committees in Wales – remuneration of members shown at Appendix B;
c..
Approve the draft Members’ Schedule of Remuneration 2025-26 (Appendix C) and delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer to finalise the draft Members’ Schedule of Remuneration to reflect the appointments made at the Annual Council;
d.
Delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer to update the Members’ Schedule of Remuneration in the Constitution and to make any necessary amendments to the 2025-2026 Schedule from time to time during the municipal year in order to reflect any changes in membership of the Council, Cabinet or Committees or as a result of any Supplementary Reports issued by the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru (DBCC).