Licences for pubs, taxis and events, anti-social behaviour and trading standards.
What councils do
Councils work with the police and others on community safety, run CCTV, license pubs, taxis and gambling premises, and deal with antisocial behaviour such as noise.
Who decides
Licensing decisions are made by a licensing committee or sub-committee of councillors, which hears from applicants and objectors.
Having a say
You can object to a licence application during its consultation period. Report noise and antisocial behaviour to the council.
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 Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had worked as a taxi driver for over 30 years and this was his first time before the Committee. Members were advised that the two SP30 driving offences had both occurred outside Cardiff in the early hours of the morning. The vehicle was travelling at 26mph in a 20mph zone and there were no passengers in the vehicle at the time.
The driver accepted that he was at fault, and he was now extra vigilant when it came to complying with speed limits.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the 3 SP30 driving offences had all occurred within a short space of time. The driver had taken fares to Swansea and was unfamiliar with the area. The speeds for the offences were 22mph, 22mph and 27mph respectively.
Members were advised that the offences were reported to the Hackney Office at the time. The driver was now very vigilant as he was fully aware that any conviction for a further driving offence would affect his livelihood.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging he failed to remain with his taxi after parking it on a rank, failed to display the interior plate and was rude and aggressive to Licensing Enforcement officers.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that on the day in question the driver parked in a taxi rank in order to go to his bank. When he returned to his vehicle he became aware of somebody taking photographs of his vehicle.
When asked, the lady identified herself as a Licensing Officer. She asked why he had parked in the rank and was ‘shouting and raving’. The driver denied that he was rude and aggressive to the Licensing Officers and suggested that the statements made by the witnesses were concocted. He stated that he was calm and respectful throughout the incident and denied using bad language.
The driver confirmed that he was aware that parking on a taxi rank was not permitted.
The Sub Committee also received representations from two Licensing Officers. The officers were invited to explain their version of the incident. Members were advised that the driver was rude and aggressive and had used phrases such as “I don’t give a shit”. The officers attempted to defuse the situation by inviting the driver to attend an interview at a later date. At that point they were accused of being “on a power trip”.
The officers stated that there was no window badge on display in the vehicle at the time of the incident.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire licence be suspended for two weeks for unacceptable conduct.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging abusive and threatening behaviour towards a fellow driver whilst carrying passengers.
Members were asked to consider the circumstances which had led to a disagreement between two drivers in the Kingsway area of the City Centre. The Sub Committee watched a video of a driver in a heated argument with another driver and using very strong bad language in front of passengers in his vehicle.
The driver was invited to provide details of his recollection of the incident. Members were advised that the driver was parked at the front of an unofficial rank and was next in line to collect a fare. The complainant’s vehicle parked in front of him and attempted to hail passengers.
The driver asked the complainant to move his vehicle. The complainant refused stating that it was not a legal taxi rank. The complainant then left his vehicle and came to the side of the driver’s vehicle, provoking a reaction.
The driver accepted that his response was wholly inappropriate and unprofessional. He stated that he now wished he had left the area immediately and had taken his passengers home.
The complainant was invited to address the Sub Committee. Members were advised that after overtaking the parked vehicle the driver started swearing and spitting. He therefore started to record the incident. The complainant considered that the other driver’s behaviour fell far short of the standards expected.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire licence be suspended for 60 days for unacceptable conduct.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he requested a fixed price card payment once the passengers were in the vehicle and the journey had already started to an area outside of the Cardiff boundary.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had agreed a fare of £50 to first take a passenger to Barry and then make a second drop off returning to Dinas Powys. After commencing the journey, the driver asked whether the passenger would be paying by cash or card. The passenger stated that it would be a card payment and therefore the driver stopped the vehicle and attempted to take the payment before the end of the journey. The driver stated that he did this because he had had several incidents where card payments have been declined.
The driver accepted that he should have asked for the payment when the price for the fare was agreed at the taxi rank.
The complainant stated that at the start of the journey, whilst an indication of the cost had been provided, he was unaware whether the driver was using the meter or not. The vehicle stopped in Callaghan Square and the driver requested payment. The complainant considered this to be inappropriate and refused to pay until the end of the journey. The complainant felt uneasy and was concerned that this portrayed a pattern of behaviour rather than a simple misunderstanding.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance and had been refused a licence by another local authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that whilst working delivering food his vehicle had broken down. He therefore used his cousin’s vehicle. He updated his insurance policy to allow his to use the different vehicle. However, whilst he was able to drive the vehicle as a third party he was not allowed to use it for food deliveries. He was stopped by the police and charged with an IN10 offence. He accepted that he was uninsured at the time.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driving offences had occurred on the A470 over a short space of time. The driver stated that after an extended break in Canada he had returned to the UK and started working. The speed limit on a section of the A470 had changed during his period abroad and he was unaware.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for driving offences.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Members were advised that the driver had received 6 penalty points after taking a telephone call from his daughter whilst stopped at traffic lights on Newport Road. The driver accepted responsibility for the offence. There were no passengers in the vehicle at the time. The driver accepted that he should have declared the conviction at the time of the offence as required.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was working a private hire driver at the time of the offence. He had mistakenly picked up a passenger who was not pre-booked, when he was not insured to do so. Prior to the incident, the driver had 17 years’ experience in the trade without any complaints. He was now licensed as both a hackney carriage and private hire driver. He considered that after receiving six penalty points and a fine in the magistrate’s court and having to pay higher insurance, he had learned a valuable lesson.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had motoring convictions and a previous criminal conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained the nature of the convictions and the circumstances surrounding the speeding offences, and that he has now addressed his behaviour and drives to a professional standard.
The Sub Committee asked the applicant to explain his conviction for money laundering. The applicant stated that the conviction had occurred whilst he was at university. A friend had asked him to create a cryptocurrency account which was then used to send money to someone else.
RESOLVED – that the application for a hackney carriage / private hire drivers licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging he abandoned his passenger at 2am following the passenger refusing to rebook the journey with a different operator for a higher fee.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver welcomed the opportunity to put his case forward. He had been a taxi driver for ten years, worked to support his children and was a big part of his local community in Cardiff. He understood his responsibilities to his community and the city and could not understand how the incident had happened, and apologised to the witness.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she had just finished work in the Red Dragon Centre, and as she didn’t drive at the time she booked an Uber home. After she got in, the driver asked where she was going and complained that it was too far, asking her to rebook it with another provider and pay cash. She had already paid through Uber, so she refused. The driver kept repeating that it was too far and got louder, so she felt uncomfortable and asked if he wanted her to leave. He said yes so she got out.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he worked for both Uber and Cabs 64. He was aware of the contracts that he was entering into as a driver when he accepted a fare, and that he should have completed the job.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness confirmed that she had cancelled the journey on Uber after getting out and had got her money back, and had booked a different Uber home.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 8 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received the penalty points for using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. The driver’s representative added that he had a black and white hackney vehicle which he had converted to a private hire vehicle in May 2023.
On the night in question, he was due to finish his shift as a private hire vehicle before shifting to operate as a hackney carriage later in the evening. While still operating as a private hire driver, he was approached by a passenger and agreed to take them. He was only two weeks into operating as a private hire driver, using the same vehicle. He wasn’t thinking clearly and took the passenger, but knew now that he shouldn’t have taken them as they hadn’t pre-booked.
The driver’s representative noted that he had brought additional character references, and hoped the Sub Committee would take into account that his family depended on his income, as well as the difficult year that the driver had had. He suggested that the council must have been fully aware of his situation last October when the licence was renewed, and felt the matter should have been dealt with then rather than bringing the driver back to answer for it a year later.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences, the first two being shortly after the 20mph limit was brought in, both on Manor Way on the A470 late at night, and another in 2025. He had been licensed for 22 years with no other issues. Taxi driving was his livelihood and he did it to support his family.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(4)
Application 4
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 6 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t use his phone while the car was moving but jobs appeared on it and you needed to tap the screen to accept them. He wasn’t sure when exactly the offence had taken place but emphasised that he respected the rules of the road. He had been a taxi driver since 2019 and had been driving for more than forty years.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had six penalty points on his driving licence which he had not declared to the licensing authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that while picking up a member of his family before starting work in his taxi, he had been seen by a police officer touching his phone and received six points. When it came to the renewal process he forgot to declare this. He suggested that this was an oversight rather than attempt to hide it, and he understood that it was his duty to inform the licensing authority as soon as it happened.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points through a SP50 speeding offence and an MS90 offence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. He noted that the offence did not concern his taxi but rather a private car. His wife had travelled up north using the car, and let a friend drive it back, believing they were insured to do so.
The friend was caught speeding and the driver filled in the form accordingly, but was given an MS90 offence for not providing the driver’s name. The Legal Officer clarified that it was the responsibility of the person who had been driving to fill in the form.
The driver added that he had been driving taxis for nearly 40 years in Cardiff, enjoyed his job and had served the city well. The speeding points had recently expired so he now only had six.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he was disqualified from driving in October 2022 but did not advise the licensing authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had obtained a taxi licence in 2018 and started driving them in 2019, working for Uber. He was disqualified from driving in 2022 due to totting up 12 penalty points, and served his six month disqualification in 2023.
When he came to renew his taxi licence in 2024, he wasn’t sure how to answer the questions on fixed penalties and points since his last renewal, as he didn’t know if he still had the points. He left it blank and intended to come back to it, but ran out of time before the deadline and wanted to ask for clarification at the taxi office.
Upon renewal, he handed the forms in and completely forgot to draw their attention to the gaps in the form. He didn’t think anything of it until this was flagged up almost a year later. He emphasised that he had not intended to deceive, and it was just a simple mistake.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had 18 penalty points on his driving licence and had been disqualified from driving for six months.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had been before them this year and mentioned two pending offences that had since been confirmed, with his licence revoked as a result. He had since handed his licence in and was not currently driving.
The driver’s representative acknowledged that he had committed repeated speeding offences, but had learned the hard way from his mistakes. He asked the Sub Committee to consider that once he was able to drive again in four months’ time, he would be a fit and proper person who could be trusted to drive a taxi safely and responsibly.
The Chair noted that the driver had previously been suspended for seven days by the Sub Committee, and before then had received a written warning. The driver’s representative noted that the warning had been for a different offence.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that in a few years ago he had gone through a red light on an electric bike, not realising that this was not legal on a bike. Another offence had occurred a few hours after he had bought a car, when the insurance on the vehicle was not under his name at that time. These offences combined resulted in a six month ban, which he had served.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
(11)
Application 11
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence given that the applicant previously had a Private Hire Operator Licence revoked by Newport City Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he was seeking an operating licence because Newport had revoked his previous one after a misunderstanding. He understood the error he had made, and would ensure full compliance if granted a licence by Cardiff to ensure it didn’t happen again. He now had a legal advisor in place to ensure compliance.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had operated in Newport from 2021 to 2025. His operator licence had been revoked after he lent friends licensed vehicles for personal use, misunderstanding the meaning of social, domestic, pleasure (SDP) insurance. His company’s compliance had also not been deemed up to standard.
He added that there had been no complaints against him as a driver, and his new company had a Cardiff office which Licensing were welcome to visit at any time. He was happy for any conditions to be attached to his operating licence to mitigate any previous concerns.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator Licence be refused.
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – T H A T, having considered the contents of the report and the
consultation responses received, the proposed amendments to the Hackney
Carriage and Private Hire Vehicle Conditions be approved, namely, to remove the
following condition:
“A frequency scanner or CB radio shall not be fitted into or carried within any
vehicle”.
Reason for decision
Due to the Committee and the Police having no safety or other concerns that they
could foresee relating to the proposed amendment, and as there had been no
objections to it raised as part of the consultation.
December 09 Minutes and DN (LW)
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant (South Wales Police), representations made by the respondent, and all other oral and written representations:
1. Accepted that there had been some failings at the venue, but on this occasion did not resolve to remove the DPS they were satisfied that these matters were being adequately addressed through the measures outlined by the business;
2. Recognised that the business had moved away from using standard glass vessels, and did not consider it proportionate to attach the police condition in relation to non-glass vessels;
3. Did not consider it proportionate to mandate the use of ID scanners through a licensing condition at this time;
4. Felt that the police’s suggested condition around designated walkways would be impracticable and not appropriate.
The wording of the 16 conditions that had been accepted by the licensee were accepted, with the added amendment to condition 10 (bullet point D) to state: ‘All incidents of disorder which the premises is aware, including sexual assault’.
The Sub Committee also accepted the premises plan as detailed on page 240 of the bundle.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application, subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control.
The Sub Committee noted that the applicant has agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control, leading to the withdrawal of their objections. It felt that while local residents and the Ward Member raised valid concerns, the agreed reduction in operating hours sufficiently addressed potential late evening public nuisance.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police, and with an additional condition reducing the hours when alcohol could be sold to 7am-11pm.
The Sub Committee noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by South Wales Police, leading to the withdrawal of their objection. The Sub Committee accepted the concerns raised by the local resident and ward member, particularly in relation to the late night sale of alcohol. Members felt that the sale of alcohol after 11pm in this case was likely to cause an increase in crime and disorder and public nuisance, and noted that the applicant was willing to reduce the hours accordingly.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, REFUSED the application
The Sub Committee noted that the application was for a premises located in an area that covered by a cumulative impact assessment, and fell within the red category. There were issues of crime and disorder in the area linked to off-licences, as outlined in the cumulative impact policy and South Wales Police’s representations. The Sub Committee also gave sufficient weight to the Licensing Authority’s representation in respect of the applicant not being sufficiently aware their own application or the cumulative impact assessment, which raised significant concerns.
The Sub Committee considered that the granting of the licence would undermine the licensing objectives and add to the negative cumulative impact within the area.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Statement of Licensing Principles for 2025- 2028, as
detailed be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to there having been no consultation responses received, and to
ensure that the Council fulfilled its statutory duty as a Licensing Authority.
FINAL DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN ANNUAL SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT 2024/25 (REF)
The Leader presented the report, and highlighted that Members would be aware of
this as it had been shared in draft in a number of areas including a joint Scrutiny
session in July, where recommendations were made, and Governance and Audit
Committee, which recommended the evidence and insight assessment changed
from “Good” to “Fair”, and that it was the role of Council to approve the final report.
Councillor Carroll reflected that considerable improvement needed to be made within
the Council as demonstrated by the change in approach to car parking, and the
change in decision based upon its impact which had generated media attention,
alongside an impact to residents. He believed this was not an isolated incident and
that there needed to be more honesty over performance and believed the report did
not reflect residents’ experiences.
Councillor Dr. Johnson noted that the process had been different this year due to
changes in Scrutiny arrangements, which would need longer to consider its impact,
but reflected that during the Joint Scrutiny session, it was difficult to get into the
detail of approximately 500 RAG ratings. He also shared that during the session, he
had questioned the methodology and moderation, as the achievement was exactly
the same as the target for “Good”, and that despite several indicators being Red, the
assessment remained the same, which supported the feeling of this report being the
Council marking its own homework. He felt that external statistics, such as Welsh
Index of Multiple Deprivation, proved the impact of working, and noted an increased
in the number of LSOAs in the most deprived areas.
A recorded vote was undertaken as below:
Member For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey √
Julie Aviet √
Gareth Ball √
Rhiannon Birch √
Bronwen Brooks √
Gillian Bruce √
Ian Buckley √
Lis Burnett √
Samantha Campbell √
George Carroll √
Christine Cave √
Charles Champion √
Amelia Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Russell Godfrey √
Emma Goodjohn √
Member For Against Abstain
Ewan Goodjohn √
Stephen Haines √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Catherine Iannucci-Williams √
Gwyn John √
Ian Johnson √
Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √
Julie Lynch-Wilson √
Kevin Mahoney √
Naomi Marshallsea √
Michael Morgan √
Jayne Norman √
Helen Payne √
Elliot Penn √
Sandra Perkes √
Ian Perry √
Joanna Protheroe √
Ruba Sivagnanam √
Carys Stallard √
Neil Thomas √
Member For Against Abstain
Rhys Thomas √
Steffan Wiliam √
Margaret Wilkinson √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
Total 29 20 1
RESOLVED – T H A T the Final Draft Vale of Glamorgan Annual Self-Assessment
2024/25 be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the meeting.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2026 – HOUSING GROWTH IN BARRY CONSULTATION REPORT (REF)
Councillor Sivagnanam presented the report and noted this was a critical stage in
ensuring there was an up-to-date planning framework which met the needs of
communities. She advised that Members would be aware that the strategy for the
Replacement Local Development Plan was agreed by Full Council in September last
year, and that due to concerns around deliverability, sites at Northwest Barry, land at
Neptune Road and Hayes Lane were being consulted upon. She shared that there
had been 159 individuals and organisations who had made representations, less
than the number when consulting upon Northeast Barry, but still valid concerns.
She reflected that at Place Scrutiny previously residents made powerful and relevant
objections about these sites, and that she recognised concerns surrounding
infrastructure, with specific concerns around increased traffic at Weycock Cross, but
that developers would be required to fund highways improvements to deal with traffic
issues, and that this would be part of the planning process moving forward. She also
noted that there would need to be an increase in school places, and access to health
care, which they were working on the Health Board to explore.
She noted that Barry was the largest and most sustainable settlement in the Vale,
identified as a key settlement in in the RLDP hierarchy and that it was a national
growth area, alongside the need for affordable housing was critical, as there were
around 7,000 households on the Council's housing register with 4,000 expressing a
preference to live in Barry alongside nearly 900 people living in inappropriate
housing in Barry.
Councillor Dr. Johnson indicated that they were not present during the Scrutiny
meeting, but upon review, agreed with Councillor Hooper’s assessments during the
meeting, in supporting the scheme for Neptune Road and noting the lack of facilities
and public transport in the Bendricks. He reflected upon the Weycock Cross
proposal, which he believed to be the most controversial, and shared that the
Conservative Party had previously built around 700 houses into the prospective
Local Development Plan in this area in 2012, and that the Labour Group opposed
this in local media and sought to redistribute this across the Vale. He shared that the
Plaid Cymru Group had concerns about the site for a number of reasons, including
the loss of the green belt, traffic problems, the lack of public transport and likely over-
reliance on cars, so would propose an amendment to remove this scheme from the
proposals. He further noted that the number of people on the housing list was not a
core evidence basis, queried how this would address the 900 individuals in
unsuitable housing in Barry, and why other areas where planning already existed
such as the college site on Colcot Road or Western Gateway were not part of this
proposed scheme.
Councillor Collins shared that they acknowledged the need for housing, there was a
concern over the lack of community facilities, such as shops, doctors and dentists as
a remote part of Barry which was not as well connected, with no buses on a Sunday
or between 7.30am and 4.30pm, meaning people would need to use cars.
Councillor Campbell noted the Cabinet Member’s comments around developers
funding infrastructure improvement, and how Section 106 monies as part of the
development of Golwg Y Mor in Rhoose had been put forward for infrastructure
improvements had been used but were not enough and the Council needed to also
do more to improve this moving forward. She further expressed that Council needed
to take a role in improving active travel and public transport, particularly in the
Western Vale area, as there needed to be consideration as to how these proposals
would impact upon these residents.
Councillor Carroll agreed that the proposed development at Weycock Cross was
problematic and would have an impact upon traffic, which was at capacity, busy all
day and worsened by increasing the number of dwellings. He commented that of 129
representations, all bar 3 signalled opposition to the plan, which he felt they were
right to do so as it was clearly unsuitable for development, and that despite being
less than other sites representations, this still represented a considerable number of
people who the Council should listen to.
Councillor Franks shared that he felt this was being considered due to the failure to
properly assess the Northeast Barry proposal, which included 900 houses, which
failed and had to be withdrawn. He noted that the Labour Party had previously
opposed this site, whilst the Conservative Party had supported it, and believed this
reflected chaos by Cabinet, and that the proposal should be withdrawn.
Councillor Perry raised that at Place Scrutiny Committee, a resident raised concern
about flood water at Weycock Cross and expressed doubt over the robustness of
modelling in terms of flood risk assessment and drainage, and that he felt the
planning system was flawed if the building of more houses resulted in increased
flooding. He further reflected that there would be the need to own cars, and that
there was a need to reduce the dependence on cars to support the climate
emergency and that active travel needed to be properly considered. He finally
commented that increasing developments were seeing more delays and congestion
and that current approaches to mitigation do not work.
Councillor Goodjohn emphasised the need to consider future generations who would
need affordable housing. He reflected that this proposal did not address the need in
the best way possible and that the original proposal did, but this was reduced based
upon representations. He agreed around the need to increase active travel and
public transport but reflected the plan could not address everything right now and
that there was a desperate need for housing in Barry.
Councillor Wilson stated the belief that no-one wanted new homes next to them, and
that a lot of other homes in the area were modern, but that the Council need to
evolve as households and their needs changed. He reflected upon changing
attitudes to transport, including increased usage of electric cars and active travel,
both of which needed to be considered. He shared that the Vale of Glamorgan was a
popular place to live, with demand exceeding supply, and house prices increasing at
rates greater than inflation, and that there was increasing deprivation, and a need to
supply affordable housing. He felt that no viable alternatives had been proposed, so
would support inclusion of this site.
Councillor Sivagnanam responded that this proposal was about the delivery of
affordable homes, with mitigations identified in the report and considered as part of
the ongoing planning process. She reflected that there was a need to balance
housing with the needs of the environment and transport, and felt this proposal
achieved the right balance. She indicated that previous opposition from the Labour
Party was due to the deliverability of the proposal, which she felt to be addressed in
the report, and that whilst there had been representations, there would still be
numerous in Barry who had not been heard who would support the development.
A Recorded Vote was taken to consider the removal of the Weycock Cross site from
the proposals as below:
Member For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey √
Julie Aviet √
Gareth Ball √
Rhiannon Birch √
Bronwen Brooks √
Member For Against Abstain
Gillian Bruce √
Ian Buckley √
Lis Burnett √
Samantha Campbell √
George Carroll √
Christine Cave √
Charles Champion √
Amelia Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Russell Godfrey √
Emma Goodjohn √
Ewan Goodjohn √
Stephen Haines √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Member For Against Abstain
Catherine Iannucci-Williams √
Gwyn John √
Ian Johnson √
Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √
Julie Lynch-Wilson √
Kevin Mahoney √
Naomi Marshallsea √
Michael Morgan √
Jayne Norman √
Helen Payne √
Elliot Penn √
Sandra Perkes √
Ian Perry √
Joanna Protheroe √
Ruba Sivagnanam √
Carys Stallard √
Neil Thomas √
Rhys Thomas
Steffan Wiliam √
Margaret Wilkinson √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
Member For Against Abstain
Total 23 24 2
The amendment was not carried and the debate returned to discussing the original
proposals.
Councillor Mahoney acknowledged the need for housing but felt that building
housing in high density areas with no access to services such as Doctors and
Schools, which had not increased in recent times. He shared that he had lived in the
Bendricks area for 13 years, there were no facilities excluding a café, and a bus
service subsidised by Section 106 monies and that Sully School had not been
upgraded in several years, despite recently losing a significant part of its budget. He
noted that the Bendricks area was cut off from the rest of the area and without
transport apart from walking, which did not suit all situations and urged the Council to
stop building housing in concentrated places without enough services and
infrastructure.
Councillor Ernest stated that very little had changed in Sully in a number of years
apart from increased housing and noted that the development of Sully Hospital had
been beneficial in providing several new homes, but that there was limited public
transport, which tended to run infrequently. He added that building more housing on
Hayes Road would not lead to the services needed such as medical facilities,
doctors and shops, and that if residents did not own a car, they would struggle with
everyday tasks.
The Leader acknowledged that in relation to infrastructure, there were things that the
Council was responsible for and things it was not responsible for, and that the role of
Council was to often lobby and negotiate on behalf of people, as demonstrated by
the Health hub at Western Gate and the lobbying of the health board for Eagleswell
in Llantwit Major. She also noted that whilst the Council had limited funding for bus
services, there were two services which covered the Bendricks (88 and 94), and that
when she used the bus, residents often commented positively on the Council
housing which had been built in the area. She further stated that the area did not
have an abundance of green fields to be built upon, so sites were invited to be
considered as part of the LDP, with the Council considering most appropriate based
upon the agreed strategy. The Leader emphasised that today’s proposals were
about supporting people into the right accommodation, supporting people in looking
towards their futures, and made no apologies in allocating these sites as they
supported people with affordable housing.
Councillor Perkes shared that they felt the Bendricks was becoming more of a
community, with a development planned in partnership with Cardiff Council and
Lovell Homes, containing affordable homes which were built to Welsh Housing
Quality Standards. She noted concerns around lack of services but shared that
services would grow as the population grew.
Councillor Perry noted that increasing house prices were global issue, with housing
becoming an investment which profited few people, and that the problem was not
about the supply of housing, but the financing of housing. He reflected that building
costs had increased alongside labour so there was inflation built into the system
impacting upon their affordability. He sought clarification as to what was meant by
inappropriate housing as he felt no definition was provided and would welcome
similar detail surrounding the housing waiting list. He also challenged Members to
further consider the environmental impacts upon the increased housing, as climate
risks were increasing, and re-emphasised the point to invest in the transport network
and subsidise public transport to be accessible and reduce the dependent on cars.
Councillor Wilson stated that the Replacement Local Development Plan went
through a detailed process with planning professionals, with sites tested upon their
viability. He reflected that Transport for Wales were spending approximately £1
billion on electrification and new stations in Wales, and that the Council were bidding
for stations. He noted that he felt the area was a great place to live, an amazing
destination, and that he was a product of Council housing. He shared that the
Council needed a legal basis to defend things which were outside of the RLDP, and
that when it came to looking at the viability for these sites, it was essential that
facilities were considered.
Councillor John acknowledged the need for housing, particularly in the Western
Vale, and welcomed the Leader’s work in lobbying the Health Board to improve
medical services in the area which were oversubscribed, but suggested Welsh
Government needed to intervene to push the development of health care provision,
as the Council needed to consider facilities when trying to develop and build
communities.
Councillor Hodges indicated that the Weycock Cross development was not about
social housing, but a commercial venture, and that when considering the Bendricks
area, he did not believe the view that facilities would follow housing as services were
reducing generally. He reflected on the Waterfront development, which was
previously proposed as a potential hotel, and believed this to be a failure of the
Council to promote Barry as a tourist destination, which would have a broader
economic benefit. He also noted that he believed that developers had shafted the
Council for a number of years and that it needed to be better in standing up to big
business.
Councillor Sivagnanam responded that the Housing Development team were holding
pre-application consultations and invited Members and residents to participate in
these moving forward to make their views clear. She emphasised that this was
national growth area and there was a need for housing, particularly affordable homes
in Barry, and failure to agree could leave the Council vulnerable to speculative
applications.
A further Recorded Vote took place on all three of the original recommendations as
presented within the report:
Member For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey √
Julie Aviet √
Gareth Ball √
Rhiannon Birch √
Bronwen Brooks √
Gillian Bruce √
Ian Buckley √
Lis Burnett √
Samantha Campbell √
George Carroll √
Christine Cave √
Charles Champion √
Amelia Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Russell Godfrey √
Emma Goodjohn √
Ewan Goodjohn √
Member For Against Abstain
Stephen Haines √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Catherine Iannucci-Williams √
Gwyn John √
Ian Johnson √
Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √
Julie Lynch-Wilson √
Kevin Mahoney √
Naomi Marshallsea √
Michael Morgan √
Jayne Norman √
Helen Payne √
Elliot Penn √
Sandra Perkes √
Ian Perry √
Joanna Protheroe √
Ruba Sivagnanam √
Carys Stallard √
Neil Thomas √
Rhys Thomas
Member For Against Abstain
Steffan Wiliam √
Margaret Wilkinson √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
Total 26 22 1
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted.
(2) T H A T the actions set out in the Consultation Report be endorsed.
(3) T H A T the inclusion of the three potential housing sites as allocations in the
Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) be approved.
Reasons for decisions
(1&2) To outline to Members the issues raised during the public consultation
exercise on Housing Growth in Barry.
(3 ) To allow officers to progress with the preparation of the Deposit RLDP.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT MID-YEAR REPORT 2025/26 (REF)
The Leader presented the regular update of the Council’s Treasury Management
approach and highlighted that the report noted economic factors driving the UK
economy alongside forecasts, and that there were no policy changes as of 30th
September, 2025. She further noted the Council’s capital expenditure and prudential
indicators were included in Appendix A, and that the investment portfolio listed the
investments as £51.775 million as of 30th September, 2025, up from £17.19 million in
April 2025. She shared that there was an average interest rate of 4.22% this year,
which meant there was approximately £1.19 million interest accrued that the new
external borrowing was at £6 million at an average rate of 4.56%, and that this was
borrowed at shorter terms of up to 7 years, so it could be reborrowed if rates were to
decrease. She further noted that the Council were prudent in terms of borrowing and
investments and had not considered any debt rescheduling opportunities this year to
date due to current interest rates.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Treasury Management Annual Report for the period
2025/26 be approved
Reason for decision
To update Council surrounding the Council’s approach to Treasury Management.
REVIEW OF THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL’S PETITION SCHEME (REF)
The Leader presented the report and advised that the previous Petition Scheme had
been considered by Council in 2022, and that this was a requirement under the Local
Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 to produce a scheme which considered
how a petition could be submitted, who could submit a petition, how and by when the
Council acknowledged receipt and how the Council responded.
Councillor Dr. Johnson stated that he felt the petitions process was quite difficult for
ordinary members of the public to use, and that awareness needed to be raised as
only 3 petitions had been submitted in 3 years, with only 1 reaching the threshold,
and shared how it had worked positively when looking at School crossings. He noted
that the Council needed to ensure that that there was an need to promoted
awareness of this process to the public as to how they could get involved, to which
the Leader responded that there was a need to ensure Vale residents were
signatories, and as outlined within the report, the platform for this was being
reviewed to be more user friendly as it was important to engage more effectively and
through the most appropriate means.
RESOLVED – T H A T the revised Vale of Glamorgan Council’s Petition Scheme be
approved.
Reason for decision
To update the Council’s approach to fulfilling statutory legislation relating to petitions
from the public.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2026 – HOUSING GROWTH IN BARRY CONSULTATION REPORT (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C69, 17th July, 2025 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED – T H A T, having regard to the report, the Guidelines adopted by the
Public Protection Licensing Committee, and to the representations made at the
meeting, the driver in question was not a fit and proper person to hold a Vale of
Glamorgan Council Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s licence, and that a
full statement of reasons for this decision be provided to the driver.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and to discussions at the meeting.
November 11 Minutes and DN (LW)
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he refused to engage his meter or accept a card payment.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he was working on the night of the alleged incident but stressed that he never refused to use the meter as he knew it was the law.
He acknowledged that the vehicle in the picture provided was his, but felt it showed that he wasn’t at the front of the rank. He did not recognise the witness as he took many fares every night. It was clarified that the witness’ statement said that the photo was of the driver leaving the rank rather than being parked there.
The driver added that he had been a taxi driver for nearly thirty years and was now a senior citizen, and followed the rules of the taxi rank. He had been a community leader for many years too. He rejected the suggestion in the witness’ statement that he had demanded £10 up front for a short fare, and refused payment by card. He emphasised that he had been driving taxis for a long time and wouldn’t risk his livelihood for a couple of pounds.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he preferred to take payment up front when people wanted to pay by card, and refunded them at the destination if the final total was less. This was in case the card was declined at the end of the journey, and he asked politely rather than demanding it. Members suggested that while asking for a small deposit was reasonable, taking the whole fare in advance was not.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he caught taxis regularly because he worked in town. He often had issues with taxi drivers who either didn’t let him pay by card or tried to charge him to take his suitcase, but things had gotten better since the taxi wardens came in. On the night in question, he was directed to the vehicle by the warden and asked to go to Grangetown. After he had put his bags in the boot, the driver told him it would be £10.
The witness added that he immediately asked to use the meter instead because the normal fare was about £8, and the driver refused. He also said that he’d be paying by card, and the driver said ‘no card or no journey’. The witness decided that it wasn’t worth it and said he’d report him, got his bags out of the boot and took a photo of the taxi licence plate. He explained this to the taxi warden too, and they went to speak to the driver, who then left the rank.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he normally had a glass of wine after work, but only one. He also clarified that he had only added that he wanted to pay by card after the driver had refused to use the meter.
The driver denied the witness’ statement entirely and suggested that he didn’t allow passengers to put their bags in the boot before they had spoken at the window and agreed a fare. He was sure that he had not refused to use the meter or take a card payment, and did not recall the taxi warden speaking to him. Members asked how he could be sure of any of this if he didn’t remember the incident.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item 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 Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences in 2023, which he had declared on his renewal application. Two of the offences had happened on the same day in February 2023, the day after he had received some bad personal news which had distracted him from his driving.
Members asked why he had only declared the offences upon renewal in August 2025. The driver responded that he wasn’t aware that was part of the conditions of his licence, but knew now.
Members asked if he had received any support during the difficult time in his personal life, and how he would react to similar circumstances now. The driver explained that it was hard to stop working for more than a day or two, but he would go and see his doctor if it was really affecting him.
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 Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been a taxi driver since 2008 and took the responsibilities of his role seriously, and treated the public with respect. He understood the authority’s concern over his fitness due to his speeding offences but felt he was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi.
The driver explained that two of the offences were at the same location, when the speed limit on a road near him had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He acknowledged that it was his responsibility to ensure he was aware of all speed limits, and added that he had been driving privately rather than with a passenger in his taxi on all three occasions. He also added that he had received a previous complaint about parking, when he was in a rush to get to his mosque and parked on private property nearby.
He understood the council’s policy on taxi licensing and hoped that it could be taken into account that all three offences had occurred in a short period of time, between December 2024 and April 2025. He didn’t want to make excuses but had been going through a particularly stressful time. He was familiar with the roads in Cardiff and felt he was a safe driver who treated his customers well and undertook school run contracts. He was working to support his wife and children, and asked that the Sub Committee give him another chance.
Members asked whether the driver had notified his insurance company about the points, and heard that he had.
The driver’s solicitor added that he believed his client had addressed the licensing authority’s concerns, and that on balance he was a fit and proper person to continue driving a taxi. Two of the speeding offences had occurred in the same area within a week of each other, which he felt offered some mitigation as the driver might not have been aware of the first offence when the second happened. He had driven taxis for 17 years, and there had been no further issues of any kind since the third speeding offence.
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 Licence given that he had declared ten penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that one of the speeding offences had been in Pontypridd in in December last year, when the weather was very bad. He had only recently started driving taxis again after renting them out for some time.
Members queried why one of the offences had resulted in four penalty points rather than the usual three. The driver was not sure, adding that he only became aware of it when he came to renew. He didn’t go to court and had not yet paid the fine, but would do so because he accepted that he was speeding.
Members asked if he had paid the previous fine as well. The Legal Officer clarified that both convictions were on the same day, so he would have received the fines at the same time.
Members queried the previous complaints the driver had received regarding the condition of vehicles for which he was the proprietor. The Legal Officer clarified that previous complaints were not relevant to this hearing.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had unintentionally driven a car without insurance, not realising that he was not covered to do so. He had two different types of insurance from the same company, one of which was fine to drive the vehicle and the other one that wasn’t. It was a stupid mistake and one that wouldn’t happen again. He had been driving since 2017 and this was the first issue he’d had.
The Chair clarified that due to a recent change in the law he would not be able to drive any car regardless of comprehensive insurance, only the named vehicle.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he now had six points as three had expired in August. The offences had occurred in 2022 and 2023, and two of them were in 20mph zones when he had been going under 30mph. He had since upgraded his car to one with a speed limiter that was easier to keep within the limit.
He didn’t feel he was a reckless driver and had not had any other incidents in the last two years, and had declared the offences on his renewal application. He understood that it was his responsibility to stick to the rules and ensure he was aware when they changed.
Members asked why he didn’t declare the convictions until 2024. The driver responded that he didn’t realise he had to at the time.
The driver clarified that he did have a BTEC qualification, contrary to the papers provided, and was first issued a taxi licence in 1999 rather than 1980.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he used to buy and re-sell cars, and was in Caerphilly at the time. His car was slightly damaged so he used a different one for the journey, and made sure to get himself insured on it. He forgot to take himself off the insurance, and the car was later used by someone else who was caught speeding. He was advised that he was unlikely to win the case in court as he didn’t know who the driver was, so he accepted the punishment. However, he was able to show that he was in Wolverhampton and not where the offence was committed.
Members explained that the Sub Committee was only able to go on what the court had said. Members asked if the offence had taken place in his taxi, and heard that it hadn’t.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had had a clean licence for many years but had received nine points in the last six months. He worked for Uber and got a job through on the app, taking a fare to town via Cathedral Road. He was then offered a job on Westgate Street and did a U-turn, and his phone fell on the floor of his vehicle because the holder was broken. When his car was stopped at a red light, he leant down and picked up the phone to put it back in the holder. A cyclist next to him recorded this on a camera on their helmet, and reported him for using his phone while driving.
He had tried to fight the decision but the authorities told him that he should have known better as a professional driver. He emphasised that he never used his phone while driving, and didn’t even answer it over Bluetooth when he had a passenger. He felt it would have been much riskier to leave the phone on the floor as it was connected to a charger and the cable was next to the pedals. The court had made their judgement and fined him more than £700. He went to a solicitor who advised that he was unlikely to win on appeal, so he took the points and the fine.
Members queried the second offence, which the driver clarified was for doing 26mph in a 20mph zone in Coryton. Members asked what he would do if the same thing happened again, and heard that he would pull over and turn the engine off before touching his phone.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(10)
Application 10
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 24 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the number of points and explained that he wasn’t working as a taxi driver since 2017. He had a job in Cwmbran and his daily commute was on the M4, and at the time he didn’t realise that the limit had changed to 50mph. He tended to rush home at 8pm each day to see his child before bed, and was clocked numerous times going between 50mph and 70mph in the 50mph zone.
He added that the letters making him aware of this went to the transport manager of the company he worked for, because the vehicle was registered to the company, and he wasn’t told. He argued his case in court and was given a total of 31 points, seven of which had since expired. He apologised for the offences and noted that in court the judge had not deemed him to be a dangerous driver. His insurance costs had gone up hugely since.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that all the offences were caught by the same camera on the M4. He had renewed his licence several times since 2017 as a backup in case he lost his job. He had not declared the offences when they happened because he wasn’t driving his taxi at the time, so it didn’t occur to him to inform the licensing authority. He added that he had not received any complaints from members of the public when he was driving taxis between 2011 and 2017, and felt he was a fit and proper person.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(11)
Application 11
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
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 upon renewal of his licence there was an issue with the DBS process.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver had not been informed of the DBS issue when he most recently renewed his plates in April, and had not received any correspondence from the council either. His updated DBS had arrived at the end of May and he had provided it to the council in September but not had any confirmation that they had received it.
The driver presented his full DBS certificate to the Sub Committee. The driver’s representative noted that there were no new matters to report on the certificate, and in their view the matter was closed.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had picked up two passengers in town and taken them to Roath, before being told by a licensing officer that he shouldn’t have taken the fare because he was a private hire driver and lacked the correct insurance. He acknowledged his mistake and apologised, explaining that he was on autopilot during a busy night.
The driver added that he had received six points and paid a £940 fine for the offence. Members noted that the papers referred to a fine of £350, which the Legal Officer clarified was likely to have been one part of a combined penalty for the separate offences of plying for hire and driving without the appropriate insurance.
The driver’s representative noted that the driver had already been punished for the offence in court, and emphasised that it was an honest one-off mistake after more than 30 years of driving taxis with a clean record. The driver also acknowledged that he should have informed the licensing authority as soon as he received the points.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(4)
Application 4
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the Licensing Department had received six complaints regarding refusal of fares between 2018 and 2025, and that during the investigation of the most recent complaint on the 23rd June it was alleged that the driver may also have provided a statement contrary to CCTV obtained.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative emphasised that the driver was not plying for hire, but was rather waiting to pick up his daughter after a concert. It was a very busy night after a Millennium Stadium event and many roads were closed, so he parked on Mill Lane opposite the taxi rank with his light off to wait for his daughter.
The representative suggested that the evidence provided by the licensing department was inaccurate, as the vehicle was not at the front of the queue as it wasn’t in the official rank. He suggested that rather than accepting a fare from a passenger he didn’t know, as the statement from Licensing alleged, he had picked up his daughter’s friends before driving to pick up his daughter from outside a takeaway restaurant. He emphasised that if the driver had been plying for hire, he would have parked on the other side of the rank and put his light on. He also disputed the witness’ suggestion that the driver had been rude to her.
Members asked whether the driver felt Mill Lane was a suitable pickup spot for a journey back to Gabalfa. The driver’s daughter explained that she was not very familiar with the roads in Cardiff, so it seemed easier to pick her up from the place where he normally worked from. The driver added that a lot of roads were closed because of the concert.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she hadn’t realised how difficult it would be to get a taxi after the concert, having moved away from Cardiff some time ago. She and her friends had followed the crowds towards the Mill Lane rank to try and get a ride back to Penylan, and tried asking the taxi drivers there after they had no luck with Uber. She asked the driver in question if he was available, but he ignored her.
The witness added that she then saw the driver talk to other people who needed a ride and type their postcodes into his phone before turning them down, which made her think he was cherrypicking fares. One of the friends she was travelling with was neurodivergent and disabled, while the other had a young child and was desperate to get home.
The Sub Committee viewed CCTV footage of the taxi rank and confirmed that the vehicle had been parked on the other side of the road to the main rank, and that the light on top of the vehicle was off. Members viewed the taxi driving off after two women got in, whom the driver’s daughter confirmed were her friends.
The driver’s representative emphasised that it had not been the driver’s intention to refuse or offend anyone, and that he wasn’t plying for hire because he was waiting for his daughter.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared nine penalty points on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences in the same 30mph zone on Western Avenue by the Gabalfa interchange.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had 14 years’ experience as a taxi driver and worked for Uber as well, and felt he was a good driver. He had committed three speeding offences, with the first occurring in June 2023.
He wasn’t sure of the details of all of the offences, but recalled that one of them was for going 27mph in a 20 zone near Pentwyn Leisure Centre, and noted that the 20 sign there was very close to the corner so it was easily missed.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(8)
Application 8
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 conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that the conviction was for an incident that happened 35 years ago, when he was in his early 20s, and he hadn’t been in any sort of trouble since. He had been imprisoned for 18 months and released after six for good behaviour.
He added that when he applied for his licence, he didn’t realise he needed an enhanced DBS disclosure and instead applied for a basic one. He had been under the impression that if it happened more than ten years ago, it did not need to be disclosed, but realised now that he had been mistaken.
He added that he had spent the last decade working across the UK in the gas industry for various companies, but had decided to come home and do a different job. He had always worked in customer care and liked working with people.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted.
(9)
Application 9
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 contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been disqualified from driving last year after driving a friend’s car when he didn’t realise he wasn’t insured on it. On another occasion since then he had been stopped by the police because his brake light wasn’t working, and they found an issue with his tyre.
Members noted that he had been disqualified due to totting up points, and asked what other offences were involved. The driver clarified that there had been two insurance offences, both of which involved the same car that belonged to his friend. The second offence had happened before he was informed about the insurance issue.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(10)
Application 10
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, as well as one pending speeding offence which would bring his total points to twelve.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative clarified that the pending offence had now been confirmed, so the driver had twelve points on his licence. He had been driving taxis since 2001, and though there were two matters reported in that period, neither had been upheld.
He explained that he had received six points for accidentally driving through a red light in 2024 and had committed two speeding offences in January 2025, both at the junction of Newport Road and Claremont Avenue. All of the offences had occurred in the early hours of the morning after he had dropped off customers.
The driver’s representative added that when the case went to court, the driver had pleaded exceptional hardship as he was the principal breadwinner for his family, and supported his wife and child as well as his parents, which had enabled him to continue driving despite the twelve points. He was a law-abiding driver of long standing who was aware that any further offences would result in the loss of his licence.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – T H A T, having regard to the report, the Guidelines adopted by the
Public Protection Licensing Committee and the representations made by the
Applicant, the Committee determined that they were not satisfied that the Applicant
was a fit and proper person to continue with the application process for a Hackney
Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence.
October 07 Minutes and DN (LW)
Reason for decision
The Applicant had sat the test several times, and would have had the rules of the
exam conditions explained to them each time. On the test in question, the Applicant
was advised by the Officer, both at the beginning of and during the test, that any
documents which they had brought with them to the exam had to be placed away
from them. Therefore, Members were satisfied that the Applicant would have been
aware that they were not to have notes either on, or near their table. Members were
not satisfied that the documents were looked at in error by the Applicant. The
Committee were satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, it was most likely that
the Applicant had acted in a dishonest manner, in order to gain an unfair advantage
in the test, and therefore the Committee were not satisfied that the Applicant was a
fit and proper person to hold a Taxi Driver’s license.
This decision was in accordance with Section 5.15 of the Guidance on Determining
the Suitability of Applicants and Licensees in the Hackney and Private Hire Trades,
which was adopted by the Committee in September 2019, and states that:
“Any dishonesty by any applicant or other person on the applicant’s behalf which is
discovered to have occurred in any part of any application process (e.g. failure to
declare convictions, false names or addresses, falsified references) will result in a
licence being refused, or if already granted, revoked and may result in prosecution.”
A full statement of reasons for the decision was provided to the Applicant with their
decision letter.
October 07 Minutes and DN (LW)
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – T H A T Officers be authorised to carry out a 14-day consultation with
the taxi and private hire trade, which must include consultation with the Police, on
removing the following condition from both the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire
Vehicle Conditions:
““A frequency scanner or CB radio shall not be fitted into or carried within any
vehicle”.
Reason for decision
To gain the views of representatives of the trade, but also those of the Police,
particularly in relation to the safety of permitting frequency scanners and CB radios
in licensed vehicles, ahead of a decision being made on whether to remove the
condition or not.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control.
Members noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control, and that their objections had subsequently been withdrawn.
Members considered the objections made but felt the applicant had demonstrated that the granting of the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application; subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control.
Members noted that the applicant had agreed to the conditions proposed by South Wales Police and Environmental Health / Pollution Control, and that both parties had subsequently withdrawn their objections. They also noted that matters relating to commercial competition were not relevant to their determination.
Members considered the objections raised by local residents but were satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that granting the licence would not undermine the licensing objectives. They acknowledged the concerns expressed in relation to litter and antisocial behaviour in the local area, but did not consider there to be sufficient evidence directly linking these issues to the applicant’s premises.
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 the driver accessed his emails on a tablet while driving with a passenger present.
The witness did not attend the Sub Committee.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had nine penalty points on his driving licence but did not disclose them until three had expired.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that upon renewal of his licence it had flagged up that he had nine points at one point during the triannual renewal period. He apologised for this and emphasised that it was an error rather than an attempt to hide it from the licensing authority. He ran his own business which was very busy and had made an oversight.
He added that he drove around 80,000 miles a year and never drove dangerously, but had been caught out on a few occasions by speed cameras in unfamiliar areas. Since the offences he had taken every precaution to ensure it didn’t happen again.
The driver also clarified that he had undertaken the NVQ qualification, which the report stated he had not.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had a conviction for harassment.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he accepted responsibility for the mistakes he made which led to him being convicted of harassment in 2019. He did not want to make excuses but clarified that it was online harassment that had taken place over Facebook rather than face-to-face, and he regretted his actions.
He added that he saw the conviction as a turning point and had had no issues whatsoever since. He had worked hard to turn his life around and now had a stable family life with a wife and a child. He had been doing school transport for a decade now with no complaints, and understood the importance of trust, professionalism and safeguarding.
Members asked whether he had declared the conviction on his previous renewal, which the driver confirmed he had.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(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 the driver had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had accrued the points due to three speeding offences, two of which happened on the same day on Western Avenue when he didn’t realise the limit had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He had been driving taxis for many years and had a clean record until the speeding offences in 2023 and 2024.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had a caution for importing a controlled Class C drug with intent to evade prohibition and restriction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s solicitor explained that his client had brought bags of khat into the UK in 2021, which had led to a caution in 2022 for a drug-related offence. He suggested that the investigating authorities must have been satisfied that there was no commercial or distribution aspect to the importation, or he would have received more than a caution.
The driver’s solicitor emphasised that the driver had an exemplary record otherwise and was of good character. He was a family man who was working to support his children, and there had been no other substantial issues across 14 years of driving taxis, so they considered him to be a fit and proper person.
Members asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had not fully understood the process as his English wasn’t perfect. He had declared it on his most recent renewal, which was the first one since the caution. He had submitted the renewal application in July 2022, which was before the caution was finalised in August. The driver accepted that he should have informed the authority at the earliest opportunity.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days, and that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had six penalty points on her driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver accepted that she had failed to give information as to the identity of the driver, and explained that she hadn’t been driving the car at the time. After dropping off a customer, they had asked to drive her vehicle because she had mentioned she was selling it. She explained that they wouldn’t be able to drive it as they weren’t a taxi driver, which they said they were and showed a badge. They only drove it about 100 yards but went at 27mph in a 20 zone.
She added that when the ticket came, she was unable to provide any details of the driver’s identity, only their name and a phone number which they never responded on. She appealed the decision but the authorities were unable to track the individual down. She noted that she didn’t attend the court hearing, though the report said she did, as she accepted she was guilty of letting another person drive her car.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that she didn’t have CCTV in her car at the time as she was planning on selling it.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(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 collided with a cyclist while driving on the wrong side of the road.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that he was travelling on East Tyndall Street with a passenger on board and turned right up the hill onto Sanquhar Street. The road markings were not clear and he misjudged the turning, and collided with a cyclist who was knocked over. He emphasised that he had been following the speed limit and travelling at about 10mph.
He added that after pulling over, he stayed with the cyclist and provided his details. He asked whether the cyclist wanted to call the police, which he did not. He then carried on to drop the passenger off. Six weeks later he was contacted by the licensing authority and the police about the incident.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had not stopped before making the turn because there were no cars coming the other way. He also explained that the passenger had not said anything, and they just wanted to get home as he’d picked them up from a night shift. He apologised for the accident.
Members viewed a CCTV video of the incident.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events. He suggested that the driver had cut the corner and had been travelling faster than he had claimed. The Sanquhar Road corner was known for being a dangerous place for cyclists because cars sped up as they went up the hill before turning.
He also suggested that he had suggested contacting the police, not the driver, and that the driver had given him an incorrect phone number. The driver had stated that the road markings were faded, but he had provided pictures which showed they were reasonably clear.
The Sub Committee asked the driver how he responded to this. The driver acknowledged that he had cut the corner slightly but stressed that he had done so slowly and had misjudged his line due to the lack of road markings.
The driver’s representative noted that there was a dispute over the car’s speed, which he suggested did not look overly fast from the video but may well have seemed faster from the cyclist’s perspective. He suggested that it was a problem corner which the council needed to address. It was a genuine accident and the driver had accepted that he misjudged the corner, and it would never happen again. The driver had a clean record and had never been required to attend the Sub Committee before.
The witness emphasised that while he had slowed down as he approached the junction, the driver had not. He added that he had found it difficult to cycle on that road since it happened. A lot of roads in Cardiff were dangerous to cycle on, and the conduct of many drivers made this worse. He felt that the driver had recklessly cut the corner and caused an accident that could have been much worse.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he had taken fares without bookings.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that a lot of Veezu drivers had recurring issues with registering fares and trips when they were in areas with poor signal. Sometimes they were called during the trip by an operator to see if they had picked up a passenger, but sometimes they had to call the operator themselves, which meant they had to wait until the journey complete.
He added that he worked for Uber too and didn’t have the same problem with them. He felt that the examples provided where he was accused of plying for hire could be explained by these technical issues, where he had pressed ‘no show’ but the system didn’t register it, so it thought he had refused to pick them up.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been working for Veezu since around 2014, when it was still Dragon.
Addressing the Sub Committee on behalf of Veezu, the witness explained that the four bookings had been flagged up in their system because it was unusual to have so many ‘no shows’ in quick succession. Veezu had looked into the individual bookings and the corresponding GPS data and found that on each occasion, after pressing the ‘no show’ button, the driver had then travelled to each of the requested destinations without booking it as a journey. On three of the occasions the driver had also made a call to the passenger to confirm they were there. As far as the witness was concerned, this would only have been done for financial gain.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days.
(10)
Application 10
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 the driver had allowed three schoolchildren to exit his vehicle in the middle of a busy intersection without consideration for their safety.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was on Leckwith Road in stationary traffic on a school run. His three passengers, who were aged around 15, wanted to get out as the car had stopped. He tried to explain that they shouldn’t as they were in traffic, but they jumped out and went.
Members asked whether there was an automatic locking system in the car. The driver responded that he drove a Seat Alhambra and wasn’t sure whether the back doors could be permanently locked from the front, as it was never usually necessary.
The driver clarified that the journey was not part of a contracted school run, but rather a single booked journey that morning.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recounted her statement explaining what she had seen. It was on a very busy road connecting Leckwith to Canton, made up of two lanes of traffic that then turned into four by Asda. The taxi was less than a car length ahead of her and the sliding doors opened to let the passengers out. The vehicle was stationary at a red light but all the other lanes around it were moving.
The passengers got out onto the hatched road markings and made their way to the traffic island, before picking their way through the cars waiting to move. As the traffic moved off, she became aware of the taxi going around her and wrote down the taxi plate number and registration. The witness felt it was an extremely dangerous thing to do and was particularly worried that a contracted school run driver could have been responsible for it.
The driver’s representative asked what time this would have occurred, which the witness estimated was about 8:15am. The driver’s representative suggested that while it was a busy road, it would have been moving very slowly at this time. The witness disagreed and suggested it was a hectic road.
The driver’s representative sympathised with the witness and reiterated the driver’s recollection that he had asked the passengers not to get out in the wrong place, but had been unable to stop them due to the lack of automatic locking. He suggested that ensuring the locking was always on would prevent anything like this happening again.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(11)
Application 11
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 the driver had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had acquired six points for failing to fill in a Section 172 notice, which he had accepted responsibility for. The other three points were for exceeding the speed limit just off Newport Road near Fitzalan, which he had reported when he applied to renew his taxi licence.
He had been driving since 2005 and had never been required to attend the Sub Committee before. He depended on his licence to support his family. He provided Members with a number of references in support of his character and record.
The driver’s solicitor summed up that his client had been driving taxis for more than 20 years without any disciplinary matters. He had made two mistakes, one being an administrative matter and the other being a failure to notice that a speed limit had changed. He was now on nine points and would have to drive very carefully to ensure he didn’t lose his licence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(12)
Application 12
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – T H A T the Applicant was a fit and proper person to continue with the
application process for a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s License, for the
reasons outlined at the meeting, and provided to the Applicant.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the information provided in the report and appendices, and also to
the representations made at the meeting, the Committee was satisfied that the
granting of a license to the Applicant would not pose a risk to public safety.
September 09 Minutes and DN (LW)
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,
RESOLVED – T H A T the Age Policy Guidelines adopted by this Committee be
waived on this occasion, and that the vehicle be allowed to progress to the vehicle
testing stage of the application process.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the information provided in the report, to the appended evidence
and to the representations at the meeting, and due to the fact that the vehicle would
need to pass the relevant safety testing in order to be licensed.
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Statutory Committee,
RESOLVED – T H A T the proposed Statement of Licensing Principles for 2025-
2028, as detailed in Appendix A to the report, be approved and the report be referred
to Cabinet and then on to Full Council for final approval.
Reason for decision
Having regard to there having been no consultation responses received, and to
ensure that the Council fulfils its statutory duty as a Licensing Authority.
September 09 Minutes and DN (LW)
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 200 and the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter GRANTED the application; subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Pollution Control.
The Sub Committee heard from the applicant and listened to all the evidence and submissions and all the written material. Members also considered the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance, the Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment. Members also heard the oral representations from the applicant and the local ward member.
The Sub Committee noted that the applicant has agreed the conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control and they have subsequently withdrawn their objections.
The Sub Committee carefully considered the objections, representations and written material and feel that the applicant has demonstrated that the application is exceptional and the granting of this licence will not undermine the licensing objectives. Members also accepted that the premises will continue to operate as a public house.
The Sub Committee therefore resolved to grant the licence subject to the agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control.