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 following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had been convicted of an offence of possession of a Class C Controlled Drug in 2019 and failing to surrender to bail in 2001.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he had a conviction for driving while drunk and had been banned from driving twice around 20 years ago. After that, a good friend advised him to stop drinking entirely, which he did. He didn’t mention this on the application because of the 10 year guidance, he didn’t think it would be considered relevant.
He added that the second matter, concerning possession of a class C drug, happened after he went to a wedding where he and his friends took khat before collecting what was left in a bag at the end and putting in his car. A few days later, the police searched the car, found the bag and gave him a caution for possession.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he hadn’t declared his caution on his application because he didn’t think he needed to, which was a mistake. The Sub Committee noted that the question on the application was very clear about the need to declare cautions.
The Sub Committee also sought to clarify that he understood it would not be acceptable to have drugs in the work environment even if someone else put them there. The applicant confirmed that he understood this.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had been convicted of an offence for Common Assault on 15th January 2016 and also declared an IN10 giving 6 points on his DVLA Licence in May 2022.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that his conviction for common assault was due to poor judgement as a young man, when he had reacted badly to a difficult situation. As for the six points, he was using his father’s car while working as a food delivery driver and his father told him he was on his insurance, but this was not true. He did have food delivery insurance but this had not been accepted as a replacement. He was sorry for his mistakes and emphasised that it would not happen again.
The applicant’s friend spoke on his behalf, explaining that they were from the same city and had been friends since they were children. He had never known him to react like that in any situation before or since. He used to employ the applicant as a driver at his company and found him to be a model worker who never had any complaints.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant clarified that he had assaulted his partner. They had been together for more than ten years now and had two children. He confirmed that he had not used any support services such as counselling since his conviction.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to consider if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that upon renewal of his licence there was an issue with the DBS process.
In the absence of the driver, the Licensing Officer clarified that this hearing was solely about the lack of a DBS certificate rather than what might be on it. He had just spoken to the driver, who confirmed that he had received the DBS, but as the licensing authority they had not yet received it.
The Committee suggested suspending the driver until he produced the DBS. The Legal Officer clarified that they had to specify a time period after which it could come back to committee, rather than leaving it open-ended.
The Committee agreed that a month’s suspension was appropriate. The Legal Officer added that the suspension could be lifted early if the driver provided a clear DBS before this time had elapsed.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for one month.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a common law notification from South Wales Police was submitted in relation to an incident which stated that the driver was arrested for assaulting a person in 2023, thereby occasioning them actual bodily harm.
The driver’s wife addressed the Sub Committee, stating that she was the person he had been arrested for assaulting. She explained that the time leading up to the incident had been very stressful as they were moving house and had an autistic son, who that morning had nearly been hit by a car. She and her husband had to drive to the recycling centre with her following, but she got lost and became frustrated when he wouldn’t reply to her calls. When they got to the centre, they argued and he swore at her, then she hit him and he hit her back.
Someone else saw this and reported her husband for assault. She had tried to explain that she was fine to this person but suggested that the report may have been racially motivated because they were Muslim. She and her husband had been married for 18 years and known each other for 22, and had three children together, and he had never done anything like that before or since. Her husband apologised to her straight away but the police came around that night anyway because it had been reported as an assault.
The Sub Committee noted that driving a taxi could be a stressful job, and asked how he would deal with situations where passengers were impolite, drunk or angry. The driver responded that he would just ignore them, as he was an experienced driver who had been licenced in London before as well and had experienced violent passengers in the past.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver’s wife confirmed that they had not complained to the police about what they felt could have been a racially motivated report by the witness. The driver also confirmed that after the incident took place, the police took him to the station, gave him a caution and then released him.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had been convicted of an offence of possession with intent to supply class A in 2018.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was truly remorseful about his previous behaviour, and there were no excuses for having been stupid and naïve. He was now aged 27 and had truly grown up and rehabilitated. Life had been difficult, and it had been hard to find decent and sustainable work. He had never been in any trouble before 2018 but fell in with people who exploited his naivety.
Since his conviction, he had had no further trouble with the legal system and tried to be the best possible citizen. He regularly attended his local mosque and had completed his SQA level 2. He wanted to show that he was a changed man who was committed to being a taxi driver. He posed no danger to the public and could conduct his duties in a professional manner. He had made a horrendous error in the past but did not want to be punished forever for the behaviour of someone who no longer existed.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the 6 points on his licence were from speeding offences in the last couple of years while working in Magor, and he wouldn’t do anything like that now.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had convictions on his DBS.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he had done everything possible to show that he could be trusted to drive a taxi, and understood the responsibilities of the role.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver accepted he had been to prison but believed he was innocent of the offences listed on his DBS, which included the possession of a class B drug and improperly obtaining another’s identity. He stated that he was not that type of person, and had not declared them on his application because they were a very long time ago. The Sub Committee noted that the most recent offence was in 2015.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police.
The Sub Committee considered that granting the application would not negatively impact on the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog.
The driver stated that he was driving on the 7th May at about 11:30pm and was flagged down by two gentlemen from the other side of the road. They crossed the road, entered the taxi and started videoing him. He didn’t realise they had an assistance dog so he said he couldn’t take it. He stopped a police officer and explained the situation, and the passengers explained that it was a guide dog so he agreed to take them.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver explained that he had not realised it was an assistance dog until the police explained after a few minutes. He had never had a guide dog in his taxi before and did not recognise it at first, but he had no issue with taking an animal.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, explaining that he had been on the opposite side of the road when his partner flagged down the taxi, and they often had to do this because otherwise taxis wouldn’t pick them up. He added that they had explained the requirement to take the assistance dog to the police since they didn’t seem to know it.
The driver apologised for the confusion and inconvenience and suggested that being recorded had made the situation more stressful. The complainant asked whether the driver had received training on his legal obligations, and added that the guide dog’s harness clearly showed that it was an assistance animal. They suggested that if the driver was unable to see they had a guide dog, then he was not fit to drive a taxi.
RESOLVED – 4 days’ suspension and a written warning
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog.
The driver stated that he had just dropped off a passenger and was feeling tired very late in the evening, so he was not looking for a long fare. The complainant knocked on his window and asked to go to St Donat’s, which he said was too far away. He emphasised that he had not refused to take their assistance dog but was very tired and wanted to go home.
The complainant asked why the driver was still on the rank if he was very tired. He also clarified that he had told the driver St Donat’s Road, which was much closer than St Donat’s. The issue started as soon as the driver saw the dog. The driver of the taxi behind had agreed with them that the situation was out of order.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, stating that the three of them had approached the taxi with the dog and asked to go to St Donat’s Road, to which the driver locked the door. He didn’t say that he was too tired, just that he didn’t want to take the fare.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver explained that he had misunderstood their destination as being far out of town, and he was too tired for a long journey, having been working since 2pm. He also clarified that he had only been on the rank for two or three minutes before the incident. After he didn’t take the complainants, he went straight home.
The driver added that he had no issue with taking dogs in his taxi, having worked in the trade for more than a decade. Members noted that the video showed the driver saying ‘no dog’ after being told it was a guide dog. The driver suggested that he had not heard that it was a guide dog, and only turned them down because of his tiredness and his misunderstanding of the destination. The complainant acknowledged that the driver was tired but suggested he should not have been on the rank if he was not willing to take a fare. The driver responded that the official rank was on the other side of the road.
RESOLVED – 7 days’ suspension and a written warning
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog.
The driver stated that he was dispatched to a job by Dragon Taxis and didn’t know who he was picking up. The dog jumped in at the same time as the customers, and he didn’t realise it was an assistance animal so he said ‘no dog’. He was caught off guard and got out of his cab, at which point the customers started recording him. Once he got out of the cab he was able to calm down and spoke to the customers, and he agreed with them about the requirement to take the dog. He put the meter on and took them home as requested, and was sorry about the inconvenience.
The complainant noted that he was not required to inform the taxi driver in advance that he had a guide dog, and asked whether the job would have been accepted if he had known. The driver responded that he would have accepted it, he had been driving for 15 years and had no problem with taking animals but just preferred to know in advance.
The complainant appreciated the driver’s apology but suggested that he should not have needed to explain the situation for so long before being taken home. It was a constant battle with taxi drivers in Cardiff and an everyday occurrence which the council could do a lot more to tackle.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver clarified that he hadn’t realised it was a guide dog at first. He had panicked because of the way the dog entered the car and the customers’ tone.
The complainants suggested that they did not feel the driver should lose his licence, but that he needed some training. The Chair noted that the driver had already received disability and equality training as part of his BTEC qualification, and the video showed that he understood the legal requirements.
The driver’s representative added that the driver’s usually high standards had briefly slipped, and that he had apologised for any offence caused and assured them it would not happen again. The driver had been taken aback at first by the dog but knew his responsibilities and carried out the journey as requested. He added that the driver had not worked for Dragon Taxis since then.
RESOLVED – written warning
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application.
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application.
RESOLVED:
Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS RESOLVED TO BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
21/00783/MJR – BUTETOWN
LAND AT CURRAN EMBANKMENT, BUTETOWN, CARDIFF
Demolition of existing buildings/structures and the comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment to provide up to 2,5000 new homes (class C3), business space (class B1), and a mix of complementary leisure, food and drink, hospitality, retail and health and wellbeing uses (class A1, A2, A3, C1, D1 and D2); creation of new open space (including a new riverside park and water taxi stop); new pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access points, pedestrian footbridge; vehicular and cycle parking facilities; landscaping; public realm and other associated ancillary and highways works. all matters reserved other than vehicular access.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED
23/02009/FUL – PENYLAN
7 LADY MARGARET COURT, COLCHESTER AVENUE, PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 9AW
Change of use to class A3 Café/Coffee Shop with ancillary takeaway use.
22/00687/FUL – RADYR & MORGANSTOWN
RADYR COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL, HEOL ISAF, RADYR, CARDIFF, CF15 8XG
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that alleged a driver refused to take him and his disabled wife from Heath Hospital to Llandaff North, and also told them he would not take a fare for less than £10. It was further alleged that the driver had used abusive language towards another driver who challenged him about not taking them.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee, stating that he had not refused the fare and had instead sought to give it to the next driver in the rank because he was aware that that driver was soon leaving the rank to attend to a school run. He did not recall using any abusive language and suggested that the other driver involved had a personal problem with him.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, reiterating the sequence of events outlined in his witness statement. The driver had refused to take him and his wife to Llandaff North, saying that he was waiting for somebody and then saying he did not take fares less than £10.
The complainant approached the second taxi on the rank. He explained what had occurred to the driver but was still within earshot of the first driver. The second driver asked his colleague why he had refused the fare. The first driver told him to ‘fuck off and mind your own business’, followed by ‘fuck off’ again. The complainant stated that it was at this point the first driver accepted another fare and left the rank.
The complainant stated that the driver of the second vehicle was unhappy and he himself was upset. He asked the driver for information on how to lodge a complaint and was provided with the relevant details.
The Sub Committee discussed the two versions of events and agreed that the witness provided more credible evidence. Members asked why the driver now had a full recollection of the incident, in contrast to the written statement he provided where he indicated he could not recall any details of the incident.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 28 days for refusal of a fare and unacceptable conduct.
(2)
Case 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from Dragon Taxis regarding an incident that had been recorded on video by a member of the public and subsequently provided to them. The Licensing Manager stated that they had also received a video of the incident by a friend of the driver.
Members viewed three video clips of the incident, and were advised that the videos showed an altercation involving the driver of a licence vehicle displaying Dragon Taxis livery and a number of other individuals. However, the vehicle was not a Dragon taxi and the driver was not employed by them. The Committee clarified the identities of those involved.
The Sub Committee asked how the incident had started. The driver stated that a car was blocking a junction causing traffic to back up. He asked the driver of the vehicle to move. The other driver got out of his car, approached him and used abusive language. The driver stated that he felt threatened, so he pretended to get a weapon from the boot of his vehicle in order to scare his assailant off, but it was actually a hat in his hand.
Members discussed the incident and agreed that the driver may well have been frustrated by the road being blocked, but had lost his temper and escalated the situation.
The Committee was not convinced by the driver’s suggestion that he had only been holding a hat, as the video appeared to show a sharp object in his hand. The witness also described the driver as ‘holding a sharp object threatening to stab somebody’ during the commentary on the video. Members felt that he had clearly made a threatening gesture, regardless of what the object was.
Members also noted that the driver had a Dragon Taxis logo on his car despite not working for them, which could be considered fraudulent or misrepresentation.
The driver left the hearing and the hearing proceeded in his absence.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire licence be revoked.
(3)
Case 3
The Sub Committee were asked to determine whether a taxi driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that a motoring conviction for IN10 (using an uninsured vehicle) was returned on his DVLA check as part of his licence renewal.
The driver stated that his conviction had nothing to do with his role as a taxi driver. He had purchased a private vehicle and was driving that at the time of the offence. Members were advised that the vehicle was purchased with a number of mechanical faults. He took the vehicle to a garage using temporary insurance cover for 1 hour. He had not realised that the cover had expired when the mechanic recommended that he drive the car further than was necessary on his homeward journey in order to ensure the car was in good working order. He was stopped by the police who found the car was uninsured. However, his was unable to use his phone to demonstrate that the car had been insured earlier that day. He had received 6 points on his licence and a fine.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had first applied for a taxi licence in 2020, and the incident had happened in January 2023. He had no points on his licence other than the six he had received for this offence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence. Members were advised that that the applicant had been convicted of the offence of battery in 2017.
The driver’s representative stated that the driver had not intended to deceive anyone by not declaring his conviction. There was some confusion because the website used to complete the application contained out of date or misleading information.
The driver’s representative stated that the conviction was the result of a domestic incident in October 2017. The applicant was extremely remorseful. The applicant and his wife were still together and happily married after 35 years. They had run a shop together for many years, during which time he obtained a personal licence to sell alcohol, demonstrating that he was a responsible individual.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that in 2017 he and his wife had a heated argument that involved extended family in India on a mobile phone. The wife took the phone and asked to speak with them. When attempting to retrieve the phone from his wife, this this caused her to hit her head on a wall. The police were called. His wife was present and stated to the Sub Committee that nothing had occurred since this incident. The family worked together very well. The driver added that he was confident he could handle the stresses of the job in the future.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be approved.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence Members were advised that the applicant had a relevant conviction on his DBS relating to an offence from 1994.
The driver stated that he was reapplying for a licence, having previously held one until 2008. Since then he had worked full time as a coach driver for National Express and Cardiff Bus. He was experienced in working with the general public, including vulnerable adults and children, and had never once had a problem in all that time. The conviction was from about 30 years ago when he was young and foolish, and he accepted that he had made a mistake which he had been punished for.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be approved.
(6)
Case 6
The Sub Committee was asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that that the driver attempted to charge £6 to take an assistance dog and had discriminated against the complainant.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident which had been submitted by the complainant.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was not notified on the booking that there would be a dog. He arrived at the pickup location and the dog was a few metres away and not wearing any high-vis, so he explained to the passengers that he would have to start the meter at £6.
The passenger asked whether the driver understood what the high-vis harness the dog was wearing was. The driver responded that he did. He had no problem with dogs, only that it wasn’t mentioned on the booking.
The complainants stated that they called the office to clarify that there should be no charge for an assistant dog. By then they felt uncomfortable, so they left the taxi and got into another one. The complainant described the incident as an unnecessary and embarrassing experience.
Members sought to clarify whether the driver was aware of the operators policies on assistance dogs and pets. The driver stated that for a pet dog the meter will start at £6. For assistance dogs there is no additional charge. Members asked why it would matter whether there was notification that a dog was mentioned at the time of the booking. The driver stated that he didn’t see the assistance dog it at first because of the poor visibility he was therefore surprised.
Members asked why the driver had insisted on a £6 fee after being told it was a guide dog. The driver stated that he was unaware and his English language skills are not the best. The video highlighted that there was a language barrier.
The complainants reminded Members that that the driver initially claimed to be allergic to dogs but he could not provide an exemption certificate when asked.
The complainant stated that in his experience incidents like this are a regular occurrence with taxi drivers in Cardiff. The complainant considered that the matter should be before Magistrates. The language barrier was not considered to be a major factor in the incident as the driver kept saying that he understood. Blind people should not be left out in the street.
Committee in agreement that the video clearly showed that it was not just a misunderstanding, and the driver was trying to charge and additional fee. It was confirmed that all drivers have assistance dog training as part of their SQA qualification. The Sub Committee acknowledged that the driver had no history of offences, but refusing a fare to someone because of a protected characteristic was unacceptable.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days for refusal of a fare and attempting to overcharge.
(7)
Case 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine whether a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License after a complaint was received stating that he refused to take an assistance dog and claimed he had a medical condition.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that as he picked the complainants up from their house they were recording him on a mobile phone, which had confused him. He was sneezing and dizzy at the time, but he took them to their destination.
Members asked whether the driver had an allergy and an exemption certificate. The driver confirmed that he did not have an exemption certificate and had not seen a doctor about getting one since the incident. He was not allergic to dogs.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, emphasising the driver would have known he was visually impaired because his guide dog’s harness was clearly labelled. He and his partner had to spend 10 minutes explaining to the driver why he had to take them and the dog, which they shouldn’t have had to do. They had missed a train because of the delay which affected their work.
The complainant’s partner added that he had started filming because he saw the driver looking at them while they approached the car and suspected he would refuse to let the dog in.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days for unacceptable conduct.
RESOLVED – That:
The Committee approve the draft Cumulative Impact Assessment for consultation with the following statutory consultees:
-
Chief Officer of Police for the area
-
Fire and Rescue Authority for the area
-
Local Health Board in Wales for an area any part of which is in the licensing authority’s area
-
Persons/bodies representative of local premises licence holders
-
Persons/bodies representative of local club premises certificate holders
-
Persons/bodies representative of local personal licence holders
-
Persons/bodies representative of businesses and residents in its area
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application.
The Sub Committee carefully considered the objection from South Wales Police and felt that the proposed variation would negatively impact the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – T H A T having heard representations from the applicant in respect
of an application for the renewal of a hackney carriage vehicle licence, it was
unanimously resolved to allow the vehicle to be presented for testing at the Alps
Depot, however Members were very concerned about the history of the
presentation of the vehicle for previous tests as outlined in the report to
Committee.
Reason for decision
The Committee endorsed the grave concerns of Officers as to the presentation of
the vehicle on many occasions in a dangerous condition and would have been so
in being taken on the highway for the purposes of testing. The Committee had
noted the need for a large number of Stop and Suspension Notices that had to be
issued to the applicant. To that end the Committee would encourage the active
monitoring and enforcement of the vehicle at more regular intervals than other
vehicles, given the history of the vehicle and the potential breach of conditions
attached to the Vehicle Licence by licensing enforcement. The Committee, whilst
not dealing with the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers Licence, were
concerned as to the applicant’s ability, fitness and propriety to continue to hold
such a licence when it had been demonstrated that the applicant had failed to
keep the vehicle in a safe and roadworthy condition to ensure the protection of the
public, including the presentation of the vehicle with a dirty interior and seats,
which would be immediately apparent. The Committee requested that the
applicant be issued with a warning as to their future conduct as a licensed driver
by the Licensing Department on behalf of the Committee. The Committee also
Minutes - MS
No.
strongly recommended that the applicant undertake a thorough vehicle check with
a reputable garage prior to the vehicle’s next presentation for plating and that
written evidence of the same be obtained.
Minutes - MS
RESOLVED – That:
(1) the moratorium on issuing new hackney carriage licences be rescinded;
(2) Members note the policies for the transition to an ultra-low emissions taxi service by 2028
(3) new hackney carriage licences should only be issued to fully electric vehicles, or wheelchair accessible vehicles that are under 5 years old and meet the Euro 6 emission standard. This is to support the transition to a zero-emissions taxi service whilst recognising the non-availability of fully electric wheelchair accessible taxis on the market.
(4) that officers carry out further research around the testing policy and minimum emissions standards for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles licensed in Cardiff, and a subsequent report is presented at a future meeting of this committee;
(5) the process of putting vehicle licences on-hold be removed. This change is to take effect 6 months after the resolution.
Vale of Glamorgan, Licensing: Public Protection Committee,