The constitution, councillors' conduct, audit, performance and complaints.
What councils do
How the council itself is run: its constitution, staff, buildings, IT, complaints, and how councillors behave.
Who decides
The full Council agrees the constitution. A standards committee deals with councillors' conduct; the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales investigates complaints.
Having a say
Complain to the council first; if you're not satisfied, you can go to the Ombudsman. Council meetings are public, and many are broadcast.
In numbers
Welsh councils plan to spend £67 per person on this in 2026-27.
It ranges from -£4 in Monmouthshire to £167 in Blaenau Gwent.
Council tax collected: 95% across Wales (2025-26).
Council tax unpaid at the end of the year: £119 million across Wales (2025-26).
Council tax still owed from earlier years: £199.3 million across Wales (2025-26).
Council tax written off: £9 million across Wales (2025-26).
RESOLVED: To
(1) Note that the Monitoring Officer has not received any complaints under the Corporate Joint Committee’s Code of Conduct for Members during the 2024/2025 municipal year;
(2) Note the findings of the recent internal audit of the adequacy and effectiveness of the internal control, governance and risk management arrangements in respect of the CJC’s Registers of Business Interests and Gifts & Hospitality;
(3) Note the arrangements put in place to discharge the functions of the CJC’s Standards Sub-Committee for 2025/26; and
(4) Agree that an annual report to the CJC describing how the Standards Sub-Committee has discharged its functions during the 2024/25 municipal year is produced by the Monitoring Officer of the CJC, in a draft letter format to be agreed by the Chairperson and Committee Members.
RESOLVED to:
1. Agreed that refresher training on the Members’ Code of Conduct should be provided for all Members and Co-Opted Members of Cardiff Council
2. Agreed that refresher training on the Members’ Code of Conduct should be provided for Chairpersons.
3. Agreed the suggested topics for the refresher training as outlined in paragraph 6 of the report.
4. Agreed the training should be delivered both online and in person,
5. Agree that the refresher training on the Members’ Code of Conduct should be discretionary. However, Cllr Brown Reckless did express her view that the training should be recommended by Group Leaders to their group members.
RESOLVED to:
• Note the information set out in the report and its appendices and identify any appropriate topics that could be raised at future meetings of the National Standards Committee Chairs Forum.
Note the current position regarding Community Councils in Cardiff signing up to the Civility Pledge.
Vale of Glamorgan, Voluntary Sector Joint Liaison Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T Councillor Naomi Marshallsea be nominated for election as Mayor at
the Annual Meeting to be held on 7th May, 2025 and that the Chair use the style of
Mayor or Maer.
(2) T H A T Councillor Carys Stallard be nominated for election as Deputy Mayor
at the Annual Meeting.
Reason for decisions
(1&2) To appoint to the positions as outlined within the Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet
Minute No. C281, 6th March, 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.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2025/26 AND UPDATE FOR 2024/25 (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet
Minute No. C282, 6th March, 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.
DRAFT BUDGET 2025/26 AND MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2025/26 TO 2029/30 (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet
Minute No. C283, 6th March, 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.
VALE 2030 – DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN CORPORATE PLAN 2025-30 (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet
Minute No. C284, 6th March, 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.
RENEWAL OF THE FLYING START COMMISSIONED CHILDCARE CONTRACTS (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet
Minute No. C301, 20th March, 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.
BELLE VUE COMMUNITY CENTRE – TEMPORARY CONTINUATION OF MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet
Minute No. C303, 20th March, 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.
RESHAPING SCRUTINY (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet
Minute No. C314, 10th April, 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.
FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT FOR DISABILITY ADAPTATION CONTRACTORS (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet
Minute No. C319, 10th April, 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 the amendments to the Council’s Constitution as detailed in
paragraphs 2.1 to 2.8 of the report be agreed and the Council’s Constitution
amended accordingly.
Reason for decision
To update the Constitution to reflect the Council’s changes in approach to Scrutiny
and to ensure the Council is undertaking a robust approach to good governance.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T following consideration by Governance and Audit Committee, and
Cabinet the revised versions of the Planning Protocol, Scheme of Delegation and
Terms of Reference as contained within the agenda be approved and included within
the Council’s Constitution.
(2) T H A T the protocol be updated should there be changes to the Vale of
Glamorgan Constitution, such as those related to public speaking, site visits or
mandatory training where required.
Reason for decisions
(1&2) Having regard to the contents of the references, discussions at the meeting
and to update the Council’s Constitution.
RESHAPING SCRUTINY (REF)
The Leader presented the report to look at implementing a series of changes to
reform the Council’s existing Scrutiny arrangements to support the monitoring of the
outcomes of the Corporate Plan. They shared that these changes had been in
development since October and had consulted with a significant number of Members
through various Committees such as Democratic Services Committee, Governance
and Audit Committee and Corporate Performance and Resources Scrutiny
Committee. The Leader stated it was their hope that all 54 Members should be able
to contribute effectively to the decisions being made by the Council. They also
shared reasons for changing in that there needed to be increased opportunities for
the public to participate, as 60% did not feel able to contribute in the Council’s
decision making, and that the Council needed to respond to recommendations from
Audit Wales and the Performance Panel Assessment.
The Leader stated that Cabinet was delayed allowing extra time for the final iteration
to be presented, and that they wanted to change from 5 to 4 Scrutiny Committees to
allow for a focus upon outcomes and not service areas. They also shared around the
history of Task and Finish within the Council, including positive work on period
poverty and school places.
They finally shared that point 22.1 of the report needed further clarity, as the
Committee sizes would be 12 Members on the Start Well Scrutiny Committee and
Live Well Scrutiny Committee, with 13 Members on the Place Scrutiny Committee
and Resources Scrutiny Committee, due to their potentially increased workload, and
that political balance calculations would be circulated to Group Leaders.
Councillor Dr. Johnson stated that considerable consultation had taken place around
the topic, and they had been involved through Group Leaders Meetings and the
Scrutiny Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs Group, but that there was no point in
consulting if not listening in reducing from 5 to 4 Scrutiny Committees, as there was
no evidence merging Committees would help address problems. They shared that
they felt there were too many changes at the same time, which would leave limited
space to evaluate the impact of any changes, and expressed a concern Members
may be unable to see the big picture. They concluded that this was not an attractive
proposition to opposition Members, despite recognising this was a response to the
Panel Performance Assessment.
Councillor Carroll shared that they felt the Cabinet record was unacceptable, and the
Council had an Executive Cabinet system which required opposition and backbench
Members to hold them to account through full and proper scrutiny. He felt that
proposals would lead to a reduction in Scrutiny and increase the workload of
Committees and that he felt the role of Scrutiny drilled into issues in depth, and the
new arrangements would reduce this. Councillor Carroll indicated that his Group
would be unable to support these changes, as he felt they avoid accountability, would
not work, lead to less Scrutiny and performance would deteriorate as a result, whilst
accepting that there were failings in the existing arrangements, such as the long
presentations. He warned the Administration that they would be accountable at the
ballot box in 2 years’ time.
Councillor Godfrey agreed around the need to re-evaluate and improve Scrutiny but
did not see the justification to change from 5 Scrutiny Committees to 4 Scrutiny
Committees.
Councillor Goodjohn noted that the role of presentations was to be undertaken during
Member briefings as part of the future arrangements, and there would be an
opportunity to dig deep into external topics through Task and Finish Scrutiny, which
also presented the opportunity to involve external partners and members of the
public. They indicated that they were satisfied surrounding Committee workloads,
and felt the new arrangements would allow backbench Members to do their job and
shape the Council’s direction, and felt the approach could be increasingly effective as
it encouraged an integrated approach to more meaningful work, with the opportunity
for more people to get involved.
Councillor Hodges shared their experience of Task and Finish Group on school
places, which took a huge amount of time and resources to complete and delivered a
series of recommendations, which the Cabinet at the time refused to look at, so they
were cynical of Cabinet listening to Task and Finish recommendations. However,
nearly all recommendations had been acted upon since. They indicated that this
Task and Finish required a huge amount of input from staff, schools and wider
stakeholders, with a lot depending upon officer time and availability. Councillor
Hodges further stated that he felt Task and Finish should be in person, and that
debate would be better this way rather than virtually. They concluded that they
welcomed the emphasis upon Task and Finish, could provide a potential list of topics,
but did not agree with the reduction in Scrutiny Committees.
Councillor Wilson shared that he had previously chaired 2 Task and Finish groups,
including surrounding the impact of the bedroom tax (2012), which met of multiple
occasions, had significant outside influence and led to changes in the Discretionary
Housing Payment Policy. They recognised that Task and Finish would be an
opportunity to take politics out of situation and focus upon residents. Councillor
Wilson also welcomed the move to introduce pre-Cabinet Scrutiny and believed the
move to 4 Committees supported the Council’s new Corporate Plan.
Councillor Birch expressed that they felt opposition Members would oppose any
changes, and that Task and Finish work could be very useful, sharing examples of
how Schools’ Governing Bodies still use resources from a previous piece of work.
They reflected Members’ preparedness for meetings, and felt it was evident people
had not read papers, meaning presentations were useful in allowing space to gain
further understanding. They also recognised the value in hybrid arrangements and
stated that policy needed a range of Members to contribute, and that the changes
were trying to adjust ways of working to be increasingly effective and efficient, whilst
involving as many people as possible.
Councillor John shared that they were elected during the changes from a Committee
to Executive system and shared around how Members used to take part in Scrutiny
previously. He stated that he felt the “Call-In” process was there to be used by
Members and was currently underutilised. He concluded that all Members should
give the changes a go, that everyone needed to get involved, there had previously
been 4 instead of 5 Scrutiny Committees, and that there should be consideration if in
person or virtually.
Councillor Haines proposed that all Scrutiny Chairs should be from opposition
groups, to which they were advised that this was not possible due to the statutory
requirements as part of the Local Government Measure.
Councillor Ernest shared that they were a Member during the Committee system and
reflected that Task and Finish could be equivalent to Parliamentary Select
Committees, where it could question people deeply and encourage changes.
However, they expressed concern around the capacity for Democratic Services
Officers to support this work.
Councillor Burnett concluded and asked Members to focus upon what was possible,
rather than focusing upon why it would not work and shared that the changes were
being made as only 20% of items were currently leading to robust scrutiny,
presentation / information items should be considered using the briefing process, and
that noting items needed to stop, recognising that Cabinet should not be doing this as
both Cabinet and Scrutiny were being unnecessarily clogged. They finally shared
that co-option was being explored as it was necessary to understanding lived
experiences and the Council needed residents to feel they had an impact.
A Recorded Vote took place as follows:
Members 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 √
Janice Charles √
Millie Collins √
Pamela Drake √
Anthony Ernest √
Russell Godfrey √
Emma Goodjohn √
Ewan Goodjohn √
Stephen Haines √
Howard Hamilton √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Catherine Iannucci-Williams √
Gwyn John √
Dr. Ian Johnson √
Susan Lloyd-Selby √
Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √
Julie Lynch-Wilson √
Kevin Mahoney √
Michael Morgan √
Naomi Marshallsea √
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 √
TOTAL 29 18 1
Following the Recorded Vote it was subsequently
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the proposed changes to Scrutiny arrangements be approved
(2) T H A T the policies identified (Appendix D to the report) be agreed and
updated to reflect any changes in Scrutiny arrangements which complied with
legislation and statutory guidance.
(3) T H A T the calendar of meetings (Appendix E) be updated to give effect to
changes in Scrutiny arrangements.
(4) T H A T a commitment to review the implementation of any proposed
arrangements after approximately 12 months of implementation to ensure the desired
outcomes of Reshaping Scrutiny were being achieved and to consider any
amendments which may be required be endorsed.
Reason for decisions
(1-4) Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the 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 a complaint had been received stating that the driver overcharged for a journey from St Mary’s Street to Cathays and did not use the calibrated meter in order to determine the fare. There was also a double charge on the card used to pay for the journey.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that late on a Sunday night, he saw an intoxicated woman who wasn’t being allowed back into bars on St Mary’s Street being refused by other taxis. He could see that she was frustrated and wanted to help her get home. She said that she didn’t have enough cash and wasn’t sure how to use the card on her phone, so he passed her his phone with the payment app open so she could practise paying. She asked to give a £15 tip, which would mean paying around £25 for the journey rather than around £10. Her card was declined several times before it went through.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events, emphasising that she had not asked to tip him and was entirely aware of how to pay by card using her phone. She had only realised the next morning that she had been charged two payments of £25.70, which she called her bank to cancel because they were still pending. The two payments were eight minutes apart, so it seemed that the driver had taken two separate payments at the start and end of the journey.
The Sub Committee asked the driver about the double payment and heard that this may have been a technical issue with the payment app he used due to the declined payments. There was no physical receipt to give the passenger as the app sent him a notification of payments the next day.
Members queried whether the driver had asked for payment before the journey began, which was not permitted for fares within Cardiff. The driver responded that he had tried to help the passenger because she wasn’t sure how to use her phone to pay. The witness reiterated that she knew how to use her phone to pay by card, and suggested that the driver had not passed her his phone.
The driver’s representative suggested that there was evidence of the card being declined several times, and that the witness might have accidentally paid twice while drunk. He added that the money taken out of her account had been returned, and suggested that an honest mistake had been made. The witness emphasised that she was certain she had not accidentally tapped it twice.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he expressed sincere regret about his past actions and took full responsibility for what he had done.
Members noted that the applicant had applied for a licence recently and was refused then, and asked what had changed. The applicant explained that he was working 60 to 70 hours a week to support his family as the cost of living was very high, and he could make more money driving taxis.
RESOLVED – that the application be refused.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was arrested after a policeman pulled him over while driving and saw a bag of drugs in the car. He emphasised that they were not his and that he had passed a drug test, but had received a caution for possession of a Class A drug.
He added that since this had all taken place, he had moved back home, gotten married and taken on new responsibilities, and was keen to drive taxis. He understood the gravity of the situation but felt he was a more responsible person now.
RESOLVED – that the application be refused.
(4)
Item 4 was deferred to the next meeting in the absence of the witness.
(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 stating that the driver drove his licensed vehicle in a dangerous manner and used demeaning language.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was being accused of hitting a pedestrian and her luggage with his car. He explained that he had been working at the coach station when a coach came towards him so he had to pull into a parking bay on the side of the road. A woman was stood there with her luggage, so he beeped his horn and then rolled down his window and respectfully asked her to move.
He added that the woman then started shouting at him and accusing him of knocking over her luggage, before telling everyone else on the rank that he was a dangerous driver who had tried to hit her, which meant he got no business that night. He had driven taxis for 33 years and had been licensed in Cardiff for 26 years without any complaints being made against him, and emphasised that his car had not touched her luggage.
The Sub Committee viewed videos immediately following the incident provided by the witness. Members noted that the driver had cameras on the front and back of his vehicle and asked whether this footage was available. The driver explained that he normally deleted this after a week, and had not thought it was needed in this case as he was not contacted by the police.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she knew the area well and usually ordered a cab using her phone as the coach was getting in, before waiting in the same spot where there were several empty parking spaces. There was no pavement for pedestrians, only a muddy embankment, and she used a cane to help her walk.
She recalled that the taxi came by without stopping and without the driver asking her to move, and so she had to jump back to avoid being hit, with the car knocking her bags over. She asked the driver whether he had seen her and he said yes, so she asked why he had continued reversing, and he told her to shut up.
Both parties disputed whether or not the driver had beeped his horn or spoken to the witness before moving into the bay, and whether or not the taxi had knocked the luggage over. The driver’s representative acknowledged that the driver could have de-escalated the situation, and suggested that he keep the dashcam footage for longer than a week in the future.
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 been issued with a caution by South Wales Police.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned in 2022 for a public order offence against a former partner who had stalked him. He did not feel he posed any danger to members of the public, and had driven taxis since 2006 with no complaints made against him.
The Sub Committee asked why he had only declared the caution on his renewal form rather than as soon as it happened. The driver explained that he had mistakenly believed this was only required for convictions, and apologised for the oversight.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(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 declared a previous conviction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, namely a small hammer which he had left on the seat of his taxi after using it to fix the wheelchair ramp.
He explained that a passenger had run off without paying after going from Cardiff to Cwmbran. The driver had waited outside his house for some time before speaking to someone else there, who persuaded the passenger to come out and pay up. The passenger claimed that he had followed him with a weapon and threatened him with it, so the driver called the police to explain.
The Sub Committee asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had emailed the council to inform them but had misspelt the email address.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.