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: Council AGREED to:
1.
Approve the draft Corporate Plan 2025-28 (Appendix A);
2.
Delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any minor amendments as necessary to the Corporate Plan 2025-28 following consideration by Council on 6th March 2025 and prior to publication by 1st April 2025.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1 was deferred in the absence of the witness.
(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 a complaint had been received stating that he displayed dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour including shouting and cursing at a pedestrian.
The driver’s representative noted that the report suggested that his licence had been suspended by the Sub Committee for 10 days in 2016, and clarified that this was not the case as no suspension was awarded upon appeal.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that two people were trying to cross the road in front of the New Theatre and the light was amber so he stopped. He didn’t know what triggered it but one of them came to his car and used foul language towards him. He straightened up his car and then drove off when the light turned green.
Members asked whether the driver had seen the CCTV video of the incident, which he had. Members viewed the video and suggested that it contradicted what he had said in his statement about his taxi being stationary until the light was green. His statement also suggested that the female pedestrian was not using any sort of support to cross the road, which the video showed she was. The driver reiterated that he stood by his statement, and added that all other pedestrians had crossed the road by the time his taxi reached the crossing.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he and his wife were walking back to their car and approached the crossing as the light for it was green. As they crossed the road, the light turned flashing amber, so they continued as they had right of way, relatively slowly as his wife was using a crutch. The taxi came round the corner quickly and came close to him, which he found particularly worrying as he’d had two knee replacements. The driver used abusive language towards him regarding his age, but he did not recall using any bad language himself. The taxi drove off and he noted down the numberplate in order to make a complaint.
The driver’s representative suggested that the crossing in front of the New Theatre often caused confusion between drivers and pedestrians as it lacked a crossing box. He acknowledged that the witness and the driver had different views about who had right of way, but disputed the suggestion that the driver was speeding round the corner.
The driver’s representative added that the video seemed to show the pedestrian speaking to the driver first. The witness acknowledged that the video showed him going to speak to the driver, but suggested that this was only because the driver had wound down the window and shouted at him. Otherwise, he would have continued walking.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received from South Wales Police stating that the driver committed a number of speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had not been driving his vehicle on most of the occasions listed in the report. Friends of his had used the car for private use rather than as a taxi and received speeding tickets, and one of these friends who had committed three of the offences had left the country for family reasons so he was hard to contact. The driver didn’t want to lose his livelihood so he took responsibility for the offences, accepted nine points on his licence and paid a fine. After that, South Wales Police had made a complaint to the licensing authority.
Members queried the details of specific offences provided in the report, where a number of different names were nominated as having been driving the vehicle at the time. The driver stated that one of the individuals was a friend of his, and another was the friend’s wife. Members noted that it had not been possible to trace either person and the police did not believe they existed. Members queried one of the offences where the driver had initially nominated his wife but then changed it to his own name and attended a speed awareness course. The driver apologised for making a mistake in this case.
Members noted that the driver’s wife had nominated herself as the driver on one form, and asked if the driver understood that he was the only person insured to drive his taxi as it was a licensed vehicle. The driver suggested that a number of his friends borrowed his vehicle on occasion as it was a large van, and their insurance covered it. The Legal Officer clarified that this was not the case. Only the licensed taxi holder could use the vehicle, and it was not possible to get private insurance to drive someone else’s taxi.
Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that there were historic offences going back to 2020, and the police took responsibility for failing to flag them up until now. He had been unable to track down several of the individuals nominated and suspected that they did not exist, and were certainly not insured to drive the vehicle. Other offences had been blamed on family members who had accepted they were driving at the time, which meant they would also have been uninsured.
The witness also suggested that the times of the offences, several of which had occurred after midnight, including on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, suggested that the vehicle was being used as a taxi at the time. He noted that the driver had admitted to three of the offences, taking three points and paying a fine, after being challenged. It was the police’s view that the driver had been driving the vehicle on all of the occasions listed, and had done everything possible to avoid being banned.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver committed three speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had misread the date of the offence on the first letter and nominated his wife as the driver of the vehicle at the time. This was an honest mistake rather than an attempt to falsify the form. He believed that the second offence was a mistake on the part of the authorities as his Uber log showed he was driving elsewhere at the time. On the third occasion, he believed he was giving his cousin a driving lesson and allowing her to drive the vehicle, but now realised that he had been the driver at that time.
Members asked how often his wife drove the taxi, and heard that he often took off the plates and allowed her to use it to go shopping. Members asked whether there had been L plates on the car when it was photographed speeding when he believed his cousin had been driving the car. The witness, representing South Wales Police, confirmed that there were not.
Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that it was an easy process to check who was driving the car at the time as he had access to logs through Uber. The driver was the only person insured to drive his licensed vehicle, and his wife and cousin were not. His cousin had taken the blame and attended a speed awareness course for an offence she had not committed.
Regarding the driver’s suggestion that one of the offences was a mistake by the authority, the witness noted that the job records from the time and date in question showed that the vehicle had picked up a fare close to the camera several minutes before the offence was committed. The police’s view was that the driver had dishonestly attempted to avoid punishment for speeding offences on a number of occasions.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(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 driver had nine penalty points on his licence in respect of three speeding offences.
The Chair queried a pending driving offence from October 2024 referred to in the report. The driver responded that he had not received any information about this offence since then, and didn’t know why this was the case. The Chair suggested that the hearing be deferred to allow the pending offence to be resolved, so the Sub Committee could have the full information when considering the matter.
RESOLVED – that the case be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee.
(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 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had accumulated nine points from three offences, two of which had been on the same day when a speed limit on Western Avenue changed from 40mph to 30mph. He was doing less taxi work now and more school runs.
Members asked whether the driver was aware of his responsibility to inform the licensing authority as soon as the offences were committed, rather than upon renewal more than a year later. The driver responded that he had not been aware of this and apologised for failing to do so.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had apologised for his mistake and accepted his punishment. He had been caught speeding twice in one day in an area where the limit had just changed, and on both occasions was going below the previous limit, so it was clearly an honest mistake.
Members queried how many points the driver had in total, and heard that he had received three in April 2023, six more in June 2023 and had three pending as of January 2025. Members noted that if the pending offence resulted in three more points, he would have to come before the Sub Committee again.
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 the driver had six penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90).
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been convicted in January of this year, having unintentionally misidentified his wife as the driver of a vehicle he shared with her. He originally wrote her name down on the form but then realised he had been driving and took responsibility. He had received six points on his license as a result.
Members queried the delay between the offence in May 2024 and declaring it to the licensing authority in January 2025. The driver explained that he had to wait until January for his court hearing, after which he had declared it to the authority. The driver also clarified that the offence took place before he became qualified as a taxi driver in Cardiff, having been licensed in Newport before.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken,
(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 previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted for totting up points on his DVLA licence. The driver had been referred to the Sub Committee and subsequently had his licence revoked.
The driver explained that he had been to the Sub Committee and been refused several times before. He didn’t have any additional evidence to prove his fitness but he had been a licensed driver for twelve years and never had any problems. He had tried to work in other jobs like security since losing his licence, but taxi driving was his passion. He was trying to support his family and getting his licence back would make a huge difference.
Members noted that the Sub Committee had revoked his licence in 2022 in line with its guidance after he had received 15 points, and had suggested that he reapply after five years. The driver emphasised that his offences had all been only slightly above the 30mph limit, in a private car rather than his taxi, and had been committed nearly five years ago.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
Vale of Glamorgan, Appointments Committee Re Standards Committee,
RESOLVED: that
• the draft Corporate Plan 2025-28 (Appendix A), subject to any amendments authorised under recommendation 3, be approved for consideration by Council on 6 March 2025;
• the responses to any recommendations made by any of the Scrutiny Committees (Appendix C) in relation to the draft Corporate Plan 2025-28 be considered and agreed;
• the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, be authorised to make any minor consequential amendments to the draft Corporate Plan 2025-28 that are required to reflect the response to any Scrutiny Committee recommendations (agreed under recommendation 2), prior to consideration by Council on 6 March 2025;
• Council be recommended to delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any minor amendments as necessary to the Corporate Plan 2025-28 following consideration by Council on 6 March 2025 and prior to publication by 1 April 2025.
Cardiff, Policy Review and Performance Scrutiny Committee,
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to Cllr Weaver’s portfolio
Cllr Weaver made a brief statement outlining sections in the Draft Corporate Plan and Draft Budgetary Proposals relevant to his portfolio.
Members were invited to ask questions and make comments and the discussion is summarised below:
Members wished to know how the new KPI’s compared to the current performance figures, and were advised that this information could be provided to the Committee.
Members enquired about the dropout rate among apprentices at the Council and whether the Council monitors the progress of apprentices going on into further employment. Members were advised that the dropout rate is very low, some apprentices and trainees go on to work for the Council and in some service areas apprentice and trainee placements are very helpful in securing employment outside the Council. However, it was acknowledged that not all data may be properly captured, given the difficulties in keeping in touch with those who dropout.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Culture, Sport and Parks portfolio
The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Jennifer Burke, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Parks; Neil Hanratty, Director of Economic Development; Donna Jones, Assistant Director for County Estates; Ruth Cayford, Operational Manager for Creative Industries and Culture; and Jon Maidment, Head of Parks and Cardiff Harbour Authority.
Cllr Burke made a brief statement, following which Neil Hanratty gave a presentation outlining sections in the Draft Corporate Plan and Draft Budgetary Proposals relevant to Cllr Burke’s portfolio.
Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below:
Members were advised that filming charges in Bute Park Visitor Centre have been added to the fees and charges report and will continue to be included there in future years.
Members sought an explanation for the decision not to increase fees at the riding school, and were advised that there is a need to invest in the school as the infrastructure is deteriorating, and there is concern that if fees are increased customers could transfer to commercial competitors.
Members were advised that there have been instances when the outdoor school has had to be closed due to the roof leaking. Officers were confident that the expected £10,000 increase in income would be forthcoming.
Members sought an update on the Cardiff Story museum and were advised that it was the Cabinet’s view that it should remain in its present location until a viable alternative could be found.
Members questioned why the KPI for satisfaction rate of parks was set at 72.5% and were advised that while the budget is increasing there are still pressures and areas where investment is needed. Members were advised that the development of a new parks strategy includes consultation to understand what people want from parks, and to encourage people who might not ordinarily access parks to do so.
Members sought an explanation for the changes in the plans for Pentwyn Leisure Centre since the previous plans were consulted on. The Cabinet Member advised that the type of equipment that is going into the centre is on a par with the International Pool and will be a decent piece of infrastructure that is safe for families.
Members sought assurance that there would no further delay to the reopening of St David’s Hall beyond the 4th quarter of 2026/27. The Cabinet Member advised Members that in recent weeks nearly all relevant applications for work to progress have been submitted, and subject to regulatory approval work should commence in the summer. Announcement has been made that the Cardiff Singer of the World 2027 will take place at St David’s Hall and the hall will be open in time for that.
Members wondered whether the reopening of St David’s Hall in 2026-27 would have a significant impact on the city’s tourism sector, and were advised that alongside Cardiff Castle, Principality Stadium and the city’s grassroots venues, and forthcoming Arena, it would mean that Cardiff would have a wide variety of venues that could host a range of different performers. Cardiff is increasingly seen as a destination for live events and it was important to the Council to ensure that St David’s Hall was not only maintained but enhanced in terms of what it offered people.
Members asked whether there was a mechanism to ensure that monies from the Financial Resilience Mechanism available for the sport development grant translate to improved services, and were advised that there is a sustained demand for this support which enables sports teams and clubs across the city to take on assets and improve them, working in partnership with the council.
Members sought information on how the Council could ensure there was involvement for female sports initiatives in this. The Cabinet Member advised that the FAW is reporting a significant increase in women’s and girls’ participation in football clubs. Llandaff Cricket has had a record participation of young girls, and girls’ participation in rugby is improving in the younger age groups; the administration remains committed to increasing participation of under-represented groups.
Members asked how much of the £1.5 million FRM was currently allocated and were advised that not all of it was already committed.
Members sought an update on the Whitewater Rafting Centre, and were advised that there had been some significant budget challenges in recent years but with efficiency savings it is getting closer to being operated within budget and is very close to breaking even.
Members discussed how well the Whitewater Rafting Centre was promoted, and were advised that it is a niche facility and there has been some targeted marketing, but this could be reviewed to ensure it is reaching enough people. An offer was made for committee members to visit the Centre to see first-hand the range of services on offer and to discuss marketing and promotion with officers.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Leader’s portfolio
The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Huw Thomas, Leader of the Council; Neil Hanratty, Director of Economic Development; and Jon Day, Operational Manager for Investment and Tourism.
Cllr Thomas made a brief statement, following which Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below:
Members discussed the lessons to be learned and any governance arrangements that might need to be addressed in relation to the contract for the demolition of Aberthaw power station, dealt with via the Cardiff Capital Region body. The Leader advised that he could not comment in detail as there are ongoing legal proceedings, but at the right time all local authorities involved will want an investigation into what occurred.
Members discussed the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee which is responsible for reviewing and scrutinising decisions made by the CJC. The Leader reminded the Committee that there had been discussions about the appropriateness of the scrutiny arrangements for the City Deal, and expressed the view that this was something either CJC or Welsh Government would wish to look at in more detail. He could envision a system where if a project is being delivered by CCR within the area of a LA, it would be appropriate for the relevant committee to scrutinise the work of the CCR.
Members wished to know about the prospects for a project emerging from the recommendations of the Western Gateway’s independent Severn Estuary Commission on the potential for renewable energy. The Leader advised that the Commission is due to report in mid-March. Briefings he has had indicate there is a potentially deliverable project that is technologically and financially feasible, but it will be necessary to have the right regulatory and governance environment to unlock the private sector investment.
Members sought information on how returns on investment in the City Deal were measured in terms of job creation and other economic opportunities. The Leader advised that there is a 5-year gateway process of assessment done jointly by UK and Welsh Governments on a CCR level, the top level metrics being job creation, GVA uplift and leverage of private money to match public money invested.
Members wished to know how the Council ensures that projects invested in through the City Deal align with environmental commitments made through One Planet Cardiff and the goal to reach Net Zero. The Leader advised that the KPI’s for the City Deal were set in 2016 and did not necessarily have green objectives in mind. The CJC has to have statutory policies around things such as biodiversity and the next deal will be more of a green deal.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Investment and Development portfolio
The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Huw Thomas, Leader of the Council; Neil Hanratty, Director of Economic Development; Donna Jones, Assistant Director for County Estates; and Jon Day, Operational Manager for Investment and Tourism.
Cllr Thomas made a brief statement, following which Neil Hanratty gave a presentation outlining sections of the Budgetary Proposals relevant to the portfolio.
Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below:
Members sought clarification on the source of additional income of £27,000 and were advised that it was income from renting out workshop space.
Members sought clarification on SPF funding for Cardiff Indoor Market and were advised that the funding was for the Financial Year 2024/25, had been agreed and was already in place.
Members sought further details on how the Council is working with the hospitality and accommodation sectors to increase accommodation options for visitors during major events. The Leader advised that the amount of hotel accommodation in the city is relatively modest, and one of the reasons for pursuing the Indoor Arena is to provide a more regular stream of visitors into the city and encourage investment in hotel development.
Members discussed whether proceeds from the visitor levy could be used to benefit district shopping centres away from the city centre. The Leader advised that as currently proposed it is envisaged that the proceeds of the visitor levy are spent within the visitor economy; however, the Council would want to develop a plan for how the levy could be deployed in partnership with stakeholders, including the BID as well as stakeholders more broadly.
Members questioned whether investment in new infrastructure such as the Canal Quarter Regeneration Phase 2 was the right approach when existing infrastructure such as city centre paving was not being sufficiently maintained. The Leader advised that much of the paving repair work in the city centre was due to the heavy traffic of supply trucks along Queen Street and The Hayes. Turning to the canal, he reminded Members that the plans had been signed off in 2021 when there Covid restrictions and concerns about the viability of city centres. The Council would want to see further plans, with the development of the Indoor Arena, around the Utilita Arena, developed in a strategic manner with a master plan for the whole area, with green and blue space being a key component making it somewhere people will want to spend time.
Members questioned whether pursuing a target of more Grade A office space was the most sustainable approach when there is other office space that is not being used. Officers advised that there is a lack of vacant Grade A office space in the city centre, and thus a risk that there is no property available for businesses that want to invest. The Leader added that last year saw the highest level of office take-up in 7 years.
Members asked whether there is a strategy for bringing surplus non-Grade A office space up to standard for reuse, and were advised that there is a market for cheaper office space for start-up and growing businesses, while other surplus office space has been repurposed for residential use.
Members wished to know whether there were concerns around CO2 emissions in relation to the creation of car parks in support of the Indoor Arena. The Leader advised that the current surface area car parks are being replaced by a single multi-storey car park with fewer parking spaces, while recognising there will be people who will drive to events at the Arena and want to park to access facilities in Cardiff Bay. Most of the area will be released to make it more attractive to people on foot and for leisure purposes.
Members wondered whether there were plans for more festivals or other attractions to encourage visitors to make longer stays. The Leader referred to the Cardiff City of Music Festival as a homegrown event that the Council would like to invest in and grow for the long term. Officers added that the Cardiff Live development will provide a venue able to compete for smaller business tourism events, and this will hopefully encourage visitors to stay longer and enjoy other facilities.
Members discussed how to promote other things for people to see or do in Cardiff besides the major events. The Leader advised that this was the sort of thing that the Council would want to be able to enhance through funds unlocked by the tourism levy.
Members discussed whether the planned investment in Cardiff Indoor Market would interfere with the improvements already taking place in the market. Officers advised that the intention of the redevelopment is to improve the market as it is rather than change what it will be doing. Work will be done to make good the roof and stop it leaking, and to improve the stallholders’ stands.
Members asked whether proposals for open space or street food facilities in the city centre were seen as competing with the Indoor Market. Officers advised that businesses are generally comfortable with investments that improve the overall offer and attract more people into the city centre. The Leader advised that it was indicative that businesses and investors see the city centre as being a place where people go to socialise, eat and spend leisure time rather than for shopping.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Tackling Poverty portfolio
The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Peter Bradbury, Cabinet Member for Tackling Poverty and Supporting Young People; and Helen Evans, Assistant Director for Housing and Communities.
Cllr Bradbury made a brief statement outlining sections of the Budgetary Proposals relevant to his portfolio.
Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below:
The Chair expressed gratitude for the acceptance of the KPI recommendations from the Scrutiny Performance Panel into the Corporate Plan, particularly around the Race Equality Task Force and sustainable employment.
Members wished to know how much of a challenge the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions presented to the Council and what is the Council’s strategy for addressing it. The Cabinet Member advised that the Council adjusts its work according to Governments’ tax proposals, and added that he had not received many letters from employers complaining that the increase was causing problems in recruitment.
Members asked whether there were KPIs around supporting people to stay in work. The Cabinet Member advised that the target for getting people into work had been raised, and that the team aims to get people into full-time and meaningful rather than temporary employment. Officers advised that most of the funding for Into Work services is grant funding and comes with a requirement that people stay and work for at least 6 months. Mentors work alongside the new employees to ensure they are sustained in that employment.
Members discussed whether people pass through the Into Work service only to be seen again a few months later, and were advised that some people have multiple barriers into work. A new Connect to Work programme will be delivered next year looking at those complex barriers, helping people into work and then wrapping support around them.
Members asked about the confidence levels at achieving the KPIs, and were advised that this is a key risk in 2026 as a significant amount of funding for Into Work services comes from the SPF. The Cabinet Member added that the team do remarkable work in the face of great challenges and difficulties, and it is important that funding for the next few years is secured to keep them in post.
Members sought information on what contingency there was should the SPF be significantly reduced or withdrawn. Officers advised that Connect to Work would help in some respects but not in terms of overall funding. Currently posts that become vacant are not being backfilled. Should no alternative funding become available the Council would have to look to exit posts. The Cabinet Member added that he would be putting pressure on ministers to replace SPF or put in place grant funding, and he would encourage Members to do the same.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Housing and Communities portfolio
The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Lee Bridgeman, Cabinet Member for Housing and Communities; Helen Evans, Assistant Director for Housing and Communities; and Rebecca Hooper, Operational Manager for Neighbourhood Regeneration.
Cllr Bridgeman made a brief statement, after which Helen Evans and Rebecca Hooper gave a presentation outlining sections of the Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Housing and Communities portfolio.
Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below:
Members discussed the use of volunteers in hubs and libraries. The Cabinet Member advised that it was decided at an early stage not to adopt a full volunteer service. Hub and library staff are professional and qualified and cannot be replaced with volunteers. Officers added a balance had been struck between the number of volunteers in hubs and libraries and the remaining paid staff, and it is unlikely that paid staff could be reduced further. As part of an internal restructuring the Council is looking to create more specialist library roles. Volunteers receive good training and there are robust procedures in place.
Members wished to know about the number of hubs that hub managers are managing and whether this was sustainable. Officers advised that this depends on the size of hub; Central Library has its own manager while for smaller hubs and libraries there may be a single manager across 3 or 4. The Council is creating more senior roles such as assistant managers and senior hub library assistants and there will be one of these in each hub or library.
Members discussed the training of existing staff in specialisms and were advised that the Council is encouraging hub and library staff to enrol for a librarianship degree.
Members wondered how the proposal to remove free parking periods from Council car parks would affect the viability of district and local centres. The Cabinet Member advised that car parking charges were not part of his portfolio. Officers advised that there is a coordinated approach with Transport and Highways relating to regeneration of shopping areas. Many district centres do not have free car parking and the focus is on ensuring there are good Active Travel opportunities to encourage people out of cars where possible.
Members questioned why there was no reference in the Corporate Plan to 15-minute cities and sought reassurance that the Council still supports the concept. The Cabinet Member assured Members that the commitment was still there but the 15-minute city name had been dropped as there was too much toxicity around it.
Members sought further information on the Roath-Adamsdown Business Corridor. Officers advised that the boundaries had not yet been defined and there have been discussions around alignment with other regeneration and Active Travel schemes. The size of the area will be part of the consultation.
Members welcomed the focus on ensuring books in hubs and libraries reflect the diversity of language and sought information on how this diversity was assessed. Officer advised that this was through consultations, surveys, and conversations with library staff and customers. In addition, a new IT system being rolled out allows customer requests in specific languages to be logged.
Members sought information on whether reduction of the book fund would have an impact on people who access books in community languages. Officers advised that they were confident that the Council would be able to continue to meet the requirements of community languages. Data on the percentage of purchased books are in community languages could be provided to the Committee.
Members sought information on the venues used for the Learning for Life programme, and were advised that there are many such venues, including schools, churches and community halls, which are listed on the website, and in addition there continue to be some online courses available.
Members were advised that adult literacy and numeracy comes under a separate programme for adult learning called Learning for Work.
Members were advised that most Learning for Life participants are 50-plus retirees and that officers would be able to provide a demographic breakdown to committee if required.
Members enquired about the priority for the Clifton Street area in the Roath-Adamsdown Business Corridor placemaking plan. Officers advised that the South Riverside Business Corridor placemaking plan is currently being concluded, and there is a significant project for Cowbridge Road East that officers are looking to secure funding for and take forward shortly. The target date for the Adamsdown-Roath Business Corridor to commence is June, and this includes Clifton Street. Officers are working close with colleagues to coordinate the work with plans for a Transport Corridor along Newport Road and Broadway.
Members wished to know what the allocation of £1.5M for regeneration from the FRM was likely to be spent. Officers advised that ward councillors would be invited to put forward ideas that meet the criteria around regeneration. The key priority will be deliverability. The Cabinet Member urged Councillors to look out for the email from officers inviting ideas.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.