Jobs, business support, regeneration, town and city centres and tourism.
What councils do
Councils support local businesses, regenerate town centres, run markets and apply for regeneration funding. They work with neighbouring councils through regional bodies called corporate joint committees.
Who decides
The Cabinet member for the economy leads. Big projects go to the Cabinet, and regional ones to the corporate joint committee.
Having a say
Business owners can contact the council's business support team. Regeneration plans are usually consulted on.
In numbers
Welsh councils plan to spend £40 per person on this in 2026-27.
It ranges from £13 in Pembrokeshire to £152 in Neath Port Talbot.
RESOLVED:
To note the Terms of Reference for the Appointment Committee.
To discharge the functions of the authority in respect of the appointment and dismissal of Chief Officers and Deputy Chief Officers (as defined in the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (Wales) Regulations 2006) and the statutory Head of Democratic Services, in accordance with the Employment Procedure Rules and other relevant Council policies and procedures.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been made alleging that he refused to provide service to a disabled passenger.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s wife stated that the driver had been working that day for Uber, but didn’t recall the job in question. She emphasised that the accusation had caused him considerable stress. He had driven taxis since 2007, transporting countless disabled passengers since then with no complaints, and had worked with the council for several years on a city centre mobility scheme. He regularly looked after people with mobility issues, including her mother, and had a very good Uber rating and no points on his licence.
She added that as soon as he was made aware of the complaint in January, he offered to provide his dashcam footage from that night. He was informed that Uber did not need it as they were treating the incident as feedback rather than a complaint, so it was never reviewed. He maintained that the incident as described in the witness’ statement did not happen, in particular because the shape of Rhymney Street made it difficult to pull in.
She suggested that although he did not remember the particular journey, he might not have been aware that the passenger was disabled because her mobility aid would not have been visible between the cars. It was not uncommon for Uber drivers to cancel, and he often had to use the toilet in a hurry as he needed an operation.
Members asked why the driver might cancel a fare without warning. The driver’s wife explained that he might need the toilet, or she might phone needing something, as they sometimes had emergencies relating to her mother. She felt there was no reason why he would have cancelled while so close to a job.
Members discussed the Uber complaints process and heard that the company had not provided any evidence of the job being booked and cancelled. The driver and passenger did not automatically receive any record of cancellations.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness stated that she had been waiting outside her son’s house on Rhymney Street. She had recently come out of hospital and was staying with her son for a few days. The taxi she had booked pulled up, then the driver looked at her and drove off. She looked at the app and saw that the fare had been cancelled as soon as he went round the corner. She re-booked the journey with another driver.
Members asked what the witness’ rollator looked like, which the witness showed them. She recalled that the taxi had been a Toyota with a normal boot, so her rollator would have fit in.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the second witness stated that he was a Licensing Enforcement officer for Cardiff Council, who had investigated the complaint. It had taken some time to get details from Uber about the incident, and then he had sent a questionnaire to the driver, to which he had responded very quickly.
Members asked if it was typical of Uber not to provide that information quickly. The second witness explained that they were normally very fast, and hadn’t mentioned any sort of issue in getting the data. The request for the full log of bookings and communications was sent to them on 20th February, and though there was a response it was not the full set of data requested.
Members asked if the delay between the incident in January and the driver being contacted in April was normal. The second witness explained that they had been waiting on different statements coming in before they could go to the driver for his statement.
Summing up, the first witness explained that if the driver had spoken to her about needing to cancel, she would have understood. Uber had not been able to give her the driver’s details, and it was only when the Licensing officer rang her that she knew who he was.
Summing up, the driver’s wife explained that without the Uber data or the dashcam footage the driver had offered to provide, they felt it would be unfair to revoke his licence.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had been disqualified from driving for six months.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been disqualified for totting up offences, having driven through a red light early in the morning and not realised. At the time he had 9 points on his licence, having committed several speeding offences in 20mph zones. He worked six or seven days a week, normally starting at 4:30am and working for 8-10 hours at a time. For each of the 20mph offences he had been caught going under 30mph. Three of the points had now expired, but as he had nine when the red light offence happened it made twelve in total and led to a ban.
The driver’s representative added that his client had more than thirty years’ experience as a taxi driver, and if the offence had happened slightly later he would not have been banned as three of his points were about to expire. He was very contrite about it, and he was supporting his son through university, so the ban had already had a significant impact on his family.
The driver added that the ban meant he couldn’t drive until February, but he was keen to carry on after that point.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his future conduct.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had six points on his licence. He had received three points for defective tyres, after he was pulled over for a headlight being out, on top of three more for a speeding offence. He worked as a delivery driver for Uber Eats.
Members asked why he had only declared 3 points on his application, and not mentioned the offence with the tyres? The applicant explained that he didn’t know about those points then.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance which he did not declare on his application form.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had an accident in 2020 and went to court, where he was banned from driving for six months. He took a course afterwards and felt he had grown since. He had been convicted for failing to stop after an accident, and for driving without due care and attention.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that he had been working as a delivery driver on a 125cc scooter and had collided with someone. He had to complete his delivery and had returned afterwards, but was convicted of failing to stop. He was still working as a delivery driver at his shop and wanted to drive taxis.
Members asked when the applicant got his driving licence, which he clarified was in June last year. Members asked why he had failed to declare his convictions, which the applicant explained was because his English wasn’t very good at the time, and the offence had been several years ago.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared previous criminal and motoring convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been rejected for a taxi licence in the past. He had made serious errors in the past but felt he was a different person now and provided character references to prove this. He had also gained his HGV licence and was a safe and conscientious driver.
He explained that when he was young, he fell in with the wrong crowd. He had done a lot of stupid things but wasn’t the same person any more. The most recent offence was in 2017 for being drunk and disorderly, and he didn’t remember it well but as a result didn’t drink any more. He hoped Members would look upon his new application favourably.
Members asked if he had done any lorry driving work. The applicant responded that he worked for Müller and had previously worked for Owens and Tesco. He had obtained his Class 1 HGV licence in 2022.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had declared motoring convictions contrary to the guidance and previously had his licence revoked by Cardiff Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he appreciated the opportunity to have his application reviewed. He understood that the offences he had committed were wrong and had been punished by having his licence revoked. He had never had any complaints from customers in his time as a driver.
Responding to questions from Members, he explained that he had committed three speeding offences after struggling to adapt to the 20mph limit. Two of the offences were in the same place on Newport Road within the space of a week, and the other was a few months later. He had then filled out the Notice of Intended Prosecution form inaccurately to say that someone else was driving.
Members asked when the speeding points would expire. The driver explained that this would be between December 2027 and May 2028. Members asked when he was first licensed as a taxi driver, which he clarified was in 2013.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused.
Decided: Council approved the appointment of Chris Lee as Chief Executive, and as Electoral Registration Officer and Returning Officer, subject to satisfactory pre-employment checks. The vote was 59 for, none against and no abstentions.
RESOLVED:
The Committee AGREED to note the information set out in the report and appendices and to defer further consideration of this matter to the next meeting, in order to clarify certain points in relation to the process.
AGREED.
Freedom of Information Act 2000, designation of the Council’s ‘Qualified Person’ for purposes of the Section 36 Exemption.
Adding this as delegated authority to the Monitoring Officer.
AGREED.
Trusts governance – to reference the Trusts Cabinet Committee and approved officer delegation; and amend the Procedure Rules for the Acquisition or Disposal of Land to reference land held in trust.
Clarification points.
AGREED.
Delegation for responses to Government consultations.
AGREED.
Protocol on Member / Officer Relations, update.
AGREED.
Councillor Call for Action.
Criteria be considered, and a further report will be brought to the Committee.
AGREED.
Allocation of certain local choice licensing function
Refresh to ensure that the Constitution reflects the law.
AGREED.
Joint Committee delegations, update.
Refresh of Constitution.
AGREED.
Delegated authority for amendments to operational HR employment policies
Discussed with Chief Executive and Chief HR Officer.
AGREED.
Delegated authority to update RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers) policies and procedures.
Monitoring Officer to make timely amendments
AGREED.
Allocation of Non-Executive Functions; Committee membership requirements.
Minor changes required.
AGREED.
A number of other minor amendments
· Committee Membership requirements – Article 8.
· Clarification point - Independent Members voting at Standards & Ethics Committee in addition to Council Members.
· Aligning Finance Contract provision thresholds at £75,000.
AGREED.
The Chair requested that consideration of a summary of Officers Decisions and their call in status be presented to Council for information.
RESOLVED:
· To approve the minor Constitution amendments made under the Monitoring Officer’s delegated authority, as referenced in the report for the Committee’s information
· To approve the substantive Constitution amendments recommended in the report, including any agreed changes
· Authorise the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair, to draft any further amendments to reflect the views of the Committee
Recommend the agreed substantive Constitution amendments to full Council for approval.
RESOLVED: To note the Terms of Reference for the Appointment Committee.
To discharge the functions of the authority in respect of the appointment and dismissal of Chief Officers and Deputy Chief Officers (as defined in the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (Wales) Regulations 2006) and the statutory Head of Democratic Services, in accordance with the Employment Procedure Rules and other relevant Council policies and procedures.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he was disengaged as a driver from Veezu for multiple complaints of using his phone while driving, for a poor standard of driving making passengers feel unsafe, and for being rude, hostile and threatening.
The Sub Committee received representations from witnesses to an incident which had occurred at Llandough Hospital. Members were advised that the driver locked a passenger with a brain injury inside the vehicle when he was advised that the passenger’s mother would pay the fare at the destination. The passenger refused to travel in the vehicle and was very upset and anxious following the incident. The driver was reported to have been rude, hostile and threatening.
Further representations were received from a different witness relating to a separate incident when the driver was said to have displayed a poor standard of driving and watched TikTok videos on his mobile phone during the journey.
A third witness provided a statement regarding the driver using his mobile phone during a journey.
Members were advised that Veezu had received reports of each incident from their customers and they had disengaged the driver from their platform as a result.
Members questioned the witnesses to each incident and sought clarification from the driver regarding his actions.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days for unacceptable conduct.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he urinated into a bottle on a public street.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee. The driver accepted that his actions were unacceptable and apologised unreservedly for his actions. Members were advised that his actions would not be repeated in the future.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he displayed intimidating, unprofessional and unacceptable behaviour to a passenger.
Members received representations from two witnesses who were passengers in the vehicle. Members were advised that the passengers were having a conversation regarding the payment method. The driver was said to have suddenly become very angry and began shouting and using bad language. He then refused the fare and ordered the passengers out of his vehicle.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning regarding his conduct.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that he failed to use the meter for a journey within the Cardiff boundary and overcharged for a fare.
Members received representations from a witness who was a passenger in the vehicle. Members were advised that the passenger was in Mill Lane in the city centre and wanted to travel to Manor Way. The fare was usually in the region of £15. The witness approached the driver’s taxi and was advised that the fare would be £25 as it was after midnight and she would have to pay the fare in advance. The witness stated that four other taxi drivers surrounded her and attempted to convince her that the fare she was quoted was correct. She felt intimidated as she was a single female. The passenger also stated that the fare meter was not used during the journey.
Members also received representation from an officer from Cardiff Licensing. Members were advised that a fare from Mill Lane to Manor Way should be around £12.70.
The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee. Members were advised that the driver accepted the seriousness of the allegations and was aware that the meter should be used for all journeys in the city. The driver acknowledged that a payment of £25 was received but could not recall any other details of the journey.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days for overcharging and not using the meter.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had declared 7 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had four penalty points on his driver’s licence before he was licenced as taxi driver. He then received 3 further points for going through a red light in Bridgend.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
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 License given that since the renewal of his licence he had failed to provide his DBS certificate.
The driver did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a relevant conviction contrary to the guidance.
The applicant did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had motoring convictions and previous criminal convictions contrary to the guidance.
The applicant did not attend.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he had received six penalty points for not disclosing the identity of a driver. Members were advised that the applicant had moved from Sheffield to Cardiff. He had updated the address details on his drivers licence. He was caught speeding in Newport but the letter had been sent to Sheffield and he was unaware.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the applicant had a motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
The applicant advised Members of the circumstances relating to a conviction for using a mobile phone whilst driving. The applicant stated that his phone was sitting in a cradle on his dashboard when he hit a pothole. The phone fell between his feet and he reached down to get it. This was witnessed by a police officer. The driver accepted that he should have pulled over first in order to retrieve his phone.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
Decided: The Committee agreed that the Chairperson will write to the Cabinet Member on its behalf, giving the Committee's observations and recommendations. The public were excluded for part of the discussion because it included exempt information, which is information the law allows a council to keep private. The minute records no decision on the scheme itself, which is for Cabinet.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003, the statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Act, and the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application for the grant of a Personal Licence.
The Sub Committee noted the applicant’s reasons for applying, namely that he and his wife had been offered an opportunity and that obtaining the licence would enable him to return to employment and give back to the community. This was taken into account as part of their overall consideration.
However, Members attached significant weight to the fact that he did not declare his conviction on the application form. This non-disclosure meant that his application did not present a full and accurate account of his background. Members considered his explanation for this omission, which was that it was an error on his part and that he had relied on advice from the licensing office.
Members also considered the nature and circumstances of the conviction, which arose from an offence of failing to provide a specimen at the roadside. The applicant had explained that this occurred after a long day, that he had panicked when approached by the police, and that he suffered from breathing difficulties following Covid-19. He further acknowledged that this was a significant mistake in his life.
Members attached significant weight to the seriousness and recency of the conviction, which was recorded in November 2024. They did not find that the explanation provided for either the offence itself or the failure to declare the conviction was sufficient to allay their concerns regarding the applicant’s reliability, judgment, and ability to uphold the responsibilities associated with holding a Personal Licence.
Having weighed all of the evidence before them, the Sub Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate and proportionate to refuse the application for the promotion of the crime prevention objective.
Decided: Cabinet noted progress on the Investment Zone. It delegated authority to the Director of Development & Growth, after consulting the Cabinet Member for Investment, Employment & Inclusive Growth, the Section 151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer, to finalise and sign a Memorandum of Understanding on retained Non-Domestic Rates (business rates). It approved the response to the Economy & Culture Scrutiny Committee's Place Based Economic Interventions Inquiry. It also delegated authority to the Chief Executive to finalise the Council's participation on the Investment Zone Advisory Board.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the mistakes he had made and emphasised that he had been a responsible driver for nearly thirty years. He believed that he had briefly been distracted on a couple of occasions while chatting to passengers, which led to him not paying enough attention to the speed limit.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had three convictions for speeding, one in a 30mph zone and two in 20mph zones. One was on Greenway Road in Rumney and another on Manor Way. He had not realised that he had to declare each offence to the licensing authority as soon as it happened.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he had 9 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s friend explained that he had made several mistakes in the same spot within just over a week, in an area that he was unfamiliar with.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the offences had all happened in the CF72 area near Llantrisant. He normally worked in the city centre and didn’t know the area very well. He had been caught going 25mph on two occasions and 26mph on the other. He had reported the offences upon renewal, not being aware that he had to before then.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had a conviction for common assault which he failed to declare.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that it had stemmed from a family argument, after which he was arrested for assault. He didn’t feel he had done anything wrong but had been to court and been convicted, having pleaded guilty on the advice of his solicitor. He needed his job to support his family.
Members queried the timeline of events and heard that the assault had occurred in 2021 and he was convicted in 2022. The driver had submitted his renewal application the day after going to court and had not declared the pending conviction, nor had he declared it in 2025 when he renewed his licence. The driver suggested that he had made a mistake and had not intended to hide it.
Members queried a further traffic offence declared on his latest application, and heard that he had been pulled over for going through a red light on Newport Road last year. The driver explained that he didn’t believe the light had been red at the time.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had admitted to making mistakes and served his punishment.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had declared he was disqualified from driving for 6 months.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was ashamed of himself for being there, and that he was a responsible member of the community in Cardiff who respected the city. He had been disqualified from driving due to totting up offences, having been caught speeding twice and failing to comply with a red light. The speeding offences had been for going 28mph in a 20 zone and 37mph in a 30.
Members asked when the disqualification had taken place, and heard that it lasted from July last year until January.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver had 6 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that a friend had been driving him back from Birmingham, but struggled to do the last leg of the journey due to back pain. He wanted to help his friend get home so he drove his car, believing that this was legal because he was fully insured on his own vehicle. He was pulled over for not having his lights on, and found out that he had committed an offence of driving without the correct insurance.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that his friend’s car was a private vehicle rather than a taxi. He had been driving in the UK since 2019 and the offence had happened in 2024.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
Decided: The Committee resolved that the Chair, on its behalf, would write to the Cabinet Member with the Committee's observations and recommendations.
Decided: The Committee resolved that the Chair, on its behalf, would write to the Cabinet Member with the Committee's observations and recommendations.
Decided: The committee granted application 25/02667/FUL for the former civic amenity site on Wedal Road, Cathays, subject to an extra condition. The application is to re-use the site as a waste transfer facility, keep the existing storage shipping containers and site Bulk Carrier Units. The condition requires a scheme to inspect, repair, improve or replace the timber acoustic fence on the eastern boundary. The council must approve the scheme in writing before the site is first used. The works must be finished before first use, and the fence must be kept and maintained for the life of the development. The committee also granted application 26/00425/VAR for the Red Dragon Centre and County Hall, Atlantic Wharf, subject to a Section 106 agreement. This is a legal agreement between the council and a developer that sets out obligations linked to the permission. The application varies conditions 27 (Phasing Plan), 33 (Design Code), 35 (Maximum Height Parameter Plan) and 38 (Use Class Restrictions) of an existing permission. It amends the phasing plans, the land use and the green infrastructure parameters.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
a)
To note the response to the consultation exercise as outlined within the Visitor Levy Proposal;
b)
To implement the Visitor Levy in Cardiff based on the Visitor Levy Proposal and the content outlined in paragraphs 75 to 123;
c)
To delegate authority to the Director of Economic Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Investment & Development to undertake the necessary work to implement the Visitor Levy;
d)
To delegate authority to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Investment & Development to sign the Memorandum of Understanding with UK Hospitality.
RESOLVED: that
1) It be agreed in principle to commence the procurement process for the delivery of the Ely Youth Zone project subject to the full acquisition of the preferred site and in line with the budget strategy outlined at Confidential Appendix 1.
2) authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Investment and Development, the Section 151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer to deal with all aspects of the procurement of a developer to deliver the Ely Youth Zone project as set out at Confidential Appendix 1 and subject to remaining within the financial envelope set out at Confidential Appendix 1.
3) Once fully assembled, a 125-year lease of the Council owned Youth Zone site at a peppercorn rent to the OnSide charity be agreed to.
4) a grant funding agreement with the OnSide charity in relation to the Council revenue contribution for the first 7-years as set out at Confidential Appendix 1 be committed to.
5) the development a detailed utilisation plan with OnSide that will set out how the Council will ensure use of the facility is optimised in the local community, particularly at off-peak times (during normal school hours) through engagement with the Cabinet Member for Housing & Communities, the Cabinet Member for Education, the Cabinet Member for Investment and Development, local members, young people, the Council’s Education Service and the Council’s Youth Service be agreed to.
RESOLVED: that
1) the updated Full Business Case which includes the financial envelope and contingencies for delivery of the new Core Office building based on final fixed costs provided through the procurement process and the PCSA stage as set out at Confidential Appendix 2 be approved.
2) Authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation the Cabinet Member for Investment & Development, the Legal Officer and the Section 151 Officer to:
(i) Enter a Development Agreement with the successful bidder for delivery of the new Core Office building in accordance with the draft contract set out at Confidential Appendix 5 and within the financial envelope set out at Confidential Appendix 2.
(ii) Enter into an Agreement for Lease with the Wales Millenium Centre to enable the delivery of the Capella Production Studio in accordance with the terms set out at Confidential Appendix 3 and, if required, dispose of the asset prior to practical completion
(iii) Manage budgets and appointments relating to the interface works between the Arena and Area A as set out at Confidential Appendix 2.
(iv) Develop final plans for the CAT B fit-out of the new Core Office building including Furniture, Fittings and Equipment (FF&E), ICT infrastructure, the ARC and UTCC infrastructure as set-out at Confidential Appendix 2 in-line with the capped financial envelope set out at Confidential Appendix 2 and to return to Cabinet for final consideration and approval.
RESOLVED: that
1) the strategy set out in the report and at Confidential Appendix 1 for delivery of a permanent car park at the ISV site be approved and authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation the Cabinet Member for Investment & Development, the Legal Officer and the Section 151 Officer to:
a. Deal with all aspects of the procurement of a contractor/energy developer to deliver the car park and any associated energy infrastructure.
b. Deal with all aspects of the disposal of the area of land set out at Confidential Appendix 1 in accordance with independent valuation advice to fund any financial contribution required by the Council following the procurement process set out at (a) above, with a further Cabinet decision required if the scale of Council contribution exceeds the value of this land.
2) a soft market exercise be approved as set out at Confidential Appendix 4 to consider the potential disposal of the Cardiff Ice Arena (CIA) and return to Cabinet to consider the market response.
3) a soft market exercise be approved as set out at Confidential Appendix 4 to consider the external operation and/or disposal of the Cardiff International White Water (CIWW) and return to Cabinet to consider the market response.
4) Subject to approval of the parking strategy at (1) above, the amendment to the Option Agreement with Cardiff Peninsula Consortium Limited to include the land indicated on the plan at Confidential Appendix 2 for the delivery of obligations set out at Confidential Appendix 1 be noted.
5) a disposal or long-term lease of the Toys R Us building to the current sub-tenant of the Cardiff Ice Arena be approved subject to independent valuation advice and in accordance with the draft Heads of Terms attached at Confidential Appendix 5.
6) Subject to the formal agreement of residents, the Council taking ownership of the boardwalk at the ISV site be approved, as illustrated by the plan attached at Appendix 6 and in line with the financial plan outlined at Confidential Appendix 1.
RESOLVED: that
1. support be confirmed, in principle, for the BID renewal proposals 2026-2031, as set out in the report, and Appendix A;
2. the Director of Economic Development be authorised to exercise the Council’s functions in respect of the BID renewal proposals 2026-2031, specifically:
a) To submit the Council’s response to the BID renewal consultation;
b) Upon receipt of the BID renewal proposals, to check the proposals’ compliance with statutory requirements and Council policy; and if satisfied with compliance, to then request the Returning Officer to hold the BID renewal ballot;
c) To cast the Council’s vote/s in the BID renewal ballot in respect of any Council hereditament/s within the BID; and
d) Subject to approval of the BID renewal proposals by ballot, to conclude the draft Operating Agreement for BID Levy collection (Appendix B), subject to legal and financial advice on the terms of the same; and
3. Subject to approval of the BID renewal proposals by ballot, authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and with advice from the Section 151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer, to agree an advance to be paid to the BID operating company, subject to full repayment within the financial year ending 31st March 2027 and agreed terms to be set out within the Operating Agreement (approved under recommendation 2d) above).