Schools, school places and buildings, additional learning needs and Welsh-medium education.
What councils do
Councils run community schools, fund every state school, provide school transport and support pupils with additional learning needs. They plan school places, including Welsh-medium places under a ten-year plan.
Who decides
The Cabinet decides on school changes, such as opening, closing or merging schools, after a formal consultation. Head teachers and governing bodies run each school day to day.
Having a say
Proposals to change a school must be consulted on, and anyone can respond. Parents can also become school governors.
In numbers
Welsh councils plan to spend £1,307 per person on this in 2026-27.
It ranges from £1,099 in Monmouthshire to £1,475 in Merthyr Tydfil.
Year 1 pupils taught in Welsh: 25% across Wales (2025-26).
RESOLVED: that
(i) the update on demand for specialist additional learning needs places be noted.
(ii) Officers be authorised to consult on proposals as outlined in paragraphs 4 and 6.
(iii) Ahead of determination of proposals and Ministerial approval, authority be delegated to the Director of Education & Lifelong Learning in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Education and Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation & Performance, Director Governance & Legal Services and S.151 Officer to proceed with the design, procurement and implementation of refurbishment works to schools summarised in paragraph 4 to urgently provide additional places in the 2026/27 school year.
(iv) Ahead of determination of proposals and Ministerial approval, authority be delegated to the Director of Education & Lifelong Learning in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Education to proceed with the design development of schemes summarised in paragraph 6 that would take effect later than the 2026/27 year, to ensure proposals for the expansion of specialist provision are not delayed.
(v) the negotiations on a site in the northeast of Cardiff to allow the delivery of the expanded Greenhill Special School be noted.
(vi) the potential revenue and capital implications to the Council arising from all proposals be noted.
(vii) the consideration of relocation of T? Storrie Children’s Home be noted.
(viii) It be noted that officers will bring a report on the outcome of the consultation to a future meeting to seek authorisation as to whether to proceed to publish proposals in accordance with section 48 of The School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013.
RESOLVED: that
1) Authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport & Parks, the Section 151 Officer and Director of Governance and Legal Services, to deal with all aspects of the proposed procurement (including determining delivery model, setting the evaluation methodology, commencing procurement and to deal with any ancillary matters) and thereafter to report the outcome at a future Cabinet meeting for approval of award of contracts.
2) It be agreed, subject to interest in the opportunity, to advertise the proposed disposal of the land as indicated within the attached plan at AppendixB, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972 and to report back the outcome at a future Cabinet Meeting.
Cardiff, Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee,
RESOLVED: The Committee agreed to exclude the Public from the meeting at this point. The Youth Council Representative left the room for this part of the item, and the recording of the meeting was paused.
The Open Session resumed.
RESOLVED that the Committee:
· That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward ahead of Cabinet on the 18th December 2025.
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 – T H A T the Statement of Licensing Principles for 2025- 2028, as
detailed be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to there having been no consultation responses received, and to
ensure that the Council fulfilled its statutory duty as a Licensing Authority.
FINAL DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN ANNUAL SELF-ASSESSMENT REPORT 2024/25 (REF)
The Leader presented the report, and highlighted that Members would be aware of
this as it had been shared in draft in a number of areas including a joint Scrutiny
session in July, where recommendations were made, and Governance and Audit
Committee, which recommended the evidence and insight assessment changed
from “Good” to “Fair”, and that it was the role of Council to approve the final report.
Councillor Carroll reflected that considerable improvement needed to be made within
the Council as demonstrated by the change in approach to car parking, and the
change in decision based upon its impact which had generated media attention,
alongside an impact to residents. He believed this was not an isolated incident and
that there needed to be more honesty over performance and believed the report did
not reflect residents’ experiences.
Councillor Dr. Johnson noted that the process had been different this year due to
changes in Scrutiny arrangements, which would need longer to consider its impact,
but reflected that during the Joint Scrutiny session, it was difficult to get into the
detail of approximately 500 RAG ratings. He also shared that during the session, he
had questioned the methodology and moderation, as the achievement was exactly
the same as the target for “Good”, and that despite several indicators being Red, the
assessment remained the same, which supported the feeling of this report being the
Council marking its own homework. He felt that external statistics, such as Welsh
Index of Multiple Deprivation, proved the impact of working, and noted an increased
in the number of LSOAs in the most deprived areas.
A recorded vote was undertaken as below:
Member For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey √
Julie Aviet √
Gareth Ball √
Rhiannon Birch √
Bronwen Brooks √
Gillian Bruce √
Ian Buckley √
Lis Burnett √
Samantha Campbell √
George Carroll √
Christine Cave √
Charles Champion √
Amelia Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Russell Godfrey √
Emma Goodjohn √
Member For Against Abstain
Ewan Goodjohn √
Stephen Haines √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Catherine Iannucci-Williams √
Gwyn John √
Ian Johnson √
Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √
Julie Lynch-Wilson √
Kevin Mahoney √
Naomi Marshallsea √
Michael Morgan √
Jayne Norman √
Helen Payne √
Elliot Penn √
Sandra Perkes √
Ian Perry √
Joanna Protheroe √
Ruba Sivagnanam √
Carys Stallard √
Neil Thomas √
Member For Against Abstain
Rhys Thomas √
Steffan Wiliam √
Margaret Wilkinson √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
Total 29 20 1
RESOLVED – T H A T the Final Draft Vale of Glamorgan Annual Self-Assessment
2024/25 be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the reference and discussions at the meeting.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2026 – HOUSING GROWTH IN BARRY CONSULTATION REPORT (REF)
Councillor Sivagnanam presented the report and noted this was a critical stage in
ensuring there was an up-to-date planning framework which met the needs of
communities. She advised that Members would be aware that the strategy for the
Replacement Local Development Plan was agreed by Full Council in September last
year, and that due to concerns around deliverability, sites at Northwest Barry, land at
Neptune Road and Hayes Lane were being consulted upon. She shared that there
had been 159 individuals and organisations who had made representations, less
than the number when consulting upon Northeast Barry, but still valid concerns.
She reflected that at Place Scrutiny previously residents made powerful and relevant
objections about these sites, and that she recognised concerns surrounding
infrastructure, with specific concerns around increased traffic at Weycock Cross, but
that developers would be required to fund highways improvements to deal with traffic
issues, and that this would be part of the planning process moving forward. She also
noted that there would need to be an increase in school places, and access to health
care, which they were working on the Health Board to explore.
She noted that Barry was the largest and most sustainable settlement in the Vale,
identified as a key settlement in in the RLDP hierarchy and that it was a national
growth area, alongside the need for affordable housing was critical, as there were
around 7,000 households on the Council's housing register with 4,000 expressing a
preference to live in Barry alongside nearly 900 people living in inappropriate
housing in Barry.
Councillor Dr. Johnson indicated that they were not present during the Scrutiny
meeting, but upon review, agreed with Councillor Hooper’s assessments during the
meeting, in supporting the scheme for Neptune Road and noting the lack of facilities
and public transport in the Bendricks. He reflected upon the Weycock Cross
proposal, which he believed to be the most controversial, and shared that the
Conservative Party had previously built around 700 houses into the prospective
Local Development Plan in this area in 2012, and that the Labour Group opposed
this in local media and sought to redistribute this across the Vale. He shared that the
Plaid Cymru Group had concerns about the site for a number of reasons, including
the loss of the green belt, traffic problems, the lack of public transport and likely over-
reliance on cars, so would propose an amendment to remove this scheme from the
proposals. He further noted that the number of people on the housing list was not a
core evidence basis, queried how this would address the 900 individuals in
unsuitable housing in Barry, and why other areas where planning already existed
such as the college site on Colcot Road or Western Gateway were not part of this
proposed scheme.
Councillor Collins shared that they acknowledged the need for housing, there was a
concern over the lack of community facilities, such as shops, doctors and dentists as
a remote part of Barry which was not as well connected, with no buses on a Sunday
or between 7.30am and 4.30pm, meaning people would need to use cars.
Councillor Campbell noted the Cabinet Member’s comments around developers
funding infrastructure improvement, and how Section 106 monies as part of the
development of Golwg Y Mor in Rhoose had been put forward for infrastructure
improvements had been used but were not enough and the Council needed to also
do more to improve this moving forward. She further expressed that Council needed
to take a role in improving active travel and public transport, particularly in the
Western Vale area, as there needed to be consideration as to how these proposals
would impact upon these residents.
Councillor Carroll agreed that the proposed development at Weycock Cross was
problematic and would have an impact upon traffic, which was at capacity, busy all
day and worsened by increasing the number of dwellings. He commented that of 129
representations, all bar 3 signalled opposition to the plan, which he felt they were
right to do so as it was clearly unsuitable for development, and that despite being
less than other sites representations, this still represented a considerable number of
people who the Council should listen to.
Councillor Franks shared that he felt this was being considered due to the failure to
properly assess the Northeast Barry proposal, which included 900 houses, which
failed and had to be withdrawn. He noted that the Labour Party had previously
opposed this site, whilst the Conservative Party had supported it, and believed this
reflected chaos by Cabinet, and that the proposal should be withdrawn.
Councillor Perry raised that at Place Scrutiny Committee, a resident raised concern
about flood water at Weycock Cross and expressed doubt over the robustness of
modelling in terms of flood risk assessment and drainage, and that he felt the
planning system was flawed if the building of more houses resulted in increased
flooding. He further reflected that there would be the need to own cars, and that
there was a need to reduce the dependence on cars to support the climate
emergency and that active travel needed to be properly considered. He finally
commented that increasing developments were seeing more delays and congestion
and that current approaches to mitigation do not work.
Councillor Goodjohn emphasised the need to consider future generations who would
need affordable housing. He reflected that this proposal did not address the need in
the best way possible and that the original proposal did, but this was reduced based
upon representations. He agreed around the need to increase active travel and
public transport but reflected the plan could not address everything right now and
that there was a desperate need for housing in Barry.
Councillor Wilson stated the belief that no-one wanted new homes next to them, and
that a lot of other homes in the area were modern, but that the Council need to
evolve as households and their needs changed. He reflected upon changing
attitudes to transport, including increased usage of electric cars and active travel,
both of which needed to be considered. He shared that the Vale of Glamorgan was a
popular place to live, with demand exceeding supply, and house prices increasing at
rates greater than inflation, and that there was increasing deprivation, and a need to
supply affordable housing. He felt that no viable alternatives had been proposed, so
would support inclusion of this site.
Councillor Sivagnanam responded that this proposal was about the delivery of
affordable homes, with mitigations identified in the report and considered as part of
the ongoing planning process. She reflected that there was a need to balance
housing with the needs of the environment and transport, and felt this proposal
achieved the right balance. She indicated that previous opposition from the Labour
Party was due to the deliverability of the proposal, which she felt to be addressed in
the report, and that whilst there had been representations, there would still be
numerous in Barry who had not been heard who would support the development.
A Recorded Vote was taken to consider the removal of the Weycock Cross site from
the proposals as below:
Member For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey √
Julie Aviet √
Gareth Ball √
Rhiannon Birch √
Bronwen Brooks √
Member For Against Abstain
Gillian Bruce √
Ian Buckley √
Lis Burnett √
Samantha Campbell √
George Carroll √
Christine Cave √
Charles Champion √
Amelia Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Russell Godfrey √
Emma Goodjohn √
Ewan Goodjohn √
Stephen Haines √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Member For Against Abstain
Catherine Iannucci-Williams √
Gwyn John √
Ian Johnson √
Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √
Julie Lynch-Wilson √
Kevin Mahoney √
Naomi Marshallsea √
Michael Morgan √
Jayne Norman √
Helen Payne √
Elliot Penn √
Sandra Perkes √
Ian Perry √
Joanna Protheroe √
Ruba Sivagnanam √
Carys Stallard √
Neil Thomas √
Rhys Thomas
Steffan Wiliam √
Margaret Wilkinson √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
Member For Against Abstain
Total 23 24 2
The amendment was not carried and the debate returned to discussing the original
proposals.
Councillor Mahoney acknowledged the need for housing but felt that building
housing in high density areas with no access to services such as Doctors and
Schools, which had not increased in recent times. He shared that he had lived in the
Bendricks area for 13 years, there were no facilities excluding a café, and a bus
service subsidised by Section 106 monies and that Sully School had not been
upgraded in several years, despite recently losing a significant part of its budget. He
noted that the Bendricks area was cut off from the rest of the area and without
transport apart from walking, which did not suit all situations and urged the Council to
stop building housing in concentrated places without enough services and
infrastructure.
Councillor Ernest stated that very little had changed in Sully in a number of years
apart from increased housing and noted that the development of Sully Hospital had
been beneficial in providing several new homes, but that there was limited public
transport, which tended to run infrequently. He added that building more housing on
Hayes Road would not lead to the services needed such as medical facilities,
doctors and shops, and that if residents did not own a car, they would struggle with
everyday tasks.
The Leader acknowledged that in relation to infrastructure, there were things that the
Council was responsible for and things it was not responsible for, and that the role of
Council was to often lobby and negotiate on behalf of people, as demonstrated by
the Health hub at Western Gate and the lobbying of the health board for Eagleswell
in Llantwit Major. She also noted that whilst the Council had limited funding for bus
services, there were two services which covered the Bendricks (88 and 94), and that
when she used the bus, residents often commented positively on the Council
housing which had been built in the area. She further stated that the area did not
have an abundance of green fields to be built upon, so sites were invited to be
considered as part of the LDP, with the Council considering most appropriate based
upon the agreed strategy. The Leader emphasised that today’s proposals were
about supporting people into the right accommodation, supporting people in looking
towards their futures, and made no apologies in allocating these sites as they
supported people with affordable housing.
Councillor Perkes shared that they felt the Bendricks was becoming more of a
community, with a development planned in partnership with Cardiff Council and
Lovell Homes, containing affordable homes which were built to Welsh Housing
Quality Standards. She noted concerns around lack of services but shared that
services would grow as the population grew.
Councillor Perry noted that increasing house prices were global issue, with housing
becoming an investment which profited few people, and that the problem was not
about the supply of housing, but the financing of housing. He reflected that building
costs had increased alongside labour so there was inflation built into the system
impacting upon their affordability. He sought clarification as to what was meant by
inappropriate housing as he felt no definition was provided and would welcome
similar detail surrounding the housing waiting list. He also challenged Members to
further consider the environmental impacts upon the increased housing, as climate
risks were increasing, and re-emphasised the point to invest in the transport network
and subsidise public transport to be accessible and reduce the dependent on cars.
Councillor Wilson stated that the Replacement Local Development Plan went
through a detailed process with planning professionals, with sites tested upon their
viability. He reflected that Transport for Wales were spending approximately £1
billion on electrification and new stations in Wales, and that the Council were bidding
for stations. He noted that he felt the area was a great place to live, an amazing
destination, and that he was a product of Council housing. He shared that the
Council needed a legal basis to defend things which were outside of the RLDP, and
that when it came to looking at the viability for these sites, it was essential that
facilities were considered.
Councillor John acknowledged the need for housing, particularly in the Western
Vale, and welcomed the Leader’s work in lobbying the Health Board to improve
medical services in the area which were oversubscribed, but suggested Welsh
Government needed to intervene to push the development of health care provision,
as the Council needed to consider facilities when trying to develop and build
communities.
Councillor Hodges indicated that the Weycock Cross development was not about
social housing, but a commercial venture, and that when considering the Bendricks
area, he did not believe the view that facilities would follow housing as services were
reducing generally. He reflected on the Waterfront development, which was
previously proposed as a potential hotel, and believed this to be a failure of the
Council to promote Barry as a tourist destination, which would have a broader
economic benefit. He also noted that he believed that developers had shafted the
Council for a number of years and that it needed to be better in standing up to big
business.
Councillor Sivagnanam responded that the Housing Development team were holding
pre-application consultations and invited Members and residents to participate in
these moving forward to make their views clear. She emphasised that this was
national growth area and there was a need for housing, particularly affordable homes
in Barry, and failure to agree could leave the Council vulnerable to speculative
applications.
A further Recorded Vote took place on all three of the original recommendations as
presented within the report:
Member For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey √
Julie Aviet √
Gareth Ball √
Rhiannon Birch √
Bronwen Brooks √
Gillian Bruce √
Ian Buckley √
Lis Burnett √
Samantha Campbell √
George Carroll √
Christine Cave √
Charles Champion √
Amelia Collins √
Marianne Cowpe √
Pamela Drake √
Vincent Driscoll √
Anthony Ernest √
Robert Fisher
Christopher Franks √
Wendy Gilligan √
Russell Godfrey √
Emma Goodjohn √
Ewan Goodjohn √
Member For Against Abstain
Stephen Haines √
Sally Hanks √
William Hennessy √
Nic Hodges √
Mark Hooper √
Catherine Iannucci-Williams √
Gwyn John √
Ian Johnson √
Belinda Loveluck-Edwards √
Julie Lynch-Wilson √
Kevin Mahoney √
Naomi Marshallsea √
Michael Morgan √
Jayne Norman √
Helen Payne √
Elliot Penn √
Sandra Perkes √
Ian Perry √
Joanna Protheroe √
Ruba Sivagnanam √
Carys Stallard √
Neil Thomas √
Rhys Thomas
Member For Against Abstain
Steffan Wiliam √
Margaret Wilkinson √
Eddie Williams √
Mark Wilson √
Nicholas Wood √
Total 26 22 1
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the contents of the report be noted.
(2) T H A T the actions set out in the Consultation Report be endorsed.
(3) T H A T the inclusion of the three potential housing sites as allocations in the
Deposit Replacement Local Development Plan (RLDP) be approved.
Reasons for decisions
(1&2) To outline to Members the issues raised during the public consultation
exercise on Housing Growth in Barry.
(3 ) To allow officers to progress with the preparation of the Deposit RLDP.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT MID-YEAR REPORT 2025/26 (REF)
The Leader presented the regular update of the Council’s Treasury Management
approach and highlighted that the report noted economic factors driving the UK
economy alongside forecasts, and that there were no policy changes as of 30th
September, 2025. She further noted the Council’s capital expenditure and prudential
indicators were included in Appendix A, and that the investment portfolio listed the
investments as £51.775 million as of 30th September, 2025, up from £17.19 million in
April 2025. She shared that there was an average interest rate of 4.22% this year,
which meant there was approximately £1.19 million interest accrued that the new
external borrowing was at £6 million at an average rate of 4.56%, and that this was
borrowed at shorter terms of up to 7 years, so it could be reborrowed if rates were to
decrease. She further noted that the Council were prudent in terms of borrowing and
investments and had not considered any debt rescheduling opportunities this year to
date due to current interest rates.
RESOLVED – T H A T the Treasury Management Annual Report for the period
2025/26 be approved
Reason for decision
To update Council surrounding the Council’s approach to Treasury Management.
REVIEW OF THE VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL’S PETITION SCHEME (REF)
The Leader presented the report and advised that the previous Petition Scheme had
been considered by Council in 2022, and that this was a requirement under the Local
Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 to produce a scheme which considered
how a petition could be submitted, who could submit a petition, how and by when the
Council acknowledged receipt and how the Council responded.
Councillor Dr. Johnson stated that he felt the petitions process was quite difficult for
ordinary members of the public to use, and that awareness needed to be raised as
only 3 petitions had been submitted in 3 years, with only 1 reaching the threshold,
and shared how it had worked positively when looking at School crossings. He noted
that the Council needed to ensure that that there was an need to promoted
awareness of this process to the public as to how they could get involved, to which
the Leader responded that there was a need to ensure Vale residents were
signatories, and as outlined within the report, the platform for this was being
reviewed to be more user friendly as it was important to engage more effectively and
through the most appropriate means.
RESOLVED – T H A T the revised Vale of Glamorgan Council’s Petition Scheme be
approved.
Reason for decision
To update the Council’s approach to fulfilling statutory legislation relating to petitions
from the public.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN REPLACEMENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (RLDP) 2021-2026 – HOUSING GROWTH IN BARRY CONSULTATION REPORT (REF)
RESOLVED – T H A T the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure (Cabinet Minute
No. C69, 17th July, 2025 (as set out in Section 15.14.2(ii) of the Council’s
Constitution) be noted.
Reason for decision
The reporting of the use of the Urgent Decision Procedure is a requirement of the
Council’s Constitution.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T a zero-tolerance approach to gender-based violence across all
policies and public spaces be adopted.
(2) T H A T training be strengthened so staff can identify and respond to abusive
behaviour and coercive control.
(3) T H A T education on consent, healthy relationships and gender equality be
supported, ensuring safe and accessible reporting routes.
(4) T H A T the Council calls for sustainable national funding for VAWG support
services.
(5) T H A T the White Ribbon accreditation to demonstrate commitment to
positive change, supporting gender equality and ending gender-based violence be
renewed.
Reason for decisions
(1-5) Having regard to the vote being carried on the Motion.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED:
1.
To approve the new appointments of Local Authority governors to the school governing bodies as set out in Appendix 1, each for a term of 4 years from the date of the appointment, in accordance with the recommendations of the Local Authority Governor Panel.
RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to appoint the following persons to current Local Authority Governing Body vacancies as follows:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Applications
Received
Baden Powell Primary School
Splott
03/02/2025
Bryn Deri Primary School
Radyr &
Morganstown
01/10/2024
Helen Francis
Cardiff West Community
High School x 2
Caerau
31/12/2024
15/10/2024
Ffederasiwn y Ddraig x2
Trowbridge
26/06/2025
06/10/2025
Glyncoed Primary School
Pentwyn
03/09/2025
Greenhill School
Rhiwbina
02/072025
Hywel Dda Primary School x 2
Ely
30/06/2025
03/09/2025
Lakeside Primary School
Cyncoed
01/09/2021
Ann Griffith
Lansdowne Primary School
Canton
01/09/2025
Pentyrch Primary School
Pentyrch & St
Fagans
23/10/2024
Peter Lea Primary School
Fairwater
13/10/2025
Springwood Primary School
Pentwyn
16/05/2025
Marinela Zagorscak
St Cuthbert’s RC Primary School
Butetown
09/092025
Marie Haggett
St Francis RC Primary School
Ely
07/03/2025
St Mellons C.I.W Primary School
Pontprennau & Old St Mellons
02/11/2025
Stacey Primary School
Adamsdown
26/02/2025
Hannah Morgan
The Saints Federation
Pentwyn
09/09/2025
Ton -Yr -Ywen Primary School
Heath
02/10/2025
Cllr Mike Ash-Edwards
Whitchurch Primary School
Whitchurch & Tongwynlais
18/09/2025
Shubnam Aziz
Willows High School
Splott
29/09/2024
Ysgol Glan Ceubal
LLandaff North
01/07/2025
John Fury
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Bro Edern
Penylan
01/05/2025
Cllr Imran Latif
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf
Llandaff North
01/05/2025
Ysgol Gymraeg Pwll Coch x 2
Canton
11/03/2025
25/06/2025
Deferred
Ysgol Gynradd Groes-Wen Primary School
Pentyrch &
St Fagans
31/01/2025
Ysgol Gynradd Gymraeg Hamadryad
Butetown
01/05/2025
Huw Williams
Ysgol Pencae
Llandaff
12/09/2024
Ysgol Y Wern
Llanishen
01/08/2025
The Committee received and considered applications to future vacancies against criteria, matching skills to vacancies. RESOLVED – That the Council be recommended to approve the recommendations of the Panel to
appoint the following:
School Name
Ward
Start of Vacancy
Re-appointment
New Application Received
Albany Primary School
Plasnewydd
28/01/2026
Deferred
Ely and Caerau Children's Centre
Ely
26/11/2025
Bryony Lanham
Grangetown Primary School
Grangetown
26/11/2025
Pencaerau Primary School
Caerau
28/01/2026
Peter Lea Primary School
Fairwater
26/01/2026
Philip Bond
Radyr Comprehensive School
Radyr & Morganstown
26/01/2026
Caroline Taylor
Radnor Primary School
Canton
26/11/2025
20/12/2025
St Mary The Virgin C.I.W Primary School
Butetown
28/01/2026
Vanessa Leyshon
St Peter's R.C Primary School
Plasnewydd
22/02/2026
Cllr Mary McGarry
The Western Learning Campus
Caerau
08/01/2026
08/01/2026
Bianca Rees
Cllr Peter Bradbury
Ton-Yr-Ywen Primary School
Heath
28/01/2026
Willows High School
Splott
31/01/2026
Cllr Edward Stubbs
Ysgol Y Wern
Llanishen
28/01/2026
Cllr Bethan Proctor
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that he refused to engage his meter or accept a card payment.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he was working on the night of the alleged incident but stressed that he never refused to use the meter as he knew it was the law.
He acknowledged that the vehicle in the picture provided was his, but felt it showed that he wasn’t at the front of the rank. He did not recognise the witness as he took many fares every night. It was clarified that the witness’ statement said that the photo was of the driver leaving the rank rather than being parked there.
The driver added that he had been a taxi driver for nearly thirty years and was now a senior citizen, and followed the rules of the taxi rank. He had been a community leader for many years too. He rejected the suggestion in the witness’ statement that he had demanded £10 up front for a short fare, and refused payment by card. He emphasised that he had been driving taxis for a long time and wouldn’t risk his livelihood for a couple of pounds.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he preferred to take payment up front when people wanted to pay by card, and refunded them at the destination if the final total was less. This was in case the card was declined at the end of the journey, and he asked politely rather than demanding it. Members suggested that while asking for a small deposit was reasonable, taking the whole fare in advance was not.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he caught taxis regularly because he worked in town. He often had issues with taxi drivers who either didn’t let him pay by card or tried to charge him to take his suitcase, but things had gotten better since the taxi wardens came in. On the night in question, he was directed to the vehicle by the warden and asked to go to Grangetown. After he had put his bags in the boot, the driver told him it would be £10.
The witness added that he immediately asked to use the meter instead because the normal fare was about £8, and the driver refused. He also said that he’d be paying by card, and the driver said ‘no card or no journey’. The witness decided that it wasn’t worth it and said he’d report him, got his bags out of the boot and took a photo of the taxi licence plate. He explained this to the taxi warden too, and they went to speak to the driver, who then left the rank.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he normally had a glass of wine after work, but only one. He also clarified that he had only added that he wanted to pay by card after the driver had refused to use the meter.
The driver denied the witness’ statement entirely and suggested that he didn’t allow passengers to put their bags in the boot before they had spoken at the window and agreed a fare. He was sure that he had not refused to use the meter or take a card payment, and did not recall the taxi warden speaking to him. Members asked how he could be sure of any of this if he didn’t remember the incident.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(2)
Application 2
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had committed three speeding offences in 2023, which he had declared on his renewal application. Two of the offences had happened on the same day in February 2023, the day after he had received some bad personal news which had distracted him from his driving.
Members asked why he had only declared the offences upon renewal in August 2025. The driver responded that he wasn’t aware that was part of the conditions of his licence, but knew now.
Members asked if he had received any support during the difficult time in his personal life, and how he would react to similar circumstances now. The driver explained that it was hard to stop working for more than a day or two, but he would go and see his doctor if it was really affecting him.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been a taxi driver since 2008 and took the responsibilities of his role seriously, and treated the public with respect. He understood the authority’s concern over his fitness due to his speeding offences but felt he was a fit and proper person to drive a taxi.
The driver explained that two of the offences were at the same location, when the speed limit on a road near him had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He acknowledged that it was his responsibility to ensure he was aware of all speed limits, and added that he had been driving privately rather than with a passenger in his taxi on all three occasions. He also added that he had received a previous complaint about parking, when he was in a rush to get to his mosque and parked on private property nearby.
He understood the council’s policy on taxi licensing and hoped that it could be taken into account that all three offences had occurred in a short period of time, between December 2024 and April 2025. He didn’t want to make excuses but had been going through a particularly stressful time. He was familiar with the roads in Cardiff and felt he was a safe driver who treated his customers well and undertook school run contracts. He was working to support his wife and children, and asked that the Sub Committee give him another chance.
Members asked whether the driver had notified his insurance company about the points, and heard that he had.
The driver’s solicitor added that he believed his client had addressed the licensing authority’s concerns, and that on balance he was a fit and proper person to continue driving a taxi. Two of the speeding offences had occurred in the same area within a week of each other, which he felt offered some mitigation as the driver might not have been aware of the first offence when the second happened. He had driven taxis for 17 years, and there had been no further issues of any kind since the third speeding offence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared ten penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that one of the speeding offences had been in Pontypridd in in December last year, when the weather was very bad. He had only recently started driving taxis again after renting them out for some time.
Members queried why one of the offences had resulted in four penalty points rather than the usual three. The driver was not sure, adding that he only became aware of it when he came to renew. He didn’t go to court and had not yet paid the fine, but would do so because he accepted that he was speeding.
Members asked if he had paid the previous fine as well. The Legal Officer clarified that both convictions were on the same day, so he would have received the fines at the same time.
Members queried the previous complaints the driver had received regarding the condition of vehicles for which he was the proprietor. The Legal Officer clarified that previous complaints were not relevant to this hearing.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had unintentionally driven a car without insurance, not realising that he was not covered to do so. He had two different types of insurance from the same company, one of which was fine to drive the vehicle and the other one that wasn’t. It was a stupid mistake and one that wouldn’t happen again. He had been driving since 2017 and this was the first issue he’d had.
The Chair clarified that due to a recent change in the law he would not be able to drive any car regardless of comprehensive insurance, only the named vehicle.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he now had six points as three had expired in August. The offences had occurred in 2022 and 2023, and two of them were in 20mph zones when he had been going under 30mph. He had since upgraded his car to one with a speed limiter that was easier to keep within the limit.
He didn’t feel he was a reckless driver and had not had any other incidents in the last two years, and had declared the offences on his renewal application. He understood that it was his responsibility to stick to the rules and ensure he was aware when they changed.
Members asked why he didn’t declare the convictions until 2024. The driver responded that he didn’t realise he had to at the time.
The driver clarified that he did have a BTEC qualification, contrary to the papers provided, and was first issued a taxi licence in 1999 rather than 1980.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared six penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he used to buy and re-sell cars, and was in Caerphilly at the time. His car was slightly damaged so he used a different one for the journey, and made sure to get himself insured on it. He forgot to take himself off the insurance, and the car was later used by someone else who was caught speeding. He was advised that he was unlikely to win the case in court as he didn’t know who the driver was, so he accepted the punishment. However, he was able to show that he was in Wolverhampton and not where the offence was committed.
Members explained that the Sub Committee was only able to go on what the court had said. Members asked if the offence had taken place in his taxi, and heard that it hadn’t.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(9)
Application 9
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared nine penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had had a clean licence for many years but had received nine points in the last six months. He worked for Uber and got a job through on the app, taking a fare to town via Cathedral Road. He was then offered a job on Westgate Street and did a U-turn, and his phone fell on the floor of his vehicle because the holder was broken. When his car was stopped at a red light, he leant down and picked up the phone to put it back in the holder. A cyclist next to him recorded this on a camera on their helmet, and reported him for using his phone while driving.
He had tried to fight the decision but the authorities told him that he should have known better as a professional driver. He emphasised that he never used his phone while driving, and didn’t even answer it over Bluetooth when he had a passenger. He felt it would have been much riskier to leave the phone on the floor as it was connected to a charger and the cable was next to the pedals. The court had made their judgement and fined him more than £700. He went to a solicitor who advised that he was unlikely to win on appeal, so he took the points and the fine.
Members queried the second offence, which the driver clarified was for doing 26mph in a 20mph zone in Coryton. Members asked what he would do if the same thing happened again, and heard that he would pull over and turn the engine off before touching his phone.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(10)
Application 10
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared 24 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver apologised for the number of points and explained that he wasn’t working as a taxi driver since 2017. He had a job in Cwmbran and his daily commute was on the M4, and at the time he didn’t realise that the limit had changed to 50mph. He tended to rush home at 8pm each day to see his child before bed, and was clocked numerous times going between 50mph and 70mph in the 50mph zone.
He added that the letters making him aware of this went to the transport manager of the company he worked for, because the vehicle was registered to the company, and he wasn’t told. He argued his case in court and was given a total of 31 points, seven of which had since expired. He apologised for the offences and noted that in court the judge had not deemed him to be a dangerous driver. His insurance costs had gone up hugely since.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that all the offences were caught by the same camera on the M4. He had renewed his licence several times since 2017 as a backup in case he lost his job. He had not declared the offences when they happened because he wasn’t driving his taxi at the time, so it didn’t occur to him to inform the licensing authority. He added that he had not received any complaints from members of the public when he was driving taxis between 2011 and 2017, and felt he was a fit and proper person.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(11)
Application 11
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T Katy Williams be appointed to the post of Head of Additional
October 27 Minutes and DN (JLT)
Learning Needs.
(2) T H A T residual appointment details be delegated, as appropriate, to the
Chief Executive, in consultation with the Director of Learning and Skills.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Following the interviews of the candidates by the Committee.
(2) To ensure that all Council functions were met within this area.
October 27 Minutes and DN (JLT)
Vale of Glamorgan, Senior Management Appointment Committee,
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T interviews be undertaken under Part II of the agenda in relation to
the post of Head of Additional Learning Needs and for Elected Members of the
Committee to make a final determination to appoint a suitable candidate.
(2) T H A T residual appointment details be delegated, as appropriate, to the
Chief Executive, in consultation with the Director of Learning and Skills, should a
suitable applicant be confirmed by Elected Members of the Committee.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To ensure an appointment to the post was conducted in accordance with
the Council's Constitution.
(2) To ensure that all Council functions were met within this area.
Swansea, Armed Forces Community Covenant Signatories Panel,