Roads, potholes, parking, buses, cycling, walking and speed limits.
What councils do
Councils look after local roads and pavements, street lights, parking and road safety, and support bus services that wouldn't run otherwise. Motorways and trunk roads are the Welsh Government's.
Who decides
The Cabinet member for transport leads. Traffic orders, such as new speed limits or parking restrictions, are advertised before they're made.
Having a say
Report potholes and broken street lights to the council or through FixMyStreet. You can object to a proposed traffic order during its notice period.
In numbers
Welsh councils plan to spend £107 per person on this in 2026-27.
It ranges from £62 in Vale of Glamorgan to £166 in Anglesey.
People killed or seriously injured on the roads: 38 per 100,000 people across Wales (2025).
Decided: These were: 26/01245/FUL, change of use of Red Balloon Nursery, Circle Way East, Llanedeyrn, to a house in multiple occupation (HMO); 26/00906/FUL, a discount retail foodstore with access, parking, lighting, landscaping and drainage at Plot A, Wern Fawr Lane, Old St Mellons; and 26/01647/HSE, a single storey rear extension at 61 St Anthony Road, Heath. For the foodstore, Condition 5 was changed as set out in the Amendment Sheet. It now requires a scheme to divert the public sewer crossing the site to be approved in writing before any development starts. The scheme must be completed before the store is used, and its protection measures must be kept in place permanently.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had declared a major motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that in 2020, he had been the second driver on his cousin’s car, so he could help him with his work while studying at university. His cousin made a mistake typing the vehicle registration number so he wasn’t correctly insured.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be granted.
(2)
Application 2 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 License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver refused the fare of a wheelchair user.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver referred to the statement he had submitted. He had arrived at the rank and was approached by the marshal when it was his turn. The marshal immediately said that he didn’t have sufficient wheelchair access and directed the passengers to another cab. The driver emphasised that he did not refuse disabled customers, and that a folded-down wheelchair would fit in his vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses explained that they had approached the rank and waited until they were next in line to get a taxi. They spoke to the driver and asked to put the wheelchair in, and he said he didn’t have room. They noticed that he had seats up in the boot to take additional passengers, so they asked if he could fold them down. He said he wasn’t able to do this, so one of the passengers disclosed that she worked for Shared Regulatory Services and knew what taxi drivers were required to do. The marshal came over and spoke to him, before taking them to a different taxi which took them home.
Members asked if there was a conversation between the marshal and the driver. One of the witnesses confirmed that there was but she hadn’t heard it. The Licensing Enforcement Officer added that after she received the initial complaint she had contacted the driver, who gave her the telephone number of the marshal. She rang the marshal, who told her over the phone that he was unaware that every taxi had to take a wheelchair, and thought it was only specially adapted vehicles that could. She had only been able to speak to him once since then, when he agreed to provide a statement which was very short on detail. His statement only said that he didn’t recall it very well and didn’t remember the driver.
The driver added that only a few seconds passed between the marshal coming up to him and taking the customers to a different taxi.
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 License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was illegally parked and swore at a member of the public.
The complainant was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative noted that the complainant had not witnessed anyone being picked up or dropped off, and that the driver had provided a screenshot of the Veezu booking in response to this. He added that the customer had come out of their house and got into the car, at which point the driver realised there was a safeguarding issue with them.
The driver’s representative added that due to the nature of the customer, the driver had waited for a few minutes after dropping them off to ensure they were alright. It was a difficult area to park in and he acknowledged that it was not ideal to have to wait there, but he was only there for a few minutes. He emphasised that his client had not used the language he was accused of, and that he understood the responsibilities of a professional driver.
Members asked what conversation had taken place, and heard that the driver assumed at first the complainant was his passenger, and asked him what was wrong. The complainant had knocked on his window twice before taking a photo.
Members noted that he had been parked on double yellow lines, and asked if he had his engine or hazard lights on to show he was only there temporarily. The driver responded that his engine was on but not his indicator or hazards. He understood that yellow lines were there for a reason, but sometimes it was the only way to pick up and drop off quickly.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(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 a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was illegally parked and swore at a member of the public.
The complainant was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he worked for Veezu and took a job on Bishops Road. The address didn’t include a number so he pulled in and phoned the customer, then someone knocked on the window and told him he was parked on double yellows. He didn’t answer at first because he was on the phone, but the person knocked again and took a photo. As the driver pulled away to pick up the customer, he told the complainant his name and called him a dickhead.
The driver added that although he admitted to swearing, he didn’t feel the complainant’s statement was entirely accurate. He was accused of having said ‘you’re one of those pricks’ when he was first approached, but he had been on the phone at the time and hadn’t said anything. He accepted that he should not have used bad language towards a member of the public.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had been parked for about three minutes in total, and was on the phone to the customer for most of that time. He wasn’t sure if his indicators or hazards were on, but his engine was running and he was clearly not permanently parked.
The driver’s friend added that the photo submitted by the complainant showed that there was plenty of space on the road, and that the driver was not blocking any entrances or preventing anyone else from getting through. He had driven taxis for almost thirty years with no blemishes on his record.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver parked in a disabled bay and swore at a member of the public.
The driver and complainant were not in attendance.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(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 been the subject of an immediate revocation of his Cardiff Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence following an allegation of sexual assault and false imprisonment, and in respect of which the Licensing Authority had subsequently been notified by South Wales Police that there would be no further action.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative explained that the driver understood why his licence had been revoked when the information first came to light. He had been working as a taxi driver for just over a year when he was arrested, after providing regular lifts for free to several young women. The representative felt that the allegations against the driver were false, and suggested that he was a victim who had lost his livelihood as a result of his naivety. He was appealing his revocation but this was a long and expensive process, so he was re-applying to make the case that he was a fit and proper person.
Members noted that the driver’s statement acknowledged that he had engaged in sexual activity in his taxi but emphasised that it had been consensual. The driver explained that he hadn’t been working that night and wasn’t on duty, although he was in his licensed vehicle. He had intended to work, but he had then been contacted by the alleged victim, and had picked her up instead. Members queried whether activities that took place in a taxi while it was being used for private purposes were relevant to their assessment of fitness and propriety, which the Legal Officer clarified that they were.
Members asked how the driver came to know the alleged victim, and heard that they met through a friend after exchanging messages. The evening in question was the first time they had met. The driver’s representative suggested that his client had been gullible and foolish, and felt that he had been the victim on this occasion. The driver added that he had made a mistake and regretted it.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused.
(8)
Item 8 was deferred to the next meeting.
(9)
Item 9 was deferred to the next meeting.
Decided: The committee resolved that the Chair will write to the Cabinet Member on its behalf, setting out the comments and observations from the discussion. The minute records no other decision.
Decided: It refused 26/00051/FUL, for repair, alteration and extension of Rainbow Bargain Ltd, Bangor Street, with external landscaping and a change of use to a flexible mixed-use development. It refused 26/01181/FUL, for a bungalow on land adjacent to 1 Whitland Close, Fairwater. It granted listed building consent (permission for works to a listed building) for 26/00052/LBC at Bangor Street, subject to conditions. An advisory note says planning permission has not been granted for the external alterations and extensions, so no such works are authorised unless and until it is granted.
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.
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 complaints had been received relating to inappropriate sexual language used towards female passengers.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he didn’t remember the particular passengers who had complained, having driven thousands of people around, and didn’t feel there was any evidence against him that was strong enough to merit any consequences. Responding to questions from Members, he explained that he felt the incidents didn’t happen and that the complaints were false feedback. He had a dashcam but it deleted footage after 24 hours so he couldn’t prove otherwise.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the first witness explained that she had ordered an Uber from Cardiff Central. The driver was pleasant and chatty at first but then asked if she was rich and called her a ‘high value woman’. He said she was very attractive, then talked about his own sexual experience and made suggestive comments about her body.
Members asked if the experience had affected her confidence in getting taxis. The witness explained that she had made the complaint because she didn’t want it to happen to other people. It was the first bad experience she had had with Uber, and it made her question how they monitored their drivers. She felt that he was using his job to try to pick up women, and that young women could not feel safe and comfortable in his taxi.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the second witness explained that she had booked a short journey with Uber because she was running late, but the driver went a very long way around and took a while to get there. They chatted about normal things at first but then the driver asked if she was a lesbian. She said no, and he said that must mean she would like his dick. She reported this to Uber at the time, and emphasised that he should not be allowed to drive young women around.
The driver added that he didn’t recognise either witness, and asked if they had any video or audio evidence. The Chair clarified that Members would take the witness statements from all parties into account when making their decision. The second witness added that she had spoken to friends about it as soon as she got to their house.
The driver added that he was married with children and had no intention of harassing women in his taxi. He felt that Uber did not care about drivers, as it didn’t have a process like the Sub Committee where he could make his case in response to complaints. He drove for Bolt and Veezu too without any issues.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(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 stating that he parked his licensed vehicle in a bay subject to a temporary suspension, failed to comply promptly with instructions from authorised personnel to move his vehicle, and behaved in an aggressive and confrontational manner.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had driven taxis for 20 years and was used to major events. He was on Fitzhamon Embankment when someone in a high-vis came over and said ‘bloody taxis think they can park anywhere’, which he felt was rude. He wound his window down and spoke to the official, who said he was going to get him sacked.
Members asked whether the driver accepted that he had parked in a temporarily suspended bay. The driver acknowledged that he had. The whole street was normally temporary parking but the cones were moved depending on the event. What he disputed was the witness’ suggestion that he had been rude and aggressive. Members asked how long it had taken him to move after he was asked, which the driver felt was about 5 minutes.
Members asked why he had been on that particular street, which the driver explained because he lived close by. He had been waiting for a resident to pull out so he could use the resident bay. He pulled into a pay and display bay which was suspended for the day because of the rugby, and wasn’t picking up or dropping off a passenger.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he had worked in Transport Services for more than 30 years, and was doing his usual walkabout to make sure the road was safe for buses to pick up and park. Two council officials had asked the driver to move, and he had told them to ‘piss off’ and to mind their own business. The witness went over to the driver himself, who refused to move several more times, so he told him he would be reported. He estimated that 15 minutes passed in total before the driver finally moved.
Members asked how the traffic management system worked on major event days. The witness explained that he and other officers tried to keep vehicles away to ensure that buses could safely park and pick up, but taxis refusing to leave was a recurring issue that affected public safety. The driver would only have been allowed into the coned off area by Clare Gardens if he lived there or was dropping off a passenger who did. Even if he lived there, he should have moved when asked.
The driver suggested that it wouldn’t have made sense for him to refuse to move, when he could lose his licence if Transport Services made a complaint. He lived in the area, and reiterated that he would have moved if asked. He had just been waiting for a residential parking bay to open up, and hadn’t sworn at anyone.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License 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 License given that he had been disqualified from driving for six months.
(Cllr Driscoll left his seat as a member of the Sub Committee for this item in accordance with his prejudicial interest.)
The driver was not in attendance.
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 he had six penalty points on his driving licence which he had not declared to the licensing authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that while coming from Newport towards Rover Way, tried to turn left and was caught by a red light. He didn’t receive a letter about this, and only found out when he was given six points for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver.
Members asked why he hadn’t received the letter, and why he hadn’t reported the points to the licensing authority. The driver explained that his post often went to a neighbour whose house had the same number, and he hadn’t realised at the time that he was obligated to report any offences to the council.
Responding to questions from Members, the Legal Officer clarified that the £660 fine was likely due to the driver not attending court.
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 he had six penalty points on his driving licence which he had not declared to the licensing authority.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received 6 points on his licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver after being caught speeding on Manor Way, after the limit had changed from 40mph to 30mph. He had received a letter about the offence but didn’t respond, and plead guilty to this in court.
Members asked why he had failed to report the points. The driver explained that he wasn’t aware at the time of the obligation to report them to the licensing authority, but was now.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(6)
Application 6 was deferred to the next meeting.
(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 declared a major motoring conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received 12 points for driving without the correct insurance on two occasions. The first time, he had been pulled over while driving a friend’s car. He had third party insurance and thought that was enough. The second time, he was driving a new car and believed that his insurance would carry over, but had not informed his insurer of the change of vehicle.
The driver added that he also had a conviction for driving with a defective tyre, after being pulled over for a broken brake light. The two insurance offences had led to a six-month disqualification from driving in 2024.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of 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 convictions contrary to the guidance and had previously had his licence revoked by Cardiff Council.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been convicted of domestic abuse in 2013. He had worked hard since arriving in the country and felt he now had a good reputation and had demonstrated good character. He had worked as a mechanic for many years but wasn’t able to do tough physical work any more and wanted to drive taxis instead.
Members asked about the circumstances of his conviction. The applicant explained that he had been convicted of domestic abuse after pushing his wife, and during the probation was prohibited from contacting her. He wasn’t aware of this and sent her a letter asking to see his daughter, not realising that this wasn’t allowed.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be approved.
(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 motoring convictions and criminal convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant felt he was a fit and proper person to drive taxis, and that he had learned from his experiences. He had been fined and disqualified from driving for six months in 2025 for totting up points. This was partly due to receiving six points for failing to provide details of the driver, after an offence was committed while he was out of the country getting married, and he believed someone else had been driving his car.
Members asked whether the offence had been committed in his own vehicle. The applicant explained that it was, though it was hired from the fleet operator. He was registered as the vehicle operator but was on holiday at the time, so someone else must have been driving it. He didn’t know at the time that he could appeal the conviction, as he was trying to cope with a lot of different things and didn’t fully grasp what was going on with the case.
The applicant explained that another offence related to school runs, when the private fleet operator who hired him assigned him to specific school runs that he wasn’t qualified for or comfortable doing. He also explained that he had been convicted of possession with intent to supply Class C drugs in 2008. This was many years ago, and he had been young and stupid and felt he was a very different person now.
Members queried the circumstances of one of the motoring offences, which related to using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. The applicant clarified that this involved a personal vehicle rather than a taxi. It had a mechanical fault and he put temporary insurance on it, which he thought covered six hours, but he did this in a rush on the phone so may have made a mistake.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be refused.
Decided: 5a (26/00051/FUL), Rainbow Bargain Ltd, Bangor Street, Roath: deferred for reasons for refusal. The reason given is the overbearing relationship of the proposed extension to a neighbouring home, contrary to Policy KP5 of the adopted Local Development Plan 2016. 5b (26/00052/LBC), the listed building consent for the same site: listed under the same deferred heading, with no separate reasons recorded. 5c (26/00518/FUL), housing on land south of Willowbrook Drive, Trowbridge, St Mellons: granted subject to a Section 106 agreement. 5d (26/00577/FUL), an 11-apartment supported living complex at the former Ely Housing Office site: granted. 5e (26/01163/HSE), a garden room replacing a shed at 30 Hazelhurst Road, Llandaff North: granted.
Decided: Cabinet approved the Workplace Parking Levy as the preferred option to take forward to a Full Business Case (the next, more detailed stage of assessment, called WelTAG Stage 3). It approved public consultation and more stakeholder engagement on the full range of options. It approved officers working with Welsh Government officers on regulations under the Transport Act 2000. It noted that a further report will go to Cabinet and Full Council for a final decision.
Decided: Cabinet approved buying the land and buildings at 62-64 Crwys Road once completed, in line with the Heads of Terms in Confidential Appendix 1a. This is subject to the pre-condition in paragraph 13 of the report. It delegated authority to the Corporate Director - People and Communities, in consultation with the S151 Officer, Legal services and two Cabinet Members, for all matters arising from the purchase.
Decided: The Committee agreed that the Chairperson will write to the Cabinet Member with the Committee's observations and recommendations. The minute records no decision on the scheme itself. This was a pre-decision scrutiny session, held before the Cabinet considers the report.
Decided: The committee agreed that the Chair will write to the Cabinet Member with the committee's observations. The minute records no decision on the purchase itself, which Cabinet was due to consider on 16 July 2026.
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 12 points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s friend stated that he hoped Members would consider that he had been a taxi driver for more than 30 years, and had received no complaints from the public in that time. The driver apologised for the first mobile phone offence, as he had touched his phone while at a traffic light, but felt that the second offence had been unfair, so he had wanted to appeal it but been unable for financial reasons.
The driver’s friend added that in their community the driver was known as somebody who gave free rides to people who were vulnerable or on their own. He had never had an argument or an incident with his passengers, was a compassionate and considerate person, and supported his four children.
Members asked about the second mobile phone offence and heard that the driver felt he had been looking behind him to check his passenger was getting out of the vehicle safely when the police suggested he had been using his phone. He understood the gravity of the offence and the need to meet the standards of professional driving.
Members asked whether the driver had been disqualified for totting up 12 points when he went to court, and heard that he had not because he had made an application for exceptional hardship.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(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 since renewal of his licence he had failed to provide his DBS certificate.
The driver was not in attendance.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(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 declared he was disqualified from driving for six months.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had totted up points and then notified the council when he was disqualified. He had gone over the speed limit in a couple of 20mph zones that he thought were 30mph. He was not a fast driver and tried to take due care and attention. The disqualification had taken away his income and his insurance had gone up as well, so it had been a difficult time.
Members asked how fast he had been driving for the offences. The driver recalled that one had been 35mph in a 30 zone, and another was 26mph in a 20 zone. He had passengers in the taxi on two occasions, both in 20mph zones. He suggested that one of the speed cameras that caught him had been hard to see, which Members stressed was irrelevant. Members asked whether the driver had applied for exceptional hardship, and heard that his solicitor had advised otherwise.
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 License given that the driver had declared six points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been caught twice going 36mph in what he thought was a 40mph zone, the same day the limit had changed. He received six points for this, which had since expired, and there were now only three points on there.
Members queried the other three points on his licence, which the driver explained was for a speeding offence in January 2025. He had gone slightly over the limit due to tiredness at the end of a long shift, and had since reduced his hours. He didn’t have a passenger at the time and was on his way home.
The driver’s representative added that the last offence was still under consideration because the driver had put in an appeal due to camera not being properly calibrated, but he had taken responsibility for going over the limit. He had paid a fine which had been refunded, and had made a hardship application which had been granted.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(5)
Application 5
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
Decided: Applications 26/00051/FUL and 26/00052/LBC (Rainbow Bargain Ltd, Bangor Street, Roath) were listed as deferred for a site visit. The minute on petitions says they were deferred to the next meeting. Application 26/00493/FUL (Wolf's Castle Inn, Wolfs Castle Avenue, Llanishen) was granted, subject to a Section 106 agreement. This is a legal agreement with the developer that sets out obligations linked to the permission.
Decided: Cabinet approved starting a competitive tender for Phase 1a, using the South East Wales Highway Framework (Lot 9) and a notice on Sell2Wales. It approved scoring bids 60% on cost, 30% on quality and 10% on social value. It delegated the award of the contract, and the steps to start and deliver the work, to the Assistant Director of Planning and Transport, after consulting the Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport, the Section 151 Officer (the officer responsible for the Council's finances) and the Director of Governance and Legal Services. It noted that the Assistant Director will act as Senior Responsible Owner, accountable for delivering the project's aims and benefits.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, the committee papers, the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 guidance, the council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicant and objectors during the hearing in its determination of the matter, REFUSED the application.
Members noted that the applicant demonstrated a significant lack of understanding of the licensing objectives and the legal requirements of the licensing regime. In particular, the applicant was unable to explain the licensing objectives when asked and provided inconsistent information regarding the operating hours of the premises. In particular, the applicant initially suggested that the premises had previously operated until 3am, which was later clarified as incorrect following advice from the Licensing Officer, and subsequently revised again during the hearing. The Sub Committee considered that this inconsistency reduced the weight that could be attached to the applicant’s evidence.
Members further noted that the applicant was unable to provide clear or detailed explanations as to how the licensing objectives would be promoted. In particular, limited detail was provided in relation to staff training, with reliance placed on unspecified training to be delivered by a franchisor, without any clear understanding of its content or implementation. There was insufficient evidence of measures to manage customers during late night hours, including how difficult or intoxicated individuals would be dealt with. No robust dispersal policy or noise management measures were outlined, despite the premises seeking to operate until the early hours of the morning. The Sub Committee also found that the applicant did not demonstrate an understanding of the risks associated with late-night operation in a busy and densely populated area.
The Sub Committee took into account the representations of the Ward Member, who highlighted existing issues on Crwys Road relating to noise, anti-social behaviour, and crime, particularly during late night hours. It was noted that the road already contained a substantial number of licensed premises and that residents had raised complaints about disturbance, waste management, and sleep disruption. The Sub Committee considered that the introduction of an additional premises operating until 3am was likely to add to the potential for noise and disturbance in the area, particularly in the absence of robust control measures.
Whilst the Sub Committee acknowledged the applicant’s submission that the premises had not previously been the source of complaints, it gave this limited weight given that the premises had not been operating under a premises licence permitting late-night refreshment beyond 11pm.
The Sub Committee also gave weight to the fact that this was the applicant’s first experience of the licensing process. However, this did not outweigh the concerns regarding the lack of understanding and the absence of appropriate safeguards.
Having carefully considered all of the evidence, the Sub Committee was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that the licensing objectives would be promoted. In particular, the Sub Committee found that granting the application would be likely to undermine the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance, having regard to the nature of the area, the proposed hours, and the lack of adequate control measures.
The Sub Committee resolved to refuse the application.
Decided: The Committee approved the proposed governance changes, with its own amendments. The main points are: (1) Applications to vary conditions, make small changes, discharge conditions or approve reserved matters (details left for later) will be decided by officers, unless the Committee formally asks for one to come back to it. (2) Applications go to Committee if they are for 250 or more homes, more than 2,500 square metres of commercial floorspace, sites over 10 hectares, or major developments with an Environmental Impact Statement. (3) Requests from members to refer an application will be decided by the Chair, who must keep a record of decisions and reasons and report it regularly to the Committee. (4) The Chair can ask for an application to come to Committee. (5) The Chair will be consulted where five or more objections come from five or more households. (6) All applications from officers in the Planning Service who make planning decisions will go to Committee. Each speaker gets 4 minutes, and more than one ward member may speak at the Chair's discretion. (10) An updated Members' Planning Code of Good Practice and a single Planning Guide will be prepared. On petitions, the Committee voted to recommend to Cabinet that petitions with 50 or more signatures no longer automatically send an application to Committee. These would instead go to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chair, and the Petition Scheme would exclude subsequent or technical applications. Officers were given delegated authority to finalise the Constitution amendments, which go to the Constitution Committee and then full Council. The Petition Scheme changes go to the Constitution Committee and then Cabinet. The Head of Planning was given authority to finalise the other procedure notes and protocols. Confirmation of the final arrangements will be sent to all members.
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.
Decided: It granted 26/00507/FUL (temporary live events on part of Blackweir Fields, Cathays), 25/02030/FUL (a foot and cycle bridge at Central Quay), 25/01468/FUL (a foot and cycle bridge at the Marl and Hamadryad Park) and 26/00360/HSE (extensions at 23 Charlotte Square, Rhiwbina). It granted 25/02351/FUL (a co-living building on land bounded by Custom House Street, Bute Street and Hope Street, Cathays) subject to a Section 106 agreement. This is a legal agreement that sets out what the developer must provide or pay for.
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 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.