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).
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver overcharged for a journey from St Mary’s Street to Cathays and did not use the calibrated meter in order to determine the fare. There was also a double charge on the card used to pay for the journey.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that late on a Sunday night, he saw an intoxicated woman who wasn’t being allowed back into bars on St Mary’s Street being refused by other taxis. He could see that she was frustrated and wanted to help her get home. She said that she didn’t have enough cash and wasn’t sure how to use the card on her phone, so he passed her his phone with the payment app open so she could practise paying. She asked to give a £15 tip, which would mean paying around £25 for the journey rather than around £10. Her card was declined several times before it went through.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness disputed the driver’s version of events, emphasising that she had not asked to tip him and was entirely aware of how to pay by card using her phone. She had only realised the next morning that she had been charged two payments of £25.70, which she called her bank to cancel because they were still pending. The two payments were eight minutes apart, so it seemed that the driver had taken two separate payments at the start and end of the journey.
The Sub Committee asked the driver about the double payment and heard that this may have been a technical issue with the payment app he used due to the declined payments. There was no physical receipt to give the passenger as the app sent him a notification of payments the next day.
Members queried whether the driver had asked for payment before the journey began, which was not permitted for fares within Cardiff. The driver responded that he had tried to help the passenger because she wasn’t sure how to use her phone to pay. The witness reiterated that she knew how to use her phone to pay by card, and suggested that the driver had not passed her his phone.
The driver’s representative suggested that there was evidence of the card being declined several times, and that the witness might have accidentally paid twice while drunk. He added that the money taken out of her account had been returned, and suggested that an honest mistake had been made. The witness emphasised that she was certain she had not accidentally tapped it twice.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 14 days.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he expressed sincere regret about his past actions and took full responsibility for what he had done.
Members noted that the applicant had applied for a licence recently and was refused then, and asked what had changed. The applicant explained that he was working 60 to 70 hours a week to support his family as the cost of living was very high, and he could make more money driving taxis.
RESOLVED – that the application be refused.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s Licence given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was arrested after a policeman pulled him over while driving and saw a bag of drugs in the car. He emphasised that they were not his and that he had passed a drug test, but had received a caution for possession of a Class A drug.
He added that since this had all taken place, he had moved back home, gotten married and taken on new responsibilities, and was keen to drive taxis. He understood the gravity of the situation but felt he was a more responsible person now.
RESOLVED – that the application be refused.
(4)
Item 4 was deferred to the next meeting in the absence of the witness.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver drove his licensed vehicle in a dangerous manner and used demeaning language.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was being accused of hitting a pedestrian and her luggage with his car. He explained that he had been working at the coach station when a coach came towards him so he had to pull into a parking bay on the side of the road. A woman was stood there with her luggage, so he beeped his horn and then rolled down his window and respectfully asked her to move.
He added that the woman then started shouting at him and accusing him of knocking over her luggage, before telling everyone else on the rank that he was a dangerous driver who had tried to hit her, which meant he got no business that night. He had driven taxis for 33 years and had been licensed in Cardiff for 26 years without any complaints being made against him, and emphasised that his car had not touched her luggage.
The Sub Committee viewed videos immediately following the incident provided by the witness. Members noted that the driver had cameras on the front and back of his vehicle and asked whether this footage was available. The driver explained that he normally deleted this after a week, and had not thought it was needed in this case as he was not contacted by the police.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that she knew the area well and usually ordered a cab using her phone as the coach was getting in, before waiting in the same spot where there were several empty parking spaces. There was no pavement for pedestrians, only a muddy embankment, and she used a cane to help her walk.
She recalled that the taxi came by without stopping and without the driver asking her to move, and so she had to jump back to avoid being hit, with the car knocking her bags over. She asked the driver whether he had seen her and he said yes, so she asked why he had continued reversing, and he told her to shut up.
Both parties disputed whether or not the driver had beeped his horn or spoken to the witness before moving into the bay, and whether or not the taxi had knocked the luggage over. The driver’s representative acknowledged that the driver could have de-escalated the situation, and suggested that he keep the dashcam footage for longer than a week in the future.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had been issued with a caution by South Wales Police.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned in 2022 for a public order offence against a former partner who had stalked him. He did not feel he posed any danger to members of the public, and had driven taxis since 2006 with no complaints made against him.
The Sub Committee asked why he had only declared the caution on his renewal form rather than as soon as it happened. The driver explained that he had mistakenly believed this was only required for convictions, and apologised for the oversight.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared a previous conviction.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been cautioned for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, namely a small hammer which he had left on the seat of his taxi after using it to fix the wheelchair ramp.
He explained that a passenger had run off without paying after going from Cardiff to Cwmbran. The driver had waited outside his house for some time before speaking to someone else there, who persuaded the passenger to come out and pay up. The passenger claimed that he had followed him with a weapon and threatened him with it, so the driver called the police to explain.
The Sub Committee asked why the driver had not informed the licensing authority of the caution as soon as possible. The driver explained that he had emailed the council to inform them but had misspelt the email address.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
RESOLVED: that
1. the extension of the existing Passenger Transport Dynamic Procurement Process from 31st August 2025 to 31st March 2028 be approved to enable contracts to be awarded via the DPS until 31st March 2028.
2. subject to the future budget allocation an increase of the value of contracts to be allocated via the DPS from £138.8 million to a total value of £170.8 million. This revised amount will cover the value of all new contracts allocated from 1st September 2018 until the expiry date of the contracts up to 31st August 2032.
3. Authority be delegated to the Director of Planning Transport and Environment in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio Members and Directorate budget holders for Education, Children’s and Adult Services, to procure and deliver contracts subject to budget being available.
4. It be noted that if the budget requirement exceeds the current allocation available having considered the availability of external funding or in year efficiencies then this will need to be brought back to Cabinet for approval as part of the budget setting process.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED
5a 24/02821/FUL - HEATH
129 Caerphilly Road
Change of use of vacant retail unit (A1 use class) into restaurant and takeaway (A3 use Class) including installation of extraction flue system to rear.
The application was granted.
5b 22/03050/FUL - GRANGETOWN
Hafan, Ferry Road
Retention of 52 temporary residential homes, ancillary community buildings and associated works.
The application was granted.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1 was deferred in the absence of the witness.
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he displayed dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour including shouting and cursing at a pedestrian.
The driver’s representative noted that the report suggested that his licence had been suspended by the Sub Committee for 10 days in 2016, and clarified that this was not the case as no suspension was awarded upon appeal.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that two people were trying to cross the road in front of the New Theatre and the light was amber so he stopped. He didn’t know what triggered it but one of them came to his car and used foul language towards him. He straightened up his car and then drove off when the light turned green.
Members asked whether the driver had seen the CCTV video of the incident, which he had. Members viewed the video and suggested that it contradicted what he had said in his statement about his taxi being stationary until the light was green. His statement also suggested that the female pedestrian was not using any sort of support to cross the road, which the video showed she was. The driver reiterated that he stood by his statement, and added that all other pedestrians had crossed the road by the time his taxi reached the crossing.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he and his wife were walking back to their car and approached the crossing as the light for it was green. As they crossed the road, the light turned flashing amber, so they continued as they had right of way, relatively slowly as his wife was using a crutch. The taxi came round the corner quickly and came close to him, which he found particularly worrying as he’d had two knee replacements. The driver used abusive language towards him regarding his age, but he did not recall using any bad language himself. The taxi drove off and he noted down the numberplate in order to make a complaint.
The driver’s representative suggested that the crossing in front of the New Theatre often caused confusion between drivers and pedestrians as it lacked a crossing box. He acknowledged that the witness and the driver had different views about who had right of way, but disputed the suggestion that the driver was speeding round the corner.
The driver’s representative added that the video seemed to show the pedestrian speaking to the driver first. The witness acknowledged that the video showed him going to speak to the driver, but suggested that this was only because the driver had wound down the window and shouted at him. Otherwise, he would have continued walking.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received from South Wales Police stating that the driver committed a number of speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had not been driving his vehicle on most of the occasions listed in the report. Friends of his had used the car for private use rather than as a taxi and received speeding tickets, and one of these friends who had committed three of the offences had left the country for family reasons so he was hard to contact. The driver didn’t want to lose his livelihood so he took responsibility for the offences, accepted nine points on his licence and paid a fine. After that, South Wales Police had made a complaint to the licensing authority.
Members queried the details of specific offences provided in the report, where a number of different names were nominated as having been driving the vehicle at the time. The driver stated that one of the individuals was a friend of his, and another was the friend’s wife. Members noted that it had not been possible to trace either person and the police did not believe they existed. Members queried one of the offences where the driver had initially nominated his wife but then changed it to his own name and attended a speed awareness course. The driver apologised for making a mistake in this case.
Members noted that the driver’s wife had nominated herself as the driver on one form, and asked if the driver understood that he was the only person insured to drive his taxi as it was a licensed vehicle. The driver suggested that a number of his friends borrowed his vehicle on occasion as it was a large van, and their insurance covered it. The Legal Officer clarified that this was not the case. Only the licensed taxi holder could use the vehicle, and it was not possible to get private insurance to drive someone else’s taxi.
Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that there were historic offences going back to 2020, and the police took responsibility for failing to flag them up until now. He had been unable to track down several of the individuals nominated and suspected that they did not exist, and were certainly not insured to drive the vehicle. Other offences had been blamed on family members who had accepted they were driving at the time, which meant they would also have been uninsured.
The witness also suggested that the times of the offences, several of which had occurred after midnight, including on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, suggested that the vehicle was being used as a taxi at the time. He noted that the driver had admitted to three of the offences, taking three points and paying a fine, after being challenged. It was the police’s view that the driver had been driving the vehicle on all of the occasions listed, and had done everything possible to avoid being banned.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver committed three speeding offences and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms indicating that other persons had committed the offences.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had misread the date of the offence on the first letter and nominated his wife as the driver of the vehicle at the time. This was an honest mistake rather than an attempt to falsify the form. He believed that the second offence was a mistake on the part of the authorities as his Uber log showed he was driving elsewhere at the time. On the third occasion, he believed he was giving his cousin a driving lesson and allowing her to drive the vehicle, but now realised that he had been the driver at that time.
Members asked how often his wife drove the taxi, and heard that he often took off the plates and allowed her to use it to go shopping. Members asked whether there had been L plates on the car when it was photographed speeding when he believed his cousin had been driving the car. The witness, representing South Wales Police, confirmed that there were not.
Representing South Wales Police, the witness stated that it was an easy process to check who was driving the car at the time as he had access to logs through Uber. The driver was the only person insured to drive his licensed vehicle, and his wife and cousin were not. His cousin had taken the blame and attended a speed awareness course for an offence she had not committed.
Regarding the driver’s suggestion that one of the offences was a mistake by the authority, the witness noted that the job records from the time and date in question showed that the vehicle had picked up a fare close to the camera several minutes before the offence was committed. The police’s view was that the driver had dishonestly attempted to avoid punishment for speeding offences on a number of occasions.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had nine penalty points on his licence in respect of three speeding offences.
The Chair queried a pending driving offence from October 2024 referred to in the report. The driver responded that he had not received any information about this offence since then, and didn’t know why this was the case. The Chair suggested that the hearing be deferred to allow the pending offence to be resolved, so the Sub Committee could have the full information when considering the matter.
RESOLVED – that the case be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee.
(6)
Application 6
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had declared nine points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had accumulated nine points from three offences, two of which had been on the same day when a speed limit on Western Avenue changed from 40mph to 30mph. He was doing less taxi work now and more school runs.
Members asked whether the driver was aware of his responsibility to inform the licensing authority as soon as the offences were committed, rather than upon renewal more than a year later. The driver responded that he had not been aware of this and apologised for failing to do so.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had apologised for his mistake and accepted his punishment. He had been caught speeding twice in one day in an area where the limit had just changed, and on both occasions was going below the previous limit, so it was clearly an honest mistake.
Members queried how many points the driver had in total, and heard that he had received three in April 2023, six more in June 2023 and had three pending as of January 2025. Members noted that if the pending offence resulted in three more points, he would have to come before the Sub Committee again.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the driver had six penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90).
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been convicted in January of this year, having unintentionally misidentified his wife as the driver of a vehicle he shared with her. He originally wrote her name down on the form but then realised he had been driving and took responsibility. He had received six points on his license as a result.
Members queried the delay between the offence in May 2024 and declaring it to the licensing authority in January 2025. The driver explained that he had to wait until January for his court hearing, after which he had declared it to the authority. The driver also clarified that the offence took place before he became qualified as a taxi driver in Cardiff, having been licensed in Newport before.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken,
(8)
Application 8
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted for totting up points on his DVLA licence. The driver had been referred to the Sub Committee and subsequently had his licence revoked.
The driver explained that he had been to the Sub Committee and been refused several times before. He didn’t have any additional evidence to prove his fitness but he had been a licensed driver for twelve years and never had any problems. He had tried to work in other jobs like security since losing his licence, but taxi driving was his passion. He was trying to support his family and getting his licence back would make a huge difference.
Members noted that the Sub Committee had revoked his licence in 2022 in line with its guidance after he had received 15 points, and had suggested that he reapply after five years. The driver emphasised that his offences had all been only slightly above the 30mph limit, in a private car rather than his taxi, and had been committed nearly five years ago.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to Cllr Weaver’s portfolio
Cllr Weaver made a brief statement outlining sections in the Draft Corporate Plan and Draft Budgetary Proposals relevant to his portfolio.
Members were invited to ask questions and make comments and the discussion is summarised below:
Members wished to know how the new KPI’s compared to the current performance figures, and were advised that this information could be provided to the Committee.
Members enquired about the dropout rate among apprentices at the Council and whether the Council monitors the progress of apprentices going on into further employment. Members were advised that the dropout rate is very low, some apprentices and trainees go on to work for the Council and in some service areas apprentice and trainee placements are very helpful in securing employment outside the Council. However, it was acknowledged that not all data may be properly captured, given the difficulties in keeping in touch with those who dropout.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Culture, Sport and Parks portfolio
The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Jennifer Burke, Cabinet Member for Culture, Sport and Parks; Neil Hanratty, Director of Economic Development; Donna Jones, Assistant Director for County Estates; Ruth Cayford, Operational Manager for Creative Industries and Culture; and Jon Maidment, Head of Parks and Cardiff Harbour Authority.
Cllr Burke made a brief statement, following which Neil Hanratty gave a presentation outlining sections in the Draft Corporate Plan and Draft Budgetary Proposals relevant to Cllr Burke’s portfolio.
Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below:
Members were advised that filming charges in Bute Park Visitor Centre have been added to the fees and charges report and will continue to be included there in future years.
Members sought an explanation for the decision not to increase fees at the riding school, and were advised that there is a need to invest in the school as the infrastructure is deteriorating, and there is concern that if fees are increased customers could transfer to commercial competitors.
Members were advised that there have been instances when the outdoor school has had to be closed due to the roof leaking. Officers were confident that the expected £10,000 increase in income would be forthcoming.
Members sought an update on the Cardiff Story museum and were advised that it was the Cabinet’s view that it should remain in its present location until a viable alternative could be found.
Members questioned why the KPI for satisfaction rate of parks was set at 72.5% and were advised that while the budget is increasing there are still pressures and areas where investment is needed. Members were advised that the development of a new parks strategy includes consultation to understand what people want from parks, and to encourage people who might not ordinarily access parks to do so.
Members sought an explanation for the changes in the plans for Pentwyn Leisure Centre since the previous plans were consulted on. The Cabinet Member advised that the type of equipment that is going into the centre is on a par with the International Pool and will be a decent piece of infrastructure that is safe for families.
Members sought assurance that there would no further delay to the reopening of St David’s Hall beyond the 4th quarter of 2026/27. The Cabinet Member advised Members that in recent weeks nearly all relevant applications for work to progress have been submitted, and subject to regulatory approval work should commence in the summer. Announcement has been made that the Cardiff Singer of the World 2027 will take place at St David’s Hall and the hall will be open in time for that.
Members wondered whether the reopening of St David’s Hall in 2026-27 would have a significant impact on the city’s tourism sector, and were advised that alongside Cardiff Castle, Principality Stadium and the city’s grassroots venues, and forthcoming Arena, it would mean that Cardiff would have a wide variety of venues that could host a range of different performers. Cardiff is increasingly seen as a destination for live events and it was important to the Council to ensure that St David’s Hall was not only maintained but enhanced in terms of what it offered people.
Members asked whether there was a mechanism to ensure that monies from the Financial Resilience Mechanism available for the sport development grant translate to improved services, and were advised that there is a sustained demand for this support which enables sports teams and clubs across the city to take on assets and improve them, working in partnership with the council.
Members sought information on how the Council could ensure there was involvement for female sports initiatives in this. The Cabinet Member advised that the FAW is reporting a significant increase in women’s and girls’ participation in football clubs. Llandaff Cricket has had a record participation of young girls, and girls’ participation in rugby is improving in the younger age groups; the administration remains committed to increasing participation of under-represented groups.
Members asked how much of the £1.5 million FRM was currently allocated and were advised that not all of it was already committed.
Members sought an update on the Whitewater Rafting Centre, and were advised that there had been some significant budget challenges in recent years but with efficiency savings it is getting closer to being operated within budget and is very close to breaking even.
Members discussed how well the Whitewater Rafting Centre was promoted, and were advised that it is a niche facility and there has been some targeted marketing, but this could be reviewed to ensure it is reaching enough people. An offer was made for committee members to visit the Centre to see first-hand the range of services on offer and to discuss marketing and promotion with officers.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Leader’s portfolio
The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Huw Thomas, Leader of the Council; Neil Hanratty, Director of Economic Development; and Jon Day, Operational Manager for Investment and Tourism.
Cllr Thomas made a brief statement, following which Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below:
Members discussed the lessons to be learned and any governance arrangements that might need to be addressed in relation to the contract for the demolition of Aberthaw power station, dealt with via the Cardiff Capital Region body. The Leader advised that he could not comment in detail as there are ongoing legal proceedings, but at the right time all local authorities involved will want an investigation into what occurred.
Members discussed the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee which is responsible for reviewing and scrutinising decisions made by the CJC. The Leader reminded the Committee that there had been discussions about the appropriateness of the scrutiny arrangements for the City Deal, and expressed the view that this was something either CJC or Welsh Government would wish to look at in more detail. He could envision a system where if a project is being delivered by CCR within the area of a LA, it would be appropriate for the relevant committee to scrutinise the work of the CCR.
Members wished to know about the prospects for a project emerging from the recommendations of the Western Gateway’s independent Severn Estuary Commission on the potential for renewable energy. The Leader advised that the Commission is due to report in mid-March. Briefings he has had indicate there is a potentially deliverable project that is technologically and financially feasible, but it will be necessary to have the right regulatory and governance environment to unlock the private sector investment.
Members sought information on how returns on investment in the City Deal were measured in terms of job creation and other economic opportunities. The Leader advised that there is a 5-year gateway process of assessment done jointly by UK and Welsh Governments on a CCR level, the top level metrics being job creation, GVA uplift and leverage of private money to match public money invested.
Members wished to know how the Council ensures that projects invested in through the City Deal align with environmental commitments made through One Planet Cardiff and the goal to reach Net Zero. The Leader advised that the KPI’s for the City Deal were set in 2016 and did not necessarily have green objectives in mind. The CJC has to have statutory policies around things such as biodiversity and the next deal will be more of a green deal.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Investment and Development portfolio
The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Huw Thomas, Leader of the Council; Neil Hanratty, Director of Economic Development; Donna Jones, Assistant Director for County Estates; and Jon Day, Operational Manager for Investment and Tourism.
Cllr Thomas made a brief statement, following which Neil Hanratty gave a presentation outlining sections of the Budgetary Proposals relevant to the portfolio.
Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below:
Members sought clarification on the source of additional income of £27,000 and were advised that it was income from renting out workshop space.
Members sought clarification on SPF funding for Cardiff Indoor Market and were advised that the funding was for the Financial Year 2024/25, had been agreed and was already in place.
Members sought further details on how the Council is working with the hospitality and accommodation sectors to increase accommodation options for visitors during major events. The Leader advised that the amount of hotel accommodation in the city is relatively modest, and one of the reasons for pursuing the Indoor Arena is to provide a more regular stream of visitors into the city and encourage investment in hotel development.
Members discussed whether proceeds from the visitor levy could be used to benefit district shopping centres away from the city centre. The Leader advised that as currently proposed it is envisaged that the proceeds of the visitor levy are spent within the visitor economy; however, the Council would want to develop a plan for how the levy could be deployed in partnership with stakeholders, including the BID as well as stakeholders more broadly.
Members questioned whether investment in new infrastructure such as the Canal Quarter Regeneration Phase 2 was the right approach when existing infrastructure such as city centre paving was not being sufficiently maintained. The Leader advised that much of the paving repair work in the city centre was due to the heavy traffic of supply trucks along Queen Street and The Hayes. Turning to the canal, he reminded Members that the plans had been signed off in 2021 when there Covid restrictions and concerns about the viability of city centres. The Council would want to see further plans, with the development of the Indoor Arena, around the Utilita Arena, developed in a strategic manner with a master plan for the whole area, with green and blue space being a key component making it somewhere people will want to spend time.
Members questioned whether pursuing a target of more Grade A office space was the most sustainable approach when there is other office space that is not being used. Officers advised that there is a lack of vacant Grade A office space in the city centre, and thus a risk that there is no property available for businesses that want to invest. The Leader added that last year saw the highest level of office take-up in 7 years.
Members asked whether there is a strategy for bringing surplus non-Grade A office space up to standard for reuse, and were advised that there is a market for cheaper office space for start-up and growing businesses, while other surplus office space has been repurposed for residential use.
Members wished to know whether there were concerns around CO2 emissions in relation to the creation of car parks in support of the Indoor Arena. The Leader advised that the current surface area car parks are being replaced by a single multi-storey car park with fewer parking spaces, while recognising there will be people who will drive to events at the Arena and want to park to access facilities in Cardiff Bay. Most of the area will be released to make it more attractive to people on foot and for leisure purposes.
Members wondered whether there were plans for more festivals or other attractions to encourage visitors to make longer stays. The Leader referred to the Cardiff City of Music Festival as a homegrown event that the Council would like to invest in and grow for the long term. Officers added that the Cardiff Live development will provide a venue able to compete for smaller business tourism events, and this will hopefully encourage visitors to stay longer and enjoy other facilities.
Members discussed how to promote other things for people to see or do in Cardiff besides the major events. The Leader advised that this was the sort of thing that the Council would want to be able to enhance through funds unlocked by the tourism levy.
Members discussed whether the planned investment in Cardiff Indoor Market would interfere with the improvements already taking place in the market. Officers advised that the intention of the redevelopment is to improve the market as it is rather than change what it will be doing. Work will be done to make good the roof and stop it leaking, and to improve the stallholders’ stands.
Members asked whether proposals for open space or street food facilities in the city centre were seen as competing with the Indoor Market. Officers advised that businesses are generally comfortable with investments that improve the overall offer and attract more people into the city centre. The Leader advised that it was indicative that businesses and investors see the city centre as being a place where people go to socialise, eat and spend leisure time rather than for shopping.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Tackling Poverty portfolio
The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Peter Bradbury, Cabinet Member for Tackling Poverty and Supporting Young People; and Helen Evans, Assistant Director for Housing and Communities.
Cllr Bradbury made a brief statement outlining sections of the Budgetary Proposals relevant to his portfolio.
Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below:
The Chair expressed gratitude for the acceptance of the KPI recommendations from the Scrutiny Performance Panel into the Corporate Plan, particularly around the Race Equality Task Force and sustainable employment.
Members wished to know how much of a challenge the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions presented to the Council and what is the Council’s strategy for addressing it. The Cabinet Member advised that the Council adjusts its work according to Governments’ tax proposals, and added that he had not received many letters from employers complaining that the increase was causing problems in recruitment.
Members asked whether there were KPIs around supporting people to stay in work. The Cabinet Member advised that the target for getting people into work had been raised, and that the team aims to get people into full-time and meaningful rather than temporary employment. Officers advised that most of the funding for Into Work services is grant funding and comes with a requirement that people stay and work for at least 6 months. Mentors work alongside the new employees to ensure they are sustained in that employment.
Members discussed whether people pass through the Into Work service only to be seen again a few months later, and were advised that some people have multiple barriers into work. A new Connect to Work programme will be delivered next year looking at those complex barriers, helping people into work and then wrapping support around them.
Members asked about the confidence levels at achieving the KPIs, and were advised that this is a key risk in 2026 as a significant amount of funding for Into Work services comes from the SPF. The Cabinet Member added that the team do remarkable work in the face of great challenges and difficulties, and it is important that funding for the next few years is secured to keep them in post.
Members sought information on what contingency there was should the SPF be significantly reduced or withdrawn. Officers advised that Connect to Work would help in some respects but not in terms of overall funding. Currently posts that become vacant are not being backfilled. Should no alternative funding become available the Council would have to look to exit posts. The Cabinet Member added that he would be putting pressure on ministers to replace SPF or put in place grant funding, and he would encourage Members to do the same.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
Sections of the Corporate Plan and Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Housing and Communities portfolio
The Chair welcomed to the meeting Cllr Lee Bridgeman, Cabinet Member for Housing and Communities; Helen Evans, Assistant Director for Housing and Communities; and Rebecca Hooper, Operational Manager for Neighbourhood Regeneration.
Cllr Bridgeman made a brief statement, after which Helen Evans and Rebecca Hooper gave a presentation outlining sections of the Budgetary Proposals relevant to the Housing and Communities portfolio.
Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, and the discussion is summarised below:
Members discussed the use of volunteers in hubs and libraries. The Cabinet Member advised that it was decided at an early stage not to adopt a full volunteer service. Hub and library staff are professional and qualified and cannot be replaced with volunteers. Officers added a balance had been struck between the number of volunteers in hubs and libraries and the remaining paid staff, and it is unlikely that paid staff could be reduced further. As part of an internal restructuring the Council is looking to create more specialist library roles. Volunteers receive good training and there are robust procedures in place.
Members wished to know about the number of hubs that hub managers are managing and whether this was sustainable. Officers advised that this depends on the size of hub; Central Library has its own manager while for smaller hubs and libraries there may be a single manager across 3 or 4. The Council is creating more senior roles such as assistant managers and senior hub library assistants and there will be one of these in each hub or library.
Members discussed the training of existing staff in specialisms and were advised that the Council is encouraging hub and library staff to enrol for a librarianship degree.
Members wondered how the proposal to remove free parking periods from Council car parks would affect the viability of district and local centres. The Cabinet Member advised that car parking charges were not part of his portfolio. Officers advised that there is a coordinated approach with Transport and Highways relating to regeneration of shopping areas. Many district centres do not have free car parking and the focus is on ensuring there are good Active Travel opportunities to encourage people out of cars where possible.
Members questioned why there was no reference in the Corporate Plan to 15-minute cities and sought reassurance that the Council still supports the concept. The Cabinet Member assured Members that the commitment was still there but the 15-minute city name had been dropped as there was too much toxicity around it.
Members sought further information on the Roath-Adamsdown Business Corridor. Officers advised that the boundaries had not yet been defined and there have been discussions around alignment with other regeneration and Active Travel schemes. The size of the area will be part of the consultation.
Members welcomed the focus on ensuring books in hubs and libraries reflect the diversity of language and sought information on how this diversity was assessed. Officer advised that this was through consultations, surveys, and conversations with library staff and customers. In addition, a new IT system being rolled out allows customer requests in specific languages to be logged.
Members sought information on whether reduction of the book fund would have an impact on people who access books in community languages. Officers advised that they were confident that the Council would be able to continue to meet the requirements of community languages. Data on the percentage of purchased books are in community languages could be provided to the Committee.
Members sought information on the venues used for the Learning for Life programme, and were advised that there are many such venues, including schools, churches and community halls, which are listed on the website, and in addition there continue to be some online courses available.
Members were advised that adult literacy and numeracy comes under a separate programme for adult learning called Learning for Work.
Members were advised that most Learning for Life participants are 50-plus retirees and that officers would be able to provide a demographic breakdown to committee if required.
Members enquired about the priority for the Clifton Street area in the Roath-Adamsdown Business Corridor placemaking plan. Officers advised that the South Riverside Business Corridor placemaking plan is currently being concluded, and there is a significant project for Cowbridge Road East that officers are looking to secure funding for and take forward shortly. The target date for the Adamsdown-Roath Business Corridor to commence is June, and this includes Clifton Street. Officers are working close with colleagues to coordinate the work with plans for a Transport Corridor along Newport Road and Broadway.
Members wished to know what the allocation of £1.5M for regeneration from the FRM was likely to be spent. Officers advised that ward councillors would be invited to put forward ideas that meet the criteria around regeneration. The key priority will be deliverability. The Cabinet Member urged Councillors to look out for the email from officers inviting ideas.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee expressing their comments and observations captured during the way forward.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATION GRANTED
5b 23/00965/HYB – LISVANE
Land at Church Farm, Cefn Mably Road
Hybrid Planning Application for the Residential Development of up to 205 Dwellings Including Associated Drainage Attenuation, Open Space and Highways Infrastructure Comprising a Full Application for 61 Dwellings (Phase 1) and an Outline Application for up to 144 Dwellings With All Matters Reserved Apart From Access (Phase 2).
(Cllr Reid-Jones left her seat as a member of the Committee during this item in order to speak as a Ward Councillor, and did not vote in accordance with her prejudicial interest.)
The application was granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits, all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy and Cumulative Impact Assessment, 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, GRANTED the application.
The Committee considered that there was no evidence presented to suggest that the application would undermine the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS DEFERRED
5b 23/00965/HYB – LISVANE
Land at Church Farm, Cefn Mably Road
Hybrid Planning Application for the Residential Development of up to 205 Dwellings Including Associated Drainage Attenuation, Open Space and Highways Infrastructure Comprising a Full Application for 61 Dwellings (Phase 1) and an Outline Application for up to 144 Dwellings With All Matters Reserved Apart From Access (Phase 2).
The application was deferred for a site visit to take place.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED
24/01620/OUT – OLD ST MELLONS
Land Adjacent To Cefn Eurwg, Druidstone Road
Proposed construction of a detached dwelling with integral garage.
The application was refused.
24/02319/VAR – RIVERSIDE
51-65 Cowbridge Road East And 2-8 Lower Cathedral Road
Demolition of existing structures and the replacement with a mixed-use development comprising three commercial units at ground floor level (Use Classes A1/A2/A3), residential apartments above (Use Class C3), and associated works, including sustainable drainage, landscaping, amenity space and other works (AMENDED DESCRIPTION) (Approved 02 February 2024 - 22/02901/FUL).
Variation of Condition 27 (Subdivision of Largest Unit) of 22/02901/FUL to amend the approved scheme as follows: To remove the requirement for the largest commercial unit fronting Cowbridge Road East to be sub-divided into no less than two units, and enable a single occupant of the unit.
(Cllr Robson left the meeting during discussion of this item in accordance with his prejudicial interest).
The application was 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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he committed a speeding offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution form indicating that another person had committed the offence.
The driver was not in attendance.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained when the name given on the NIP form was not the registered keeper of the car, the next step was to carry out an insurance check to find out whether they were insured on it. The police then contacted the licensing authority to find out whether they were a licensed taxi driver, which they were not.
On this occasion, when challenged, the driver admitted that he had falsely filled in the form, and filled it in again correctly. In the police’s view, it was a basic attempt to pervert the course of justice, and the driver had acted intentionally to get someone else to take the blame.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence 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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he was displaying illegal number plates on his Hackney Carriage vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that it was a genuine mistake, and he was not aware that he had been using a ghost plate until the police came and took it from him. His son had bought it as a gift several years ago as it had 3D lettering that looked better, and he had been unknowingly driving with it since then. The plate had been registered with the DVLA and had not been noticed on several MOTs. He provided the Sub Committee with a receipt for the plates which described them as ‘UK standard’.
The driver added that he did not know what ghost plates were until the police seized them from him. He suggested that if he had really wanted to avoid being caught committing an offence, he would not have put his hackney plate right next to the ghost plate on the rear of his vehicle. The police’s statement had made clear that they would not have been able to trace him if not for the hackney plate.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained that when the speed limit changed from 40mph to 30mph on Manor Way, advice letters were sent out to drivers who were caught breaking the new limit. Suspicions were raised when this number plate didn’t read, and the police were only able to identify the vehicle from the taxi plate next to it. Possession of the plates was illegal, which was why the driver had received a fixed penalty notice and paid a fine.
The witness added that the ghost plate was not actually UK standard as it didn’t have the manufacturer’s name on it, but acknowledged that this was not obvious. He was surprised that this was not noticed during several MOTs but could not speak for the garage that had passed it. In his experience, ghost plates were only fitted to vehicles so they could avoid cameras, and they had been on the vehicle for some time. It was not possible to say for sure whether the vehicle had gotten away with any other offences in that time.
The driver’s representative added that the plates would have seemed legal to the untrained eye and had since been replaced with legal ones. He emphasised that the driver had been a taxi driver of good standing for nearly twenty years, and had made a genuine mistake and not intended to deceive anyone.
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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that a complaint had been received stating that he committed a motoring offence and falsely completed the Notice of Intended Prosecution form indicating that another person had committed the offence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he had made a mistake by nominating the wrong driver. He got confused about the date that it happened because he and his wife shared another car, and he wrongly nominated her as the driver on that day. His wife had also not noticed that it was the wrong car when she was notified of the offence.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the car they shared was a Vauxhall Corsa while his taxi was a Mercedes E-Class. Both of them were insured to drive the Corsa while only he was allowed to drive the Mercedes.
The driver noted that there was a mistake in the police’s statement, which stated that the offence occurred on a Sunday when actually it was on a Thursday. The witness, representing South Wales Police, acknowledged the error in the statement but clarified that the NIP form displayed the correct date, in addition to clearly stating the make, model and number plate of the vehicle.
The witness noted that the number plates of the two cars in question were not particularly similar. He added that their records showed he was carrying a fare at the time, and as the offence involved going through a red light at speed it would go to court.
The driver added that he was disappointed in himself for not looking at the form properly and making a mistake. He had driven taxis for more than ten years and had never previously had a complaint.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he was disqualified from driving in November 2024 for 56 days.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that on the day in question he was coming back to Cardiff from Bristol. He was too slow to decelerate when he came off the A48 and the speed limit changed, and there was a police vehicle behind him which pulled him over for speeding. It was the first time this had happened in 16 years of driving, and he had apologised and accepted his punishment.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the suspension had expired in mid-January and he was back driving now. Having been disqualified in November, he had declared his offence to the council in December and handed in his plates then.
The driver’s representative emphasised that the driver had already been punished, having received a fine and a suspension, and asked that he be given a second chance.
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 6 penalty points on his driving licence for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver (MS90).
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that some time ago he had been trying to sell a car and allowed a potential buyer to take it for a test drive. Upon being notified that the car had been caught going 29mph in a 20mph zone, he provided the driver’s details but the police had been unable to find them. The driver suspected that the individual may have had a licence from another country or provided a fake name. He had been unable to track down the driver and in the end felt he had no choice but to accept the points and declare this to the council.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that the vehicle in question had not been his taxi. He allowed a friend of a friend to take the car out on their own without checking their licence, which he accepted was a mistake. His friend had failed to provide the individual’s proper details and as a result they were no longer friends.
The driver added that taxi driving was his only source of income and he needed to support his children. If he had known any of this would happen then he would never have let someone else drive his car.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 21 days.
(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 6 penalty points on his driving licence for breaching the requirements as to control of the vehicle including a mobile phone offence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received six points and a fine for using a mobile phone while driving. His phone screen had lit up in the passenger seat and a police officer walking by spotted it, and he ended up having to go to court. He had tried to explain that the phone screen had come on automatically but the police claimed it was in his hand.
The driver believed he was innocent and disputed the police’s version of events but had accepted the judge’s verdict. He clarified that he had been driving his wife’s car rather than his taxi. He apologised for not notifying the council of the offence as soon as it had happened, having been under the impression that it only had to be reported upon renewal.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 7 days.
(7)
Application 7
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant failed to declare on his application form that he had previously been licensed by Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and that his licence with that authority had been revoked in May 2024 on the grounds of public safety.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that when he was licensed in Merthyr he wasn’t aware that they did not allow him to drive in Cardiff. He had now done the Cardiff knowledge test and wanted to get licensed so he could drive a taxi in the city.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that Merthyr council had revoked his licence after a complaint from a passenger who said he locked her in the taxi. He disputed that he had locked her in and suggested that the passenger had refused to pay the fare, leading to an altercation.
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 and Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that the applicant had convictions contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had been kicked out of his home when he was 16 and had subsequently gotten into trouble. He was convicted of wounding, affray and assault after several fights, with the last conviction coming in 2002, relating to an incident in 1999. When the last case went to court, he was sentenced to 240 hours of community service, and since then he had maintained a clean record. He now had a daughter and a house and felt he had shown he was a good man.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant explained that he had worked as an HGV driver before sustaining an injury in a car accident which left him in a wheelchair for several years. Since then he had worked to get his fitness back and was confident driving again. The car accident had led to a disorder which caused his hands to twitch but his doctor was happy for him to drive. The Licensing Officer added that the applicant had provided a medical certificate confirming this.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be granted.
RESOLVED: that
1) The disposal of the former Toys R Us/Retail 3 site by way of option as set out in this report and in line with the Heads of Terms set out in Confidential Appendix 2 be approved and authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Investment & Development, the Section 151 Officer and the Legal Officer, to deal with any ancillary matters related to the disposal.
2) The plans for alternative short-term parking arrangements as illustrated at Appendix 4be noted.
3) Engagement with local residents/landowners be authorised to consider the future options for the areas of boardwalk not in Council ownership and report back to a future meeting of Cabinet.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED
24/01641/DOC – WHITCHURCH AND TONGWYNLAIS
Land to the North West of Whitchurch Hospital Playing Fields, Whitchurch.
Re-discharge of Condition 20 (Drainage) of 17/01735/MJR subsequently varied under 20/02632/MJR.
The application was granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
23/02481/FUL – BUTETOWN
Parcel of Land located to the South of Hemingway Road, West of Future Inns Hotel and South of Miller & Carter Steak House.
Demolition of an existing building and construction of a car park with associated lighting, EV provision and landscaping.
(Cllr Gunter left the meeting during discussion of this item in accordance with her prejudicial interest).
The application was granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
24/02088/FUL – BUTETOWN
Land South of Future Inns Access Road, Butetown.
Multi-Storey Car Park including an ancillary office, and associated infrastructure including vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping, drainage and a temporary construction compound.
(Cllr Gunter left her seat as a member of the Committee during this item in order to speak as a Ward Councillor, and did not vote in accordance with her prejudicial interest.)
The application was granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
23/01914/FUL – CATHAYS
Medallion House Crwys Road, Cathays.
Partial change of use of the ground floor from A1 retail to D1 community centre and A1 retail, demolition of the existing first and second floor and the construction of 64no. affordable flats on 4 new upper floors and 3no. 2-bed flats in existing car park and associated works.
(Cllr Humphreys left the meeting during discussion of this item in accordance with her personal and prejudicial interest).
The application was granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
APPLICATION DEFERRED
24/01620/OUT – OLD ST MELLONS
Land adjacent to Cefn Eurg, Druidstone Road.
Proposed construction of a detached dwelling with integral garage.
The application was deferred for a site visit to take place.
APPLICATION REFUSED
23/02600/FUL – LLANDAFF
Land at Radyr Court Close.
Erection of affordable houses together with access, landscaping, drainage, engineering and other associated works.
(Cllr Driscoll left his seat as a member of the Committee during this item in order to speak as a Ward Councillor, and did not vote in accordance with his prejudicial interest.)
The application was 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 a complaint had been received stating that he attempted to charge a customer an extra amount for paying by debit card and was attempting to charge a fixed fee and not utilise the calibrated meter in the vehicle.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had taken card payments long before it was mandatory to offer them, and often picked up passengers near the train station who did not have cash on them. On the night in question, at about 1am he saw the witness waiting for a taxi and asked him if he needed to pay by card, which he did. The passenger asked how much it would be to go to Penylan, which he said would cost about £10.
The driver added that he had accidentally pressed the £1 extra button on SumUp while waiting to leave the rank but did not intend to charge this. He was aware of the rules against charging more than was on the meter, even though he had to pay fees on card payments. The driver suggested that during the journey, the passenger was upset and rude. After arriving at the destination, they paid the £9.30 fare listed on the meter by card and then took pictures of the inside and outside of the car. The passenger was not charged anything extra, which the receipt showed.
The driver’s representative added that there had been no previous complaints against the driver, and he had been taking card payments for six years now without ever being accused of trying to charge more than what was on the meter.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver emphasised that he knew it was not legal to charge a transaction fee for card payments, and stressed that he had added the £1 fee by mistake at the start of the journey and then not tried to charge it at the end. He also emphasised that he had not asked for a fixed fee, but had just said that a trip to Penylan would likely be around that amount, and then put the meter on as requested.
The witness recalled that he had hailed a taxi at the bottom of St Mary’s Street on a Friday night, which was always busy. He found a taxi which was willing to take card, as he didn’t have cash and this was before a card reader became a requirement. He asked the driver if he could go to Penylan and the driver said ‘£10’. The witness said ‘we’ll see what the meter says’, because he was aware of the requirements for journeys within the city boundaries. The driver then said there would be a £1 fee, which he disputed.
The witness insisted that he had not been rude or angry. At the end of the journey, as he exited the vehicle he took a photo of the numberplate, because he didn’t think it was right that the driver had tried to charge him a fixed fare within the city boundaries.
Members asked what the fee was at the end of the journey. The witness responded that he paid £9.30 and suggested that the photo he took of the meter showed a £9.30 total with a £1 fee having been added to it. The driver clarified that the £1 fee had not been added to the fare, as he had to press an extra button to add this on before taking payment, but did not do this because he had pressed the £1 button accidentally.
The driver added that he had never been accused of overcharging before, and he always used the meter even when he went outside of the boundaries to places like Penarth.
The driver’s representative suggested that the situation may have stemmed from a misunderstanding when the driver advised that the likely cost to go to Penylan would be around £10, which the passenger interpreted as a fixed fare.
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 9 penalty points on his driving licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained the offences and acknowledged complacency on his part, particularly regarding two of his speeding offences which had occurred in the same week. At the time he was going through a personal crisis with his partner being ill in hospital, and he failed to notice a recent change in speed limit in an area from 40mph to 30mph.
Members asked why the driver had only declared 6 penalty points when renewing his licence when he actually had 9. The driver explained that the second offence in that week, in June 2023, was not actually penalised until the following February, which he still did not understand. He had paid the fine initially but then had it reimbursed in December 2023, so he assumed it had been a mistake and they had charged him twice for the same offence. In January 2024 he was summoned to court and told that he hadn’t paid the fine. He co-operated in every way he could and accepted his punishment for speeding, which ended up being a larger fine than the original one. At the time he renewed his application, he believed there were only 6 points on his licence.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that the two offences in the same week were committed on Manor Way. The driver added that he drove past there almost every day because he lived nearby. He was not making excuses but felt there were some mitigating circumstances on his mind when he failed to notice the change to a 30mph road, and he did not deny that he was speeding.
Members noted that with 9 points now on his licence, he would need to be very careful in order to keep driving at all. The driver agreed and stressed that he was very aware of this. Taxi driving was very important to him because it allowed him to work flexibly and care for his wife. He reiterated that the offences had been a temporary lapse of judgement which he had owned up to.
RESOLVED – that no further action be taken.
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had a conviction contrary to the guidance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had made a big mistake six years ago, while he was new in the country and had been drinking. He had sexually assaulted a woman who reported him to the police, and he had accepted a caution for this and apologised.
Members asked why he had not declared this on his application form. The driver explained that he didn’t know that he needed to at the time, having only been in the UK for a year and only having had limited English skills then. At the police station he had come under the impression that accepting the caution and apologising would be the end of the matter. He didn’t know it would show up on his application but he needed a job and didn’t want to be turned down. He felt very ashamed, both for what he did and for not declaring it.
RESOLVED – that the application for a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be refused.
(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 been issued with a caution by South Wales Police which he did not declare on his renewal application.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had received a caution for battery in 2022 after an incident between him and his wife. He pushed her and she called the police, and he was arrested and released with a caution. When it came to renew his licence, he misunderstood the question and thought it only referred to convictions, not cautions.
Members asked why he had not declared the caution immediately in 2022, let alone failing to do so in 2024 upon renewal. The driver responded that he didn’t realise it was something he had to declare as he had been released straight away. He had understood it as a warning rather than something on his permanent record, and apologised for this.
Members suggested that having been a taxi driver since 2008, he would have renewed his licence several times before, and should have been aware of the need to inform the licensing authority as soon as possible if he committed any sort of offence. The driver apologised and reiterated that he was under the impression that a caution was more like a warning.
The driver added that in 16 years in the trade he had never had any incidents of this or any other nature. The offence was something in his private life which he and his wife had now resolved.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for 28 days, and the driver receive a written warning.
(5)
This case was deferred to the next meeting.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED
24/01293/FUL – PONTCANNA
Pontcanna Mews, Kings Road, Pontcanna, Cardiff
Retention of Change of use of existing Retail premises (Use Class A1) and to allow Flexible Use of the premises for Retail (Use Class A1), Financial and Professional Services (Use Class A2), Food and Drink (Use Class A3), Business (Use Class B1), Beauty Salon (Sui-Generis) and Tattoo Studio (Sui-Generis), including the use of the external courtyard for purposes ancillary to these uses and retention of a Covered Structure to provide outdoor seating.
The application was granted subject to amendment of the following conditions:
Condition 3
Members of the public shall only be admitted or allowed to remain on the premises, including the Covered Structure hereby approved, related to any use within Class A3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Uses Classes) Order 1987 (or any Order amending, revoking, or re-enacting that Order), between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Sunday to Thursday and between 08:00 and 20:30 on Friday and Saturday.
Condition 4
The external areas of the premises, including the Covered Structure hereby approved, shall only be permitted to be used for any purpose, except for means of access, between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Sunday to Thursday and between 08:00 and 20:30 on Friday and Saturday.
Condition 5
The premises shall not be used for purposes within Class B1 and A3 of the Scheduled to the Town and Country Planning (Uses Classes) Order 1987 (or any Order amending, revoking, or re-enacting that Order) that creates noise audible at the boundary of the nearest residential property outside of the hours of 07:45 and 17:15 Sunday to Thursday and 07:45 and 20:45 on Friday and Saturday.
And subject to the addition of the following conditions:
Condition 11
There shall be no provision of any music or any amplified sound at the premises that would be audible at the boundary of any residential property.
Condition 12
Within one month of the date of this planning permission a solid means of enclosure, of a minimum of 1.8m in height and a maximum of 2m in height, shall be provided to the boundary of all residential properties adjoining the site which provides for no visibility to the neighbouring properties.
24/00084/FUL – RHIWBINA
Land at the rear of 19A Heol Y Coed, Coed Ceirios, Rhiwbina, Cardiff
Erection of a 2 storey dwelling with associated landscape works.
The application was granted, subject to additional wording in Condition 3:
Construction Environmental Management Plan
No development, including site clearance, shall commence until such time as a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall, as a minimum, include the following:
- Details of site hoardings, site access and wheel washing facilities
- A strategy for the delivery of plant and materials
- The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors
- Loading and unloading of plant and materials
- Restrictions on deliveries, removal, loading and / or unloading of plan and materials during school pickup and drop off times.
- Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development
- A plan identifying the location of any site compound
- The erection and maintenance of security hoarding
- Control of Nuisances: details of restrictions to be applied during construction including timing, duration and frequency of works; details of measures to minimise noise and vibration; details of dust control measures and measures to monitor emissions of dust arising from the development; measures to control light spill and the conservation of dark skies.
- Traffic Management: access routes (including any temporary traffic regulation orders required) and traffic management
- Details of the persons and bodies responsible for activities associated with the CEMP and emergency contact details.
All development shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved CEMP.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED SUBJECT TO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
24/01603/FUL – LLANEDEYRN
Land west of St Teilos High School
Proposed Development of 53 Council Homes, Nine Supported Living Apartments, Re-Alignment of Footpath, Sustainable Drainage Proposals, Landscape Planting Including an Ecotone and Associated Works.
APPLICATIONS DEFERRED
23/02600/FUL – LLANDAFF
Land at Radyr Court Close
Erection of affordable houses together with access, landscaping, drainage, engineering and other associated works.
(Councillor Driscoll left his seat as a member of the Committee during this item in order to speak as a Ward Councillor, and did not vote in accordance with his prejudicial interest)
The application was deferred for reasons for refusal relating to loss of amenity / open space and ongoing flood concerns, including the failure of flood defences.
24/01641/DOC – WHITCHURCH AND TONGWYNLAS
Land to the north-west of Whitchurch Hospital playing fields, Whitchurch, Cardiff
Re-discharge of Condition 20 (Drainage) of 17/01735/MJR subsequently varied under 20/02632/MJR.
The application as deferred until January 2025 as the Committee ran out of time.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1) Application 1
This item was deferred to a later meeting.
(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 information had been received stating that he allegedly committed four speeding offences, but when contacted by police regarding these offences, returned documents with details stating that other drivers committed these offences. It was also alleged that when questioned by Licensing Officers, the driver stated that someone in his household had returned the documents. The driver had also disclosed a driving offence which was not on his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he accepted responsibility for the speeding offences as he was the only person who drove his taxi, but he believed that someone else had filled out the inaccurate forms. He had had some family problems in the last few years and was worried that someone might have filled in the forms maliciously to get him in trouble.
The driver’s representative reiterated that the driver accepted responsibility for the speeding offences, and added that he would have filled in the paperwork accurately and responsibly had he received it. He had been driving a taxi in Cardiff for nearly twenty years with a very good record. He hoped that the Sub Committee would take into account that taxi driving was his sole source of income and he needed to support his family.
Responding to questions from Members, the driver confirmed that he did not know any of the names provided in the paperwork, and did not think the forms were in his handwriting.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, stated that in his view, the only reason the forms would have been filled in falsely would have been to help the driver avoid a penalty for speeding. He did not accept the explanation that they had been filled out maliciously by someone else, as they had resulted in the driver getting away with several speeding offences until he was eventually caught out.
Members queried the supporting documentation and heard that the driver had initially provided a copy of an informal rental agreement with another individual for temporary use of the vehicle. South Wales Police had not been able to track down this person and confirm that they either existed or had the required licence and insurance to drive a taxi. The witness suggested that having initially been caught speeding, the driver had claimed someone else was driving, only to realise that this would be a breach of the insurance and then admit it was him.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License 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 a complaint had been received stating that he refused to take an assistance dog, claiming he had a medical condition.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that on the day in question he was suffering from bad hay fever which was making him itch and sneeze. He accepted the job, but when he saw it was a dog he called Dragon Taxis and apologised for not being able to take the passenger. The operator explained that he wasn’t allowed to refuse a guide dog but he had to insist because it was a medical issue. He was very sorry to have inconvenienced the passenger, and would not do it again.
The driver’s daughter added that he had a history of hay fever and medical records to support that. It could be triggered around pets and it was hard to drive when he was sneezing and coughing. He felt it was better to arrange an alternative, but did not intend to offend or dismiss the customer in any way. He had never had another complaint and had already been suspended by Dragon Taxis for a month for this incident.
Responding to questions from Members, the driver said that he was unaware that he could apply for a medical exemption certificate which would allow him to not take assistance animals. Rather than a specific allergy to dogs, it was hay fever which could sometimes be exacerbated by them. He understood that without an exemption certificate, he was legally required to take them.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness recalled that she booked a taxi from Leckwith to Barry at about 8:15pm. She could see on the Dragon app that the driver who had accepted the job was at the traffic lights nearby, so she went out to wait for him, only to see him do a U-turn and park on the opposite side of the road. It was dark so she didn’t approach the car. She then got a call from Dragon asking whether it was a guide dog, which she confirmed.
The witness emphasised that the driver should have come over and spoken to her in person if he was unable to take her and her dog. The operator had not explained why the driver was not willing to take the dog. She found it humiliating and exhausting to have to fight for equality to access a taxi.
The Sub Committee listened to recordings of the two calls in question provided by Dragon Taxis, one with the passenger and one with the driver.
The driver apologised to the witness for his mistake, which he assured her would never happen again. He had never turned down taking a dog before and understood that it was required as part of his licence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning, and be required to complete the relevant SQA course within twelve weeks.
(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 stating that he had 11 points and £300 in fines on his driving licence. This was in respect of 3 speeding offences, 2 other speeding offences where he was fined £290 and £250, and a further speeding offence for which he attended a speed awareness course. None of this information was provided by the driver, as required in Section M of the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers Licence Conditions.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had committed six speeding offences and made a mistake when filling out the necessary forms, because he thought he was driving his private car when it was actually his taxi. He went to court for the offences and received 11 points in total, and had sent evidence of his offences to the licensing authority.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, explained that this case had been flagged due to the six offences occurring in a short space of time, and during the investigation it was discovered that the driver had nominated two different people who were found not to be insured on the taxi. He was sceptical of the suggestion that the driver could have been confused about which car was involved, as each NIP form displayed the make, model and registration in bold capital letters on the front page. The witness suggested that the driver had only now decided to tell the truth having gone to court for the six offences, where he had agreed a deal to take 11 points and be able to continue driving.
The driver responded that his confusion over the vehicle was due to him being new to driving the taxi at the time, and the two cars having similar numberplates. He had also suffered a number of family tragedies around that time which would have contributed to his stressful situation. Members queried whether a picture of the vehicle would have been provided in the letter, which the Legal Officer clarified was not automatic although it could be requested.
The driver’s representative summarised that the driver had believed the speeding offences had each been committed in his private vehicle rather than his taxi, and had provided the real names of his friends and family who had been using the other car at that time. He now accepted that he was mistaken and had been driving his taxi on each occasion. He had since been punished in court for each offence with fines and penalty points.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
(5) Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License given that he had declared a caution for battery.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not feel that battery was an accurate description, as it related to a domestic dispute where he and his wife had both pushed each other. The Legal Officer clarified that the definition of battery included physical contact and not necessarily hitting or wounding. The police had found sufficient evidence to charge him with it, and by accepting the caution, he had admitted the offence.
The driver’s wife added that he was not a violent person at all but they had had a bad day, and he had then misunderstood what he was admitting to when he accepted the caution due to not speaking English as a first language. She hoped that Members would take into account that they had a mortgage and children to support.
Responding to questions from Members, the driver stated that he had been unaware of the duty to inform the licensing authority of any offences, and would do so straight away if anything happened in the future.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be suspended for one week, and 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 License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver was alleged to have provided false information to South Wales Police in relation to identifying the driver following a speeding offence notification.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had received a speeding ticket and spoken to a friend about it, who advised him to put down a false name as it was his second offence. This was a stupid mistake which he never should have done. He had learned the hard way and apologised.
The witness, representing South Wales Police, stated that the driver had now accepted that he lied on his form, but previously sent a fraudulent insurance document to back it up. The witness had spoken to the company in question, who made clear that they had not issued the policy. The driver had been able to plead guilty to the original speeding ticket rather than to lying on his form, receiving three points rather than six and a smaller fine. He had knowingly and deliberately lied to the police, and offered no defence other than that he didn’t want a ticket.
The driver’s representative asked that the Sub Committee take into account the circumstances of the case. The driver had accepted that he had lied and given the reasons behind that. There was a scam going round where drivers were misled by individuals promising that they could make offences go away in return for money. The driver had not been honest at the outset but had been now, and he understood the importance of honesty and integrity when serving the public. He categorically assured Members that he would never do anything like this again, and would help with further inquiries into the issue.
The witness suggested that the driver knew from the start what he needed to do to declare his offence properly, having previously received a speeding ticket and complied with the legal requirements, but chose not to this time. He compounded the issue by continuing to knowingly lie, and only told the truth after being caught.
Members asked how many points the driver had on his licence in total, and heard that he had six.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
24/01264/HYB – ELY
Land comprising the former Michaelston College Site to the west of Michaelston Road and south of Drope Road, Ely, Cardiff.
Full Planning Permission for the redevelopment of the Former Michaelston College Site for the Construction of a Well-Being Village Incorporating Community Living Units (107 units) and Associated Communal Areas/Care Facilities (Class C2) with Community Hub (Class D1) to include cafe (Class A3), GP Surgery (Class D1), Community Hall/Meeting Space (Class D1); Residential Development (128 units) (Class C3); Public Open Space; Landscaping & Green Infrastructure; Drainage; Highways; Parking, and All Associated Works; and Outline Planning Permission for Adult Supported Living (Class C2); Children’s Respite Centre (Class C2) or alternative residential development (Class C3) (all matters reserved other than access), and Outline indicative proposals for off-site highways improvement works.
(Councillor Humphreys left the meeting during discussion of this item in accordance with her personal and prejudicial interest).
The application was granted subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement.
19/02523/MJR – CREIGIAU
Land south of Creigiau.
Outline planning application, with all matters reserved except for strategic access, for the development of approximately 650 dwellings, including open space (including play areas and areas of informal recreation), landscaping, sustainable drainage systems, vehicular accesses, improvement works to the existing highway network, pedestrian and cycle accesses and related infrastructure and engineering works.
The application was granted subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement.
APPLICATION GRANTED
24/00864/FUL – LLANDAFF NORTH
Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf, Bridge Road, Llandaff North, Cardiff.
Proposed Special Resource Base building including community cafe element, new sports pitch, associated sprinkler tanks and plant equipment, cycle parking and new drop off parking area, outdoor play equipment and seating areas + additional access to the River Taff Footpath at Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf.
The application was granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
APPLICATIONS DEFERRED
24/00084/FUL – RHIWBINA
Land at the rear of 19A Heol-Y-Coed, Coed Ceirios, Rhiwbina, Cardiff.
Erection of a 2 storey dwelling with associated landscape works.
The application was deferred for a site visit to take place.
24/01293/FUL – PONTCANNA
Pontcanna Mews, Kings Road, Pontcanna, Cardiff.
Retention of Change of use of existing Retail premises (Use Class A1) and to allow Flexible Use of the premises for Retail (Use Class A1), Financial and Professional Services (Use Class A2), Food and Drink (Use Class A3), Business (Use Class B1), Beauty Salon (Sui-Generis) and Tattoo Studio (Sui-Generis), including the use of the external courtyard for purposes ancillary to these uses and retention of a Covered Structure to provide outdoor seating.
The application was deferred for a site visit to take place.
23/02600/FUL – LLANDAFF
Land at Radyr Court Close
Erection of affordable houses together with access, landscaping, drainage, engineering and other associated works.
(Councillor Driscoll left his seat as a member of the Committee during this item in order to speak as a Ward Councillor, and did not vote in accordance with his prejudicial interest.)
The application was deferred for a site visit to take place.
Joint Meeting of the Economy & Culture and Environmental Scrutiny Committees,
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
24/00624/FUL – SPLOTT
The partial removal of fill material, undertaking of reprofiling groundworks, and the installation of an Energy Park (comprising battery energy storage facility, associated substation and ancillary buildings) and Data Centre, along with access, parking, drainage, landscaping and associated works.
RESOLVED: that
1. the Electric Vehicle Road Map be adopted and published as the Council’s strategic approach to delivering Council supported public electric vehicle infrastructure.
2. authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Climate Change, Strategic Planning & Transport and the Corporate Director of Resources, to implement the delivery of further public electric vehicle Infrastructure in accordance with the road map.
AGREED: that the Chairperson, on behalf of the Committee, writes to the Cabinet Member conveying the observations and recommendations of the Committee when discussing the way forward.
RESOLVED – That the 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 which stated that he became threatening and angry when challenged in respect of the metered fare being charged, and failed to provide his driver identification when requested.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was at the taxi rank by the castle when a passenger approached him and asked to be taken home. He asked if she had a preferred route and proceeded with the journey, and as they were about to go over the Fairoak roundabout she queried the reading on the meter. She said he was ripping her off but he explained it was the normal meter price and she could take it up with the council if she wanted.
The passenger asked him to stop so she could get out and refused to pay the fare. He saw another cab coming and waved him down to explain the situation. The passenger asked for his ID and he said she could take a picture of his plate number. He recorded a video on his phone but had lost it while backing up his device recently.
Members queried why he had refused to show identification to the passenger when she requested it. The driver suggested that she had been aggressive to him, and he didn’t want to leave his seat. He had reached behind instead to get his papers from the back seat because this included the meter certificate which showed it was functioning correctly.
The Sub Committee explored the discrepancy between the fare requested and what the witness normally expected to pay. The driver didn’t know why exactly it was higher than normal, as every meter was the same. He recalled that when she got out of the cab, he said she could just give him what she had, not necessarily the whole fare.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness reiterated the details in her statement, a number of which contradicted the driver’s account. She suggested that the driver had not asked her about her preferred route, but she had asked to avoid Newport Road because it often took longer. As they stopped at the lights on Lake Road East, she noticed that the fare was higher than usual. She got taxis home a lot, frequently after midnight, and the fare was normally around £16. When she challenged this, the driver said that the council set the rates but clearly didn’t want to talk about it any further.
She added that when the driver reached into the back of the car she thought he was grabbing at her, which was distressing. He got out the meter certificate but she realised the meter was still running and by then had reached £21.70. She said she wouldn’t pay anything until he provided his name and badge number so she could make a complaint. She tried to get out of the vehicle to take a picture of the plate number but he locked the doors, and at one point claimed he didn’t know his registration number.
The driver then flagged down another taxi driver who spoke to both of them. The second driver agreed that the fare was higher than expected and suggested that she pay it before taking it up with the council. The driver had been aggressive and rude throughout, and she felt scared and unsafe.
Members discussed the witness’ account and asked whether she accepted the explanation that the doors locking could have been an automatic feature. She explained that she asked the driver to unlock the door but he didn’t. It was only when the second driver came back that the door was unlocked.
In response to questions from the driver’s representative, the witness stated that she couldn’t recall the starting amount on the meter when she got in the taxi. It was only when they got to the lake that she realised the fare was higher than normal. The Licensing Officer added that the council had retrospectively calculated a reasonable fare for the trip at the night-time rate to be about £17, though it might have been higher due to the bank holiday.
The driver’s representative asked whether the witness accepted that meters were checked by authorised council officials and could not be tampered with by the drivers. The witness did not agree, and suspected that it was either set to a higher rate or was already running when she got into the vehicle.
The driver’s representative suggested that the incident could be seen as a misunderstanding. The driver was just doing his job in getting her home, starting and stopping the meter accordingly, and it was not right that he was challenged about what he was required to charge. The driver then flagged down a third party to help defuse the situation.
The witness acknowledged the points made but still felt upset about the experience, and had not used a hackney carriage since. She emphasised that the driver’s conduct was unacceptable, since he had been aggressive and nasty and refused to provide his licence number.
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 Licence given that a complaint had been received which stated that he displayed aggressive and intimidating behaviour by shouting and gesturing towards a cyclist using the regular bus lane.
The driver was not in attendance.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he had been cycling on Newport Road, coming from Roath towards Bute Park. There was a cycleway near the prison but he didn’t join it, choosing instead to use the bus lane which he was entitled to do. He stopped at a red light, and as he pulled away again a taxi started honking at him. The driver overtook him close by and shouted and gestured for him to move over. This was very upsetting and intimidating. It had happened before with other drivers, some of whom had been physically aggressive towards him.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the witness.
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 Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had declared relevant convictions on his DBS certificate as part of the application to renew his licence.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had been driving along the bus lane on Westgate Street last November. A bus inspector flagged him down and came over, and they had an altercation which led to the driver being accused of racism. This went to court and he was convicted and fined. He couldn’t afford to appeal and paid the fine in instalments.
He added that he had driven taxis for more than 15 years and never had a complaint. It was an unfortunate incident but he had taken it on the chin and hoped to move on. He relied on his job to pay the rent and support his family, and would be willing to do the relevant BTEC course if it would help.
Members queried what exactly he was alleged to have said. The driver explained that it was allegedly a racial slur, but he disputed saying this. He acknowledged that he shouldn’t have gotten angry, and anything similar were to happen again he would just ignore it and go to the next job.
The driver’s representative reiterated that he had driven taxis for more than 15 years and had a good record with no recent issues. He had disputed the complainant’s version of events but couldn’t afford to challenge the conviction so had to accept the fine and everything that came with it. Outside of work, he was of good character and worked with charities and food banks. Taxi driving was his sole source of income, and it was of vital importance that he be able to keep his licence. He had also indicated his willingness to complete the relevant qualification in order to shore up his knowledge and ability.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be suspended for two weeks, and that the driver be required to complete the BTEC Certificate In Taxi & Private Hire Driver (Level 2) within three months.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he had been convicted of offences resulting in him being disqualified from driving.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that in 2021 he had taken a job on Cyncoed Road whilst driving for Uber. While driving on Newport Road, he saw a cyclist in the bus lane and passed him when the gap was sufficient. The traffic slowed down and the lane split into two, with his lane diverted slightly towards the middle of the road. The cyclist came up behind him, thinking that the taxi had cut him off, and kicked the car twice, swore at the driver and broke the mirror.
The driver added that he wanted to prosecute the cyclist for this damage so he pulled into the left on Colchester Avenue to stop him leaving the scene. As his vehicle stopped, the cyclist went into the front wing and hit his shoulder on the door. The ambulance and police were called, and the cyclist went to hospital while the driver was arrested. He was released with no charge that day but learned about a year later that criminal proceedings were underway, which led to him being disqualified from driving for two years.
He emphasised that he had not intended to do the cyclist any harm, only move across to stop him running off as he knew he wouldn’t have any registration. It was the worst mistake he had ever made, and he had lost years of earnings and a mortgage as a result.
He added that he had been a taxi driver for 34 years, and had done school runs for 17 of those. He had an excellent record and always went above and beyond for his passengers, and felt he was a good ambassador for the city of Cardiff. He missed doing the job a lot, as it was not only his source of income but also his social life. He didn’t feel he would be able to work anywhere else, and hoped he would be allowed to keep his badges.
Members asked what he would do differently if an incident like this were to happen again. The driver accepted that his reaction had made him the culprit, and in the future he would just ignore it and carry on with the next job. He stressed that what happened that day was out of character for him.
Members queried the details of the incident, noting that a news article about it differed in some respects. The driver maintained that this was an inaccurate report that got key details wrong.
Members asked how he felt about sharing the road with cyclists in general. The driver emphasised that he took his responsibilities both as a taxi driver and under the Highway Code very seriously, and he understood how dangerous a car could be when used improperly. He acknowledged that by not pulling over and calming down he had made a very serious error, but it would never happen again.
RESOLVED – that the Private Hire licence be suspended until such a time that the driver produces a certificate of the SQA ‘Introduction to the Role of the Professional Taxi and Private Hire Driver’ qualification.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application in principle for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had a relevant conviction to consider.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged he had several convictions from his younger days, but he had come a long way since then and turned his life around, and did not pose any danger to the public.
Members noted that the guidance advised not issuing the licence in a case like this unless there were exceptional circumstances, and asked what these might be. The driver explained that his last conviction was seven years ago, and since then he had a clean record. He had been working consistently since then and had become a real part of the community who was always helping others out.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had recently received an endorsement on his licence due to defective tyres. He had bought a car which passed its MOT, and while driving it back to Cardiff was stopped for a bald tyre. He had received three points and a fine for this.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development management applications be determined in accordance with the recommendation set out in the reports of the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, subject to any further amendments as detailed below and notification be given of the decisions in accordance with Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED SUBJECT T ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
21/02863/MJR – LLANISHEN
30-36 Fishguard Road, Llanishen, Cardiff, CF14 5PQ
Proposed development of existing garages and erection of new attached development to form flats.
(Councillor Garry Hunt did not take part in the discussion or vote in respect of this application in accordance with his prejudicial interest).