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.
The Cabinet member for transport leads. Traffic orders, such as new speed limits or parking restrictions, are advertised before they're made.
Report potholes and broken street lights to the council or through FixMyStreet. You can object to a proposed traffic order during its notice period.
| Council | Items | With a decision |
|---|---|---|
| Cardiff | 56 | 47 |
| Vale of Glamorgan | 36 | 12 |
| Swansea | 32 | 6 |
| Neath Port Talbot | 8 | 3 |
| Monmouthshire | 7 | 1 |
| Newport | 5 | 0 |
| Powys | 4 | 0 |
| Gwynedd | 3 | 0 |
| Blaenau Gwent | 2 | 2 |
| Rhondda Cynon Taf | 2 | 1 |
| Carmarthenshire | 2 | 0 |
| Bridgend | 2 | 0 |
| Ceredigion | 1 | 1 |
RESOLVED: Council AGREED: 1. To approve the appointment of Mr Alan Davies as an Independent Non-Executive Director of Cardiff Bus for a term of 3 years, subject to the receipt of satisfactory references.
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 23/02265/HSE – LLANDAFF The Coach House, Cathedral Court, 6 The Cathedral Green, Llandaff (Councillor Shimmin left the meeting during discussion of this item in accordance with his prejudicial interest) Roof extension including new dormers The application was granted subject to an amendment to the wording of condition 3: ‘The first floor window which is positioned nearest to the south corner of the front (south west) elevation and the two second floor dormer windows which are positioned nearest to the south corner of the front (south west) elevation shall be non-opening below a height of 1.7m above internal floor level and glazed with obscure glass, and thereafter be retained. APPLICATION GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT 23/01301/VAR - BUTETOWN Multi Storey Car Park, Stuart Street, Butetown Variation of Conditions 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 10, 11 and 17 of 19/01012/MJR to reflect a move to a system build approach and allow more of the existing car park to be demolished, removal of the green walls, alterations to the footprint of the building particularly along the northern boundary slightly reducing the building footprint, two car parking spaces to be lost, the use of a "split-level" parking arrangement, car parking spaces are to be increased, increase to the height of the car park building, and alterations to the car parks facades. (Councillor Gunter did not take part in the discussion or vote on this item in accordance with her prejudicial interest) The application was granted subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement. Conditions regarding DEMP / CEMP to be authorised by the Planning Committee Chair. 23/01925/VAR – CATHAYS Guildford Crescent, Cathays, Cardiff Proposed residential-led mixed use redevelopment comprising residential apartments (use class C3) including ancillary indoor and outdoor residential amenity space; flexible commercial floorspace on the ground floor (use class A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and D2); landscaping; related infrastructure and engineering works (Approved 12 November 2021 - 21/01682/MJR): - Variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) of 21/01682/MJR to amend the approved scheme as follows: 1) Demolish and re-build the existing Guildford Crescent Facade; 2) Window framing (transoms removed); 3) Level 1 and Level 2 windows (inclusion of louvre and mini-profile concrete side panels); 4) The size of commercial unit 1; 5) Reconfiguration of first floor roof terrace; and 6) Introduction of access door off Level 1 amenity lobby onto foyer roof. The application was granted subject to the signing of a Section 106 agreement. APPLICATION DEFERRED 21/02863/MJR - LLANISHEN 30-36 Fishguard Road, Llanishen, Cardiff, CF14 5PQ Proposed demolition of existing garages and erection of new attached development to form flats (Councillor Hunt did not take part in the discussion or vote on this item in accordance with his prejudicial interest) The application was deferred for a site visit to take place.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were 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 has been received stating that he refused to take a journey from Cardiff train station to Penarth after allegedly saying he was available for hire Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative asserted that the driver had not broken any rules and suggested he had had been singled out by this complaint. He was not registered with the ICO and was not legally allowed to store information about customers and their trips as he was self-employed. The Chair noted that the allegation from the witness was that the driver was asked to take someone in his cab and said yes, but then changed his mind and refused the fare. He acknowledged that Penarth was out of the Cardiff area, but the witness’ contention was that this was not why it was refused The driver’s representative suggested that the driver was not obligated to explain to a member of the public why he wasn’t able to take a fare. The driver added that the witness did not ask him whether he was booked, and just said ‘Penarth’ as his window was rolling down. He also suggested that it wasn’t a formal rank as it was only his taxi there. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness stated that he was out with his family on a day out, and as they worked their way down the rank they were turned down by quite a few cabs when he said they needed to go to Penarth. A few of the drivers told them to ask the first cab on the rank, which he did. After he turned down the fare, another driver advised him that this was not allowed, and so he made a complaint. His daughter told him that it was like that every weekend when she tried to get to Penarth. The driver reiterated that he had not heard anything from the witness other than ‘Penarth’, and would not have been able to get back in time for his next booked trip if he had accepted it. He did not have a record of it but regularly took passengers to Penarth and other destinations outside of town. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he emphasised that he had no objection at all to taking passengers anywhere they asked. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the witness explained that he had complained about another driver too, and this driver had not been singled out. The driver’s representative summarised that while there was an issue with some drivers cherry-picking jobs, this driver had made clear that he did not do that. He only turned this one down because he had a job booked already and wouldn’t have been able to get back in time. He had done nothing wrong legally and did not deserve to be punished. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s Licence given that he declared he was disqualified from driving and had received a driving ban from the DVLA. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that his offence had occurred when he was having a very bad day. He was going through a lot of stress and his wife had just filed divorce papers. He was working as a chef and finished late, and had drunk two pints. He undertook another vehicle while it was raining heavily and was pulled over. After that, he lost everything and didn’t have any other opportunities for work. He hoped that Members would give him another chance to get back on the road and earn a proper living. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he was still working as a chef but was only able to do occasional part-time work as he did not have a car and it was hard to travel long distances. He relied on his wife and friends to give lifts but this was not always possible. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s Licence be revoked. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had a conviction contrary to the guidance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had made some silly mistakes but he wanted to feed his family and children. He stated he was a businessman and not aggressive Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he had re-applied for a Private Hire Driver’s Licence as he had previously owned a takeaway shop which he had sold and wanted to do something comfortable and easy. He had previously been in possession of a Private Hire Driver’s Licence in Newport (6 months) and Cardiff (just under a year). He had stopped after 6 months in Newport as he did not like travelling. He had not renewed either licence. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with the Authority but was convicted for taking his daughter out of the county without the mother’s consent in 2019. He was also referred to committee in 2019 and subsequently had his licence revoked. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver explained that he first moved to Cardiff in 1994 and his daughter was born in 2012. He was then banned from the UK for 10 years and moved back to Romania. In 2014, he was accused of kidnapping his daughter. His wife moved to London and he was unable to go to his daughter’s school or doctors. His wife and daughter then moved back to Romania, and he had attended court on six occasions to try to gain custody of his daughter as she had returned from Romania with injuries. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee the driver explained that he had not seen his daughter for 4 or 5 years and she was now 12 years of age. He had received a prison sentence for taking his daughter out of the UK without her mother’s consent. Whilst in prison he was attacked. When he came out of prison he was not feeling well so he had handed in his badge. He informed the Sub Committee that he was now fit and well and wanted to come back to work as quickly as possible. He explained that it was just a family quarrel and there was no violence involved. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and 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. He was also referred to committee and subsequently had his licence revoked. The driver explained that he had not committed any speeding offences whilst working as a taxi driver. He had been a delivery driver with his own shop and the police had caught him on camera speeding. He now had a clean driving licence. He stressed that he had never committed any crimes and had now learnt his lesson. For one and half years had had no employment, lost his licence and lost his shop. He informed the Sub Committee that he had a security job but that only provided him with 10 days’ work per month which was not enough and asked for another chance. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee the driver explained that the court had given him the chance to drive despite his points and said that if he made another mistake he would receive a 6 month ban. The police then stopped him for a worn tyre and he lost his licence for 6 months and his shop. He said that he had tried to use the train but the last one was at 10.00 pm and there were no busses. Sometimes he slept on the sofa which was hard. He explained that he had lost his licence before his taxi licence and had disclosed this information in his last application. The car with the worn tyre was his only car and the one he used as a taxi. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED: Council AGREED to: 1. Approve the nomination to the SEWCJC Governance and Audit Sub-Committee as set out in the Amendment Sheet; 2. Approve the nomination and appointment of a new non-executive director to the Board of Cardiff Bus as set out in the Amendment Sheet; 3. Approve the company’s proposed appointment of Mrs Jen Doody to the Board of Cardiff Bus as an executive director; 4. Approve the nomination of Councillor Garry Hunt for consideration and appointment by the company’s Board as the new Chair of Cardiff Bus.
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police.
RESOLVED : That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee to convey any comments, observations and recommendations made during the way forward.
RESOLVED : That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee to convey any comments, observations and recommendations made 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 DEFERRED 23/02265/HSE – LLANDAFF The Coach House, Cathedral Court, 6 The Cathedral Green, Llandaff Roof Extension including New Dormers REASON: Deferred for additional information to be provided. APPLICATION GRANTED 23/01833/FUL – PONTCANNA Llandaff Fields Bowling Pavilion, Cathedral Road, Pontcanna Installation of 6 glazed open padel courts for all year-round covered by glazed canopies. Installation of lighting set within the courts using low energy LED lighting. Refurbishment and alteration of existing Pavilion provision of mobile social space (cafe, changing facilities, toilets, office and storage) Approved as per recommendation with the addition of the advisory note below: The operator of the Pavilion be advised that it would be beneficial for the Toilet Facilities that are to be provided to be available for use to the general public during the permitted hours of operation in the interests of providing a community facility for all users of the Park. APPLICATION GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT 23/02402/FUL – CATHAYS MadinaAsjid Mosque, Lucas Street, Cathays Proposed Madina Mosque and Community Centre including Landscaping, Highways, Parking, Drainage and Associated Works. Approved as per recommendation subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement, plus additional condition regarding submission of a Travel Plan.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that he was disqualified from driving and had received a driving ban from the DVLA. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been involved in an accidental collision in the early hours of the morning in February 2023. As he was heading back into town on the bypass having dropped some passengers off, a drunk man walked out in front of him. He tried to avoid a collision by swerving into the other lane but it was not possible. He was in shock and carried on driving. When he got home he realised he should have stopped, so he called the police and let them know he’d been involved in an accident. Members queried the delay between the incident occurring and Cardiff Council being notified. The driver explained that when he was interviewed by the police, they told him they would notify the licensing authority as well as his insurance. RESOLVED – that the Private Hire Driver’s License be revoked. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were 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 convicted of 3 motoring offences amounting to 9 penalty points. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver outlined the three incidents that had led to him receiving the points. One had taken place on Newport Road, where he had been distracted by a passenger who had a small child who had taken off their seatbelt, and was clocked at 33mph in a 30mph zone. The second had occurred on a country lane on the way to Newport, when he assumed the speed limit was 40 rather than 30. The third incident took place in Trowbridge, and he did not have any excuse for it. The most recent offence was in 2022 and he had not made the same mistake since. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that in each case there had been passengers in the car. Members queried why the council had not been notified until now when the third offence had taken place in November 2022. The driver acknowledged that this was an oversight on his part. He had informed his insurance immediately but didn’t realise he was expected to do the same for the licensing authority. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that information was received by the Licensing Authority alleging suspected drug misuse. The Chair noted that the driver had attended the previous Sub Committee meeting and had disputed the results of the drug test which had led to his suspension. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recounted the events that had led to him coming before it previously. He had challenged the testing company’s results which indicated active drug use and had consistently fought to clear his name but had been unable to fund a second test for a long time. His partner had been an active drug user so he would have been exposed to the substances through her, but he had been clean throughout. He did not smoke or drink alcohol either. He had now received the results of the 12 month drug test, which did detect cocaine in his hair as the first test did, but was not able to determine whether this was from active use or exposure. He felt this sufficiently contradicted the results of the first test and proved his innocence. He was willing to do further tests if necessary. He also provided a letter from his GP which suggested there was no indication he was a drug user. The Licensing Officer outlined the report of the second test, which concluded that from these results alone, it was not possible to determine whether they were due to active use, passive exposure or residual presence from use prior to the testing period. The report also suggested that external environmental contamination was likely to be a potential contributor. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with Newport City Council but was convicted of an offence in 2023 resulting in his licence with Newport being revoked. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been caught speeding in March 2022. A few of his friends told him to change the name on the declaration form so it didn’t look like it was him driving. This was the worst decision he had ever made, and he would never have done it if he had understood the consequences. He was interviewed first by Newport Council and then by the police, and in December 2023 he was convicted of perverting the course of justice. He received a suspended sentence and a fine, and was required to do community service. Since then, he had struggled to pay rent and bills. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that Newport had revoked his licence immediately after the conviction. He had applied to Cardiff because Newport had told him he wouldn’t be able to reapply there until 2029. Members asked how he had let his friends persuade him to put a false name down. The driver responded that he panicked and didn’t know what to do. He thought he was protecting his family by avoiding losing his licence and livelihood. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had been clocked at 35mph in a 30 zone, having been under the impression that the limit was 40mph. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused.
RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, REFUSED the application.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant previously held a licence with a different local authority and had the licence revoked. He also had a motoring conviction for CU80 (use of mobile phone while driving) which resulted in 6 penalty points. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that he was a hard worker who just wanted the best possible life for his children. He was a courteous and friendly driver who treated customers well and had experience driving for Uber before. He had received the penalty points in 2021 for parking on a double yellow line. A police officer informed him he had committed an offence but then acted unprofessionally, which another police officer apologised for, so he didn’t realise he had actually received the points until he applied for a change of licence in Newport. Newport City Council then revoked his licence because of his failure to declare the points. Members queried the history of complaints highlighted by Newport council. The driver acknowledged he had received some complaints while working for Uber but felt that this was because some customers would complain about anything. Since leaving Uber he had worked for Amazon but wanted to serve the public as a taxi driver again. In response to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that the six points on his licence were made up of 3 points for parking on a double yellow line and 3 for using his mobile phone while driving. He didn’t feel this was a fair punishment and believed the police had fabricated their charges. He had not put in an official complaint because he didn’t have the money to go to court. Members asked if the driver would be happy for his children to travel in a taxi driven by someone who had six points on his record. The driver responded that he would not. The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident with the police officer provided by the driver. Members queried why he hadn’t shown the video to the authority until now. The driver responded that he hadn’t seen the point, and added that he had given it to Newport council at the time of his hearing. RESOLVED – that the application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence be refused (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that information was received by the Licensing Authority alleging suspected drug misuse that was a cause for concern with Adult and Children’s Services. Due to the nature of his role as a taxi driver and the high likelihood of transporting vulnerable passengers, these concerns were shared with the licensing authority, including a DNA test that was requested by the Council. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the DNA test stemmed from a family matter where he had voluntarily put himself forward to be tested as a possible carer for a child. He was shocked when he saw the results, having never used drugs in his life, and disputed it immediately with the testing company, his solicitor and the local authority. He had managed to arrange a new test through the local authority the day before the hearing and believed the results would show he had not taken drugs at any point in the last 12 months. He added that he was dependent on the school run for his livelihood, as it was about 80% of his income. He had driven schoolchildren and children with special needs around for more than six years and loved it. He had no support from Universal Credit as he was self-employed, and was only just about keeping his cab running to pay the bills. This experience had turned his life upside down and been very damaging. He wanted to clear his name and get back to working the school runs. Members asked about the time period the new test would cover, and when the results would be available. The driver confirmed that it would cover the last 12 months, so that it included the time of the original test and could clear his name properly, and the results would take up to two weeks. The Sub Committee discussed the possibility of deferring the case until the results of the new test were available. The Licensing Officer confirmed that the next scheduled date was 5th June, and the driver would remain suspended from the school contract and able to drive his taxi in the meantime. RESOLVED – that the matter be deferred to the next meeting of the Sub Committee
RESOLVED : That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee to convey any comments, observations and recommendations made 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 (Councillor Ed Stubbs left the meeting during discussion of this item in accordance with his prejudicial interest, the Deputy Chair, Councillor Irene Humphreys took the Chair). 24/00110/FUL – BUTETOWN Land off Lewis Road, Splott, Cardiff Construction of a replacement school for Willows High School and associated works. APPLICATION DEFERRED 23/02265/DCH The Coach House, Cathedral Court, 6 Cathedral Green, Llandaff, Cardiff, CF5 2EB. Roof extension including new dormers. Reason for deferral: For a site visit to take place.
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: 23/01174/FUL – CATHAYS Friary House, Greyfriars Road, Cathays, Cardiff CF10 3AE Erection of building (up to 28 storeys, including ground) for mixed use purposes, including commercial space (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1 and/or D1) (part ground floor) and residential accommodation for students comprised in a combination of cluster flats and studios (Sui Generis) with associated accommodation and works following demolition of existing buildings.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received alleging that the driver was aggressive, made rude gestures and drove his vehicle in a way as to cause concern. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver recalled that the parking layout outside Heath Hospital had recently changed, and this had caused some confusion for the public. As taxi drivers they often needed to explain to people where they could park and where they might get a ticket. People were normally very understanding and grateful for the advice but in this case the people he spoke to got aggressive and told him to go away. He was only trying to help but the way they responded made him feel terrible. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witness explained that her recollection of events was very different. She and her son were picking up her husband after major surgery, and her son dropped her off at the entrance before driving off and coming back to pick them up. Her son made sure to go to the designated pick-up point, which was clearly signposted. As he pulled up, the taxi driver got out of his car and started shouting that they couldn’t park there. Her son calmly responded that they would only be 30 seconds, but the driver continued shouting and put his middle finger up at them. He then reversed his car very close to theirs in order to make it difficult for her son to pull out. She wound the window down and said she was going to report him, and he said ‘go ahead’. The driver suggested that the witness had parked in the taxi rank and he was telling them they couldn’t park there. The witness insisted that they had not parked in the taxi rank at any point, and had followed the signs instead. The driver added that his vehicle had a parking sensor and camera so he would not have reversed right up against the complainant’s car as they claimed. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, he confirmed that the camera did not record video footage. Members queried how the parking system at the hospital worked, which the Licensing Officer clarified was not regulated in the normal way as the taxi rank was not designated by Highways. Instead, there was a private agreement for taxis to be allowed to use certain bays, with a private company issuing tickets when people contravened the signs. It was a notoriously busy area which used a one-way loop to prevent cars pulling into the A&E bays. The Sub Committee discussed the contrasting stories in detail and highlighted the need for taxi drivers operating at a hospital to be especially empathetic and patient with the public, even if they sincerely felt they were doing something wrong. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that a complaint had been received stating that the driver had notified the authority he had been convicted of a motoring offence CU80 (use of a mobile device while driving). Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated he was sitting in stationary traffic with the handbrake on when he took a moment to plug the charging cable into his phone. He didn’t realise that there was a policeman next to him who informed him that he had committed an offence. He had been driving for more than 20 years and never had a single point on his licence before this, and had learnt his lesson and would be much more careful in the future. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he hadn’t appealed the penalty because he accepted that he had touched his phone. He didn’t see the point in taking it to court because he had done what he was accused of, and he declared the offence to the council as soon as possible. He added that he had already been punished further for his actions in addition to the initial fine, because his insurance had gone up significantly. The driver’s representative added that while the offence of using a mobile device while driving was a serious one, his vehicle was stationary at the time and he didn’t have any passengers, meaning that he wasn’t actually causing any risk to other road users. However, it was an offence, and he had accepted his punishment. The representative suggested that the driver had been punished enough already, and that his spotless prior record and clear remorse should be taken into account. He was an honest and reliable driver who would never make a mistake like this again. RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning. (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that the driver reported to the licensing office that he had his DVLA licence revoked due to accumulating speeding points over a short duration of time, and that his licence was within 2 years from first grant. It was disposed of that he would need to reapply and complete his theory and practical tests again, which he had done. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s representative stated that he had received 3 points on three consecutive days in July 2023 at the exact same place on Western Avenue. He hadn’t realised that the speed limit had changed from 40 to 30, and the clocked speeds (37mph, 38mph and 38mph) indicated that he genuinely believed he was under the limit. He was a very good and reliable driver who had never had any issues before or since. The representative added that the driver had lived a difficult life and had to work very hard to get where he was today, and his income was vital to his family and to get both of his children through university. He was certainly a fit and proper person to drive a taxi, and he just wanted to support himself and his family. He accepted that having 9 points on his licence was a serious thing, and would be particularly observant of speed limit changes in the future. RESOLVED – that no further action be taken. (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the applicant had a conviction contrary to the guidance. The driver was not in attendance so the application was deferred. (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that the driver previously held a licence with the authority but was convicted of causing injury whilst dangerous driving. The driver had not held a relevant licence with the authority since this application. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was convicted for dangerous driving in 2013, after an accident which he deeply regretted. He had never had an accident before this and he hadn’t since. He went to jail for it and served his time but still lived with it today. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver’s colleague gave a character reference. He explained that the driver had been associated with the taxi industry for a very long time, and a long time had passed since his offence. He had seen how he behaved with other drivers, passing on knowledge and experience to students coming through, and transporting children as a contractor for the local authority. He had proved he was a fit and proper person, and there was no value in continually punishing people for the same thing. He was not the same person he was 11 years ago, he now had a family and wanted to get his licence back. The Sub Committee queried a recent offence on the driver’s DVLA licence history, where he had received 6 penalty points for failing to give information as to the identity of the driver. The driver clarified that at this time he was renting out more than 400 cars, and this particular one was being driven in Hampshire. His business was in difficulty at the time and he wasn’t able to access the building where the letters arrived regarding this offence. He wasn’t the driver of the vehicle but as the director of the company he was responsible for it. RESOLVED – that the application be refused. (6) Application 6 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the Grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver's Licence given that a motoring conviction had been declared on the application. The offence was IN10, using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that the offence happened in November 2022. Immediately prior to that, he had been out of the country due to a family emergency. There weren’t enough funds in his account for the direct debit for his insurance to go through so it was cancelled, but he didn’t receive any notification of this. He was then pulled over by police (in his own car rather than in a private hire vehicle), fined £400 and given seven points on his licence. He added that he was currently licensed by Newport City Council, who were aware of the offence and had recently renewed his licence. RESOLVED – that the application be granted.
RESOLVED - That the Sub Committee, having considered the application on its individual merits and considered all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, written submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicants during the hearing in its determination of the matter, GRANTED the application.
RESOLVED – That the sub-committee, having carefully considered the objections from Pollution Control and accepted that there was a genuine basis for concern regarding noise outbreak from the premises, GRANTED the licence with the following amendments/conditions which were considered appropriate in the circumstances for the promotion of the Licensing Objectives: The Sub-Committee considered the application on its individual merits and considered all the committee papers, the statutory guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, the Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy, submissions made by the applicant and all other parties, and the oral evidence given by the applicants during the hearing in its determination of the matter. The Sub-Committee noted that a representation was received from South Wales Police, objecting to the application. However, the South Wales Police objection was withdrawn prior to the hearing as the applicant agreed a number of conditions. Opening hours: Sunday to Thursday: 09:00 to 00:00 hours Friday and Saturday: 09:00 to 01:00 hours New Years Eve: until permitted hours the following day Sale of alcohol: Sunday to Thursday: 09:00 to 23:30 hours Friday and Saturday: 09:00 to 00:30 hours New Years Eve: until permitted hours the following day The provisions of films: Sunday to Thursday: 09:00 to 23:30 hours Friday and Saturday: 09:00 to 00:30 hours New Years Eve: an additional hour Regulated entertainment and late night refreshment: Sunday to Thursday: 23:00 to 23:30 hours Friday and Saturday: 23:00 to 00:30 hours New Years Eve: an additional hour Non-standard timings: Maundy Thursday, Christmas Eve, Sundays preceding Bank Holidays: an extra hour Any external area associated with the premises shall not be used after 22:30 hours.
RESOLVED: that 1. the draft Bus Priority Infrastructure Plan document, as set out in Appendix 1 be approved. 2. the commencement of a public consultation on the Bus Priority Infrastructure Plan be approved. 3. Authority be delegated to the Director of Transport, Planning and Environment in conjunction with the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning & Transport to make minor amendments to the Bus Priority Infrastructure Plan and formulate a programme of deliverable bus priority projects and relevant engagement with key stakeholders, and to move forward with the delivery of those key projects. 4. It be noted that all related transport project deliverables included in, and/or produced from the Bus Priority Infrastructure Plan will be subject to successful funding bids, public consultation, design feasibility, assessments (including Equalities Impact Assessments EQIA) and Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs).
RESOLVED: that the updated Highway Maintenance Policy Document Part A (2024) as the current management policy for this function be approved.
RESOLVED: that 1. the launch of an Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) 2 Stage Tender for Phase 1A of the CrossRail Project be authorised. 2. authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport & Environment to award the Stage 1 ECI Design Phase to the successful bidder using the evaluation criteria set out in Paragraph 11 of this report. 3. It be noted that that Stage 2 of the ECI will be subject to a future cabinet approval. This will be based on an agreement of a target cost price following the Stage 1 process. 4. authority be delegated to Director of PTE (as Senior Responsibly Owner (SRO) and Programme Board Chairperson) to move forward with all consultation and engagement process associated with the CrossRail Phase 1 Project.
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 County Planning Act 1990 or Section 74 of the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation) Act 1990. APPLICATIONS GRANTED: 24/00050/NMA – WHITCHURCH/TONGWYNLAIS Land to the North West of Whitchurch Hospital Playing Fields, Cardiff Councillor Irene Humphreys left the meeting consideration of this item in accordance with her Personal and Prejudicial Interest. Proposed non-material amendment to Planning Permission 22/02231/RES – addition of TCAR2 emergency access route (to the SE of the site), removal of the Hollybush bridge, updates to the position of the intake room and lowering of the basement level by 300mm 24/00060/FUL – FAIRWATER 56b Plasmawr Road, Fairwater, Cardiff, CF5 3JX Councillor Michael Michael left the meeting during consideration of this item in accordance with his Personal and Prejudicial Interest. APPLICATIONS GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT: 22/00820/MJR – PLASNEWYDD Land at the Former Youth Hostel, 2 Wedal Road, Roath, Cardiff, CF14 3QX Development of up to 5 storey building to accommodate 23 no. affordable apartments plus associated works. The application was granted subject to the signing of the Section 106 agreement and amendment to condition 6 as set out in the Amendment Sheet and Late Representations dated 14.03.24. 23/02475/FUL – PENTWYN The New Penn, 204A Brynfedw, Llanedeyrn, Cardiff, CF23 9PW Demolition of the former New Penn Public House and the redevelopment of the site to accommodate affordable dwellings, including highway infrastructure, landscaping works and green infrastructure. The application was granted subject to the signing of the Section 106 agreement and amendment to conditions 2 and 6 as set out in the Amendment Sheet and Late Representations dated 14.03.24
RESOLVED – That: The application be approved.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to the Cabinet Member on behalf of the Committee to convey any comments, observations and recommendations made during the way forward.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application. The Sub Committee understood the concerns of the objectors in relation to the problems which already existed in the area. However, Members considered that the premises was not located in an area covered by a cumulative impact policy and did not consider that the granting of the licence would undermine the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED – That the Sub Committee, having considered all the information, and in accordance with the requirements of the Licensing Act 2003, the Section 182 Guidance and the Licensing Authority’s own Statement of Licensing Policy, GRANTED the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the addition of a condition stating that there would be no sale of individual cans of beer, cider or lager. Members accepted that there were issues associated with problem street-drinkers in the area and that a condition restricting the sale of single cans was appropriate to promote the licensing objectives. Members accepted the concerns raised by local residents in relation to the undercroft and the use of the car park. However, the undercroft was beyond the direct control of the premises and did not form part of the application. Members did not feel that any evidence had been presented that the licensing objectives would be undermined except for the issue in relation to the sale of single cans. Members therefore agreed to approve the application, subject to the conditions agreed with South Wales Police and the additional condition set out above.
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated: (1) Application 1 The Sub Committee were asked to consider an application for the grant of a Private Hire Operator’s License given that one of the directors had been prosecuted by the local authority for his involvement in a case that resulted in an unlicensed driver undertaking a journey in a private hire vehicle for a school transport service. Addressing the Sub Committee, the applicant stated that his former business partner had given a vehicle to an unlicensed driver without consulting him and stopped paying insurance, and this was what led to the prosecution. He highlighted that he held a clean operator’s licence in the Vale of Glamorgan and had driven taxis for more than 20 years without any issues. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the applicant confirmed that he had an operator’s licence in the Vale of Glamorgan and was seeking a Cardiff one too so he could seek contracts for school and airport runs in the city. At the moment the company could only use drivers licensed in the Vale. The Sub Committee asked how he would ensure that the previous issue with the unlicensed driver would not happen again. The applicant assured them that he would have a safeguarding system in place, with each vehicle and driver registered internally. He owned the vehicles himself and would be responsible for insuring them. RESOLVED – application refused (2) Application 2 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging the refusal of a fare and questioning driver conduct. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he did not recognise the details in the witnesses’ statements, as he only ever drove with a meter. He did not recall the incident in question and did not recognise the witnesses. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he would have been working in his taxi at the time of the incident and that the badge number the witnesses had reported was his. Nobody else had access to his vehicle or badge, so the wrong number might have been written down. The Sub Committee queried a previous complaint against the driver alleging refusal of a fare. The driver recalled that he only ever refused a fare when the passenger was particularly drunk or aggressive. The witnesses addressed the Sub Committee, stating that they were going to a show at the Millennium Centre and got into a taxi on St Mary’s Street, which normally cost £8-£9, but the driver asked them for £16.50. They settled on £10 which was still above the usual fare for this journey. The witnesses noted down the badge number and contacted the local authority. They were certain that it was the same driver. The witnesses did not recall seeing a meter in the vehicle but had not queried this at the time. They suggested that if the fare had been legitimate and the meter running, the driver would have just shown it to them when they challenged the fare. The Sub Committee discussed where the meter would normally be in a taxi, and heard that in Cardiff it was generally attached to the dashboard above the radio but could also be attached to the rear-view mirror. The driver confirmed that his meter was attached to the rear-view mirror, and added that if a passenger ever asked where the meter was then he was obligated to show it to them. In response to questions from the driver’s representative, the witnesses stated that they had made a note of the badge number as the taxi was driving off. They added that the vehicle was a black and white Prius, and the driver confirmed that he drove one of these. The driver’s representative suggested that this was a common vehicle for taxis in Cardiff, and the witnesses may have confused it with another one with a similar badge number. RESOLVED – suspended for 7 days (3) Application 3 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging dangerous driving and aggressive behaviour, including making rude and abusive hand gestures. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver highlighted his clean record. He had driven taxis for many years and conducted school transport for special needs children for 14 years. He did not recall the incident itself but strongly refuted the allegation that he had made offensive gestures. The driver added that he was unaware that the complainants had followed him into the car park afterwards, and suggested that this indicated they were hoping to have an altercation. As a taxi driver he understood that he had to negotiate a number of potentially stressful situations every day and maintain professionalism. He suggested that the complainants were not qualified to judge what constituted good driving. Addressing the Sub Committee, the witnesses stated that the taxi had cut across them on Cogan Spur without indicating and nearly caused an accident, before braking hard without warning. The sudden stop caused one of the witnesses’ back pain to get worse. The witnesses contested the driver’s claim that he did not make any gestures towards them, and emphasised that they were not following him around the car park, but rather looking for a disabled bay which could be difficult to find when it was busy. The witnesses stressed that taxi drivers were meant to set an example, as they were representing Cardiff Council and had the logo on the back of their vehicle. One of the witnesses added that he was a former driving instructor qualified to Grade 6 and also a former Special Constable, so he understood the definition of dangerous driving. He had known the driver personally for many years and would not have made this complaint unless he felt that it was very serious. The incident had been entirely unnecessary and put people in danger. RESOLVED – written warning (4) Application 4 The Sub Committee were asked to determine if a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License following a complaint received alleging the refusal of a fare and questioning driver conduct. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that a customer had entered his taxi upon leaving the Motorpoint Arena at about 11pm and asked to go to an address in Gwaelod Y Garth. He put in the wrong postcode by mistake and thought the destination was outside Cardiff, so he suggested a fare of £50. He then realised his error and tried to let the customer know but they had already left and got into another taxi. Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver confirmed that he had misheard the address as CF35 when he asked the passenger where they wanted to go. The actual postcode in Gwaelod Y Garth was CF15. The CF35 address was 24 miles away so he estimated that this would cost about £50, going by his usual £2 per mile price for trips out of Cardiff. The Licensing Officer confirmed that while any in-district fare had to be calculated using the meter, there was no standard procedure for calculating fares outside of Cardiff as long as the fare was agreed with the customer before the journey began. RESOLVED – written warning (5) Application 5 The Sub Committee were 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 upon renewal of his licence his DBS returned a recent conviction from August 2022. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver acknowledged that he had been convicted of domestic violence in 2022 and had since undertaken all of the community service and rehabilitation programs required by the court. He had been a taxi driver for more than a decade and had a very high Uber rating. He hoped he could prove to the Sub Committee that he was a professional and reliable individual who could be trusted to drive a taxi. He was trying to be a positive role model for his son and had learned a lot from the rehabilitation program. The driver’s representative added that the driver had intended to appeal the conviction but had been unable to do so for financial reasons. He had been licensed in Cardiff for 15 years with an exemplary record, had participated in a rehabilitation course and had declared his conviction to the licensing authority at the earliest opportunity. He had no other source of income and was a single parent, so he depended on his license for his livelihood. RESOLVED – license revoked Application 6 The Sub Committee were 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 disclosed a conviction for plying for hire without a licence to do so, and received 8 points on his licence for driving without insurance. Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he had been driving taxis for 23 years and otherwise had a clean record. He had always driven a hackney carriage but had taken it to the garage the day before and was driving a private hire vehicle instead. While driving along Mill Lane, he saw two young women who did not seem to be getting picked up by anyone else, and he didn’t want to leave them on their own. As they got in, he realised that he was in the wrong vehicle, but he took them to their destination anyway. He accepted that this was an error and apologised to the Sub Committee. This was the first mistake he had made in a long career and it would not happen again. In response to questions from the Sub Committee, he accepted that he took them to their destination despite knowing that he shouldn’t. He suggested that he thought they might cause trouble if he asked them to leave. He confirmed that he understood the consequences of taking them as he did not have the correct insurance for a trip that wasn’t pre-booked. The Licensing Officer clarified that licensed drivers in Cardiff were dual-badge, meaning that they could drive both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, and it was the vehicles themselves where the insurance varied. The insurance depended on the trip being pre-booked, and if it wasn’t pre-booked then it wasn’t insured. It was an offence to ply for hire without the required insurance. The driver’s representative addressed the Sub Committee, asking the panel to consider the driver’s length of service and his spotless record. He had been a fit and proper person to drive a taxi for many years and this was a serious lapse of judgement which would never happen again. The representative added that the driver had already been punished for the offence with fines and points on his license. RESOLVED – 28 day suspension
RESOLVED: that 1. (subject to minor amendments in accordance with recommendation 5) the draft City Parking Plan (attached at appendix 1) be approved. 2. the commencement of public consultation on the draft City Parking Plan (attached at appendix 1) be approved. 3. (subject to minor amendments in accordance with recommendation 5) the draft amendments to the Council’s Parking Policies (attached at appendices 3-6) be approved. 4. the commencement of public consultation on the draft amendments to the Parking Policies (attached at appendices 3-6) be approved. 5. Authority be delegated to the Director of Planning, Transport and Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet member for Transport and the Council’s Section 151 Officer, to: i. Prepare and undertake public consultation on the draft City Parking Plan and the draft amendments to the Council’s Parking Policies; and, ii. Make minor amendments to and approve the City Parking Plan and the changes to the Council’s Parking Policies following any recommendations made after closure of public consultation.