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
i) It be noted that the market exercise for the redevelopment of land marked as Area B on the plan attached at Appendix 1 and authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Investment and Development, the Section 151 Officer and the Legal Officer to:
a. negotiate and enter into an exclusivity agreement with the ‘Preferred Bidder’.
b. negotiate an option agreement contract with the ‘Preferred Bidder’ and to return to Cabinet for final approval.
ii) the amended car parking strategy for the Atlantic Wharf regeneration scheme as set out at Confidential Appendices 4 be notedand the alteration of the Indoor Arena Development Fund Agreement with Live Nation be authorised to reflect this new approach.
iii) the acquisition of the Pierhead Street MSCP be authorised on the terms set out at Confidential Appendix 6 and authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Investment and Development, the Section 151 Officer and the Legal Officer to complete the acquisition.
iv) the appropriation of land for planning purposes as set out at Appendix 7 be approvedand authority be delegated to the Director of Economic Development to appropriate future parcels as outlined.
v) the proposal for Lloyd George Avenue as set out at Appendix 8 & Confidential Appendix 9 be noted and a consultation exercise to consider the proposal be authorised.
RESOLVED – That the following item was confidential and exempt from publication as it contained exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 14 of Part 4 and paragraph 21 of Part 5 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and that the public be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item.
The Committee received a confidential update on the Cardiff Bus Interchange project. Officers from Transport for Wales were invited to the meeting to provide Members with a presentation and respond to questions raised during a question and answer session.
RESOLVED: That the Chairperson writes to Transport for Wales 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.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
22/02673/FUL – PENTWYN / LLANRUMNEY
Cardiff East Park and Ride, Eastern Avenue, Old St Mellons, Cardiff, CF23 8HH
Demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of the site to provide commercial floorspace (Use Classes B1, B2, B8, A3) and/or ancillary Class A1), associated drive-thru and car parking; the re-provision of the park and ride; a bridge across the Rhymney River; site wide landscaping and associated works.
Subject to the amendment of Conditions 7, 18 and 19 (as set out in the Amendment Sheet and Late Representations dated 11.0.24).
APPLICATION GRANTED
23/01427/ FUL – HEATH
35 St Isan Road, Heath, Cardiff, CF14 4LU
Construction of two storey extension to side and rear of existing building, roof alterations including raising of ridge height and dormers, extending existing Pharmacy and creating 2no. additional flats with provision of amenity space and bike store.
(Councillor Garry Hunt left the meeting during consideration of this application in accordance with his personal and prejudicial interest)
APPLICATION REFUSED
20/00187/MJR – LLANDAFF
Land at De Braose Closer, Danescourt, Cardiff
Residential development comprising 36 dwellings together with associated infrastructure, public open space and woodland management
(Councillor Adrian Robson t left the meeting during consideration of this application in accordance with his prejudicial interest)
REASON:
This application was considered Planning Committee on 7 December 2023. It was resolved to defer the application to the next meeting of the Committee for reasons for refusal based on the objections raised by the Committee.
The application was refused for the following reasons:
1.
The development, by reason of its location within a significant identified area of Open Space, would exacerbate the existing deficiency of Open Space within the Llandaff ward, as identified by the Open Space Survey (2022), contrary to the provisions of Policy C4 of the adopted Local Development Plan (2016) and guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales (Edition 11, February 2021) (paragraph 4.5.3).
2.
The creation of an extensive, engineered vehicular access through the significant woodland, including the removal of trees, would cause unacceptable harm to the established character and appearance of the existing mature and established woodland and public footpath network which cannot be mitigated by replanting, or the translocation scheme proposed, or outweighed by any other benefits of the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of KP5, EN6, EN7 and EN8 of the Local Development Plan (2016), Supplementary Planning Guidance Green Infrastructure (including Technical Guidance Notes relating to: Ecology and Biodiversity and; Trees and Development) (November 2017), as well as Chapter 6 of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 11, February 2021 – with Chapter 6 updated October 2023) and Policy 9 (Resilient Ecological Networks and Green Infrastructure) of Future Wales: The National Plan 2040.
3.
The development, by virtue of its siting and the quality of proposed connections for both walking and cycling, does not provide safe, legible and otherwise well designed connectivity to nearby shops, facilities and schools for the proposed affordable housing development, contrary to Policies KP5, T1 and C6 of the adopted Local Development Plan (2016) and guidance within the adopted Cardiff Residential Design Guide
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: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control 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
23/02286/FUL - CATHAYS
HOWELLS OF CARDIFF, 14 – 18 ST MARY STREET, CATHAYS, CARDIFF, CF10 1TT
Proposed redevelopment (Phases 2 and 3) of part of the former Howells department store, including partial demolition, to deliver studio apartments (Use Class C3) and flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and D2); restoration of Bethany Chapel and Sunday School plus upward extension (additional storeys) to the Percy Thomas Wharton Street block; public realm; related infrastructure and engineering works.
23/02287/LBC – CATHAYS
HOWELLS OF CARDIFF, 14 – 18 ST MARY STREET, CATHAYS, CARDIFF, CF10 1TT
Proposed redevelopment (Phases 2 and 3) of part of the former Howells department store, including partial demolition, to deliver studio apartments (Use Class C3) and flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and D2); restoration of Bethany Chapel and Sunday School plus upward extension (additional storeys) to the Percy Thomas Wharton Street block; public realm; related infrastructure and engineering works.
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.
The Sub Committee considered that granting the application would not negatively impact on the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control 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.
(Councillor Adrian Robson, in accordance with his declaration of a prejudicial interest, left the meeting remotely during discussion of Application No: 20/00187/MJR)
APPLICATIONS DEFERRED
APPLICATION 20/00187/MJR – LAND AT DE BRAOSE CLOSE, DANESCROFT, CARDIFF
Residential development comprising 36 dwellings together with associated infrastructure, public open space and woodland management
REASON: In order for officers to draft reasons for refusal
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Application 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog.
The driver stated that he was driving on the 7th May at about 11:30pm and was flagged down by two gentlemen from the other side of the road. They crossed the road, entered the taxi and started videoing him. He didn’t realise they had an assistance dog so he said he couldn’t take it. He stopped a police officer and explained the situation, and the passengers explained that it was a guide dog so he agreed to take them.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver explained that he had not realised it was an assistance dog until the police explained after a few minutes. He had never had a guide dog in his taxi before and did not recognise it at first, but he had no issue with taking an animal.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, explaining that he had been on the opposite side of the road when his partner flagged down the taxi, and they often had to do this because otherwise taxis wouldn’t pick them up. He added that they had explained the requirement to take the assistance dog to the police since they didn’t seem to know it.
The driver apologised for the confusion and inconvenience and suggested that being recorded had made the situation more stressful. The complainant asked whether the driver had received training on his legal obligations, and added that the guide dog’s harness clearly showed that it was an assistance animal. They suggested that if the driver was unable to see they had a guide dog, then he was not fit to drive a taxi.
RESOLVED – 4 days’ suspension and a written warning
(2)
Application 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog.
The driver stated that he had just dropped off a passenger and was feeling tired very late in the evening, so he was not looking for a long fare. The complainant knocked on his window and asked to go to St Donat’s, which he said was too far away. He emphasised that he had not refused to take their assistance dog but was very tired and wanted to go home.
The complainant asked why the driver was still on the rank if he was very tired. He also clarified that he had told the driver St Donat’s Road, which was much closer than St Donat’s. The issue started as soon as the driver saw the dog. The driver of the taxi behind had agreed with them that the situation was out of order.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, stating that the three of them had approached the taxi with the dog and asked to go to St Donat’s Road, to which the driver locked the door. He didn’t say that he was too tired, just that he didn’t want to take the fare.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver explained that he had misunderstood their destination as being far out of town, and he was too tired for a long journey, having been working since 2pm. He also clarified that he had only been on the rank for two or three minutes before the incident. After he didn’t take the complainants, he went straight home.
The driver added that he had no issue with taking dogs in his taxi, having worked in the trade for more than a decade. Members noted that the video showed the driver saying ‘no dog’ after being told it was a guide dog. The driver suggested that he had not heard that it was a guide dog, and only turned them down because of his tiredness and his misunderstanding of the destination. The complainant acknowledged that the driver was tired but suggested he should not have been on the rank if he was not willing to take a fare. The driver responded that the official rank was on the other side of the road.
RESOLVED – 7 days’ suspension and a written warning
(3)
Application 3
The Sub Committee were asked to consider whether a driver was a fit and proper person following a complaint received in relation to discrimination against a customer with an assistance dog.
The driver stated that he was dispatched to a job by Dragon Taxis and didn’t know who he was picking up. The dog jumped in at the same time as the customers, and he didn’t realise it was an assistance animal so he said ‘no dog’. He was caught off guard and got out of his cab, at which point the customers started recording him. Once he got out of the cab he was able to calm down and spoke to the customers, and he agreed with them about the requirement to take the dog. He put the meter on and took them home as requested, and was sorry about the inconvenience.
The complainant noted that he was not required to inform the taxi driver in advance that he had a guide dog, and asked whether the job would have been accepted if he had known. The driver responded that he would have accepted it, he had been driving for 15 years and had no problem with taking animals but just preferred to know in advance.
The complainant appreciated the driver’s apology but suggested that he should not have needed to explain the situation for so long before being taken home. It was a constant battle with taxi drivers in Cardiff and an everyday occurrence which the council could do a lot more to tackle.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident provided by the complainant. In response to questions from Members, the driver clarified that he hadn’t realised it was a guide dog at first. He had panicked because of the way the dog entered the car and the customers’ tone.
The complainants suggested that they did not feel the driver should lose his licence, but that he needed some training. The Chair noted that the driver had already received disability and equality training as part of his BTEC qualification, and the video showed that he understood the legal requirements.
The driver’s representative added that the driver’s usually high standards had briefly slipped, and that he had apologised for any offence caused and assured them it would not happen again. The driver had been taken aback at first by the dog but knew his responsibilities and carried out the journey as requested. He added that the driver had not worked for Dragon Taxis since then.
RESOLVED – written warning
RESOLVED – That members of the public be excluded during the consideration of the following item at it includes exempt information as defined in described in paragraphs 14 and 21 of parts 4 and 5 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.
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 control 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 RESOLVED TO BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
21/00783/MJR – BUTETOWN
LAND AT CURRAN EMBANKMENT, BUTETOWN, CARDIFF
Demolition of existing buildings/structures and the comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment to provide up to 2,5000 new homes (class C3), business space (class B1), and a mix of complementary leisure, food and drink, hospitality, retail and health and wellbeing uses (class A1, A2, A3, C1, D1 and D2); creation of new open space (including a new riverside park and water taxi stop); new pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access points, pedestrian footbridge; vehicular and cycle parking facilities; landscaping; public realm and other associated ancillary and highways works. all matters reserved other than vehicular access.
APPLICATIONS GRANTED
23/02009/FUL – PENYLAN
7 LADY MARGARET COURT, COLCHESTER AVENUE, PENYLAN, CARDIFF, CF23 9AW
Change of use to class A3 Café/Coffee Shop with ancillary takeaway use.
22/00687/FUL – RADYR & MORGANSTOWN
RADYR COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL, HEOL ISAF, RADYR, CARDIFF, CF15 8XG
RESOLVED – That the following matters be dealt with as indicated:
(1)
Case 1
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that alleged a driver refused to take him and his disabled wife from Heath Hospital to Llandaff North, and also told them he would not take a fare for less than £10. It was further alleged that the driver had used abusive language towards another driver who challenged him about not taking them.
The driver addressed the Sub Committee, stating that he had not refused the fare and had instead sought to give it to the next driver in the rank because he was aware that that driver was soon leaving the rank to attend to a school run. He did not recall using any abusive language and suggested that the other driver involved had a personal problem with him.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, reiterating the sequence of events outlined in his witness statement. The driver had refused to take him and his wife to Llandaff North, saying that he was waiting for somebody and then saying he did not take fares less than £10.
The complainant approached the second taxi on the rank. He explained what had occurred to the driver but was still within earshot of the first driver. The second driver asked his colleague why he had refused the fare. The first driver told him to ‘fuck off and mind your own business’, followed by ‘fuck off’ again. The complainant stated that it was at this point the first driver accepted another fare and left the rank.
The complainant stated that the driver of the second vehicle was unhappy and he himself was upset. He asked the driver for information on how to lodge a complaint and was provided with the relevant details.
The Sub Committee discussed the two versions of events and agreed that the witness provided more credible evidence. Members asked why the driver now had a full recollection of the incident, in contrast to the written statement he provided where he indicated he could not recall any details of the incident.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 28 days for refusal of a fare and unacceptable conduct.
(2)
Case 2
The Sub Committee were asked to consider a complaint received from Dragon Taxis regarding an incident that had been recorded on video by a member of the public and subsequently provided to them. The Licensing Manager stated that they had also received a video of the incident by a friend of the driver.
Members viewed three video clips of the incident, and were advised that the videos showed an altercation involving the driver of a licence vehicle displaying Dragon Taxis livery and a number of other individuals. However, the vehicle was not a Dragon taxi and the driver was not employed by them. The Committee clarified the identities of those involved.
The Sub Committee asked how the incident had started. The driver stated that a car was blocking a junction causing traffic to back up. He asked the driver of the vehicle to move. The other driver got out of his car, approached him and used abusive language. The driver stated that he felt threatened, so he pretended to get a weapon from the boot of his vehicle in order to scare his assailant off, but it was actually a hat in his hand.
Members discussed the incident and agreed that the driver may well have been frustrated by the road being blocked, but had lost his temper and escalated the situation.
The Committee was not convinced by the driver’s suggestion that he had only been holding a hat, as the video appeared to show a sharp object in his hand. The witness also described the driver as ‘holding a sharp object threatening to stab somebody’ during the commentary on the video. Members felt that he had clearly made a threatening gesture, regardless of what the object was.
Members also noted that the driver had a Dragon Taxis logo on his car despite not working for them, which could be considered fraudulent or misrepresentation.
The driver left the hearing and the hearing proceeded in his absence.
RESOLVED – That the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire licence be revoked.
(3)
Case 3
The Sub Committee were asked to determine whether a taxi driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Private Hire Driver’s License given that a motoring conviction for IN10 (using an uninsured vehicle) was returned on his DVLA check as part of his licence renewal.
The driver stated that his conviction had nothing to do with his role as a taxi driver. He had purchased a private vehicle and was driving that at the time of the offence. Members were advised that the vehicle was purchased with a number of mechanical faults. He took the vehicle to a garage using temporary insurance cover for 1 hour. He had not realised that the cover had expired when the mechanic recommended that he drive the car further than was necessary on his homeward journey in order to ensure the car was in good working order. He was stopped by the police who found the car was uninsured. However, his was unable to use his phone to demonstrate that the car had been insured earlier that day. He had received 6 points on his licence and a fine.
Responding to questions from the Sub Committee, the driver clarified that he had first applied for a taxi licence in 2020, and the incident had happened in January 2023. He had no points on his licence other than the six he had received for this offence.
RESOLVED – that the driver receive a written warning for a driving offence.
(4)
Application 4
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence. Members were advised that that the applicant had been convicted of the offence of battery in 2017.
The driver’s representative stated that the driver had not intended to deceive anyone by not declaring his conviction. There was some confusion because the website used to complete the application contained out of date or misleading information.
The driver’s representative stated that the conviction was the result of a domestic incident in October 2017. The applicant was extremely remorseful. The applicant and his wife were still together and happily married after 35 years. They had run a shop together for many years, during which time he obtained a personal licence to sell alcohol, demonstrating that he was a responsible individual.
In response to questions from the Sub Committee, he explained that in 2017 he and his wife had a heated argument that involved extended family in India on a mobile phone. The wife took the phone and asked to speak with them. When attempting to retrieve the phone from his wife, this this caused her to hit her head on a wall. The police were called. His wife was present and stated to the Sub Committee that nothing had occurred since this incident. The family worked together very well. The driver added that he was confident he could handle the stresses of the job in the future.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be approved.
(5)
Application 5
The Sub Committee was asked to consider an application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence Members were advised that the applicant had a relevant conviction on his DBS relating to an offence from 1994.
The driver stated that he was reapplying for a licence, having previously held one until 2008. Since then he had worked full time as a coach driver for National Express and Cardiff Bus. He was experienced in working with the general public, including vulnerable adults and children, and had never once had a problem in all that time. The conviction was from about 30 years ago when he was young and foolish, and he accepted that he had made a mistake which he had been punished for.
RESOLVED – that the application for the grant of a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be approved.
(6)
Case 6
The Sub Committee was asked to consider a complaint received from a member of the public that that the driver attempted to charge £6 to take an assistance dog and had discriminated against the complainant.
The Sub Committee viewed a video of the incident which had been submitted by the complainant.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that he was not notified on the booking that there would be a dog. He arrived at the pickup location and the dog was a few metres away and not wearing any high-vis, so he explained to the passengers that he would have to start the meter at £6.
The passenger asked whether the driver understood what the high-vis harness the dog was wearing was. The driver responded that he did. He had no problem with dogs, only that it wasn’t mentioned on the booking.
The complainants stated that they called the office to clarify that there should be no charge for an assistant dog. By then they felt uncomfortable, so they left the taxi and got into another one. The complainant described the incident as an unnecessary and embarrassing experience.
Members sought to clarify whether the driver was aware of the operators policies on assistance dogs and pets. The driver stated that for a pet dog the meter will start at £6. For assistance dogs there is no additional charge. Members asked why it would matter whether there was notification that a dog was mentioned at the time of the booking. The driver stated that he didn’t see the assistance dog it at first because of the poor visibility he was therefore surprised.
Members asked why the driver had insisted on a £6 fee after being told it was a guide dog. The driver stated that he was unaware and his English language skills are not the best. The video highlighted that there was a language barrier.
The complainants reminded Members that that the driver initially claimed to be allergic to dogs but he could not provide an exemption certificate when asked.
The complainant stated that in his experience incidents like this are a regular occurrence with taxi drivers in Cardiff. The complainant considered that the matter should be before Magistrates. The language barrier was not considered to be a major factor in the incident as the driver kept saying that he understood. Blind people should not be left out in the street.
Committee in agreement that the video clearly showed that it was not just a misunderstanding, and the driver was trying to charge and additional fee. It was confirmed that all drivers have assistance dog training as part of their SQA qualification. The Sub Committee acknowledged that the driver had no history of offences, but refusing a fare to someone because of a protected characteristic was unacceptable.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days for refusal of a fare and attempting to overcharge.
(7)
Case 7
The Sub Committee was asked to determine whether a driver remained a fit and proper person to continue to hold a Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver’s License after a complaint was received stating that he refused to take an assistance dog and claimed he had a medical condition.
Addressing the Sub Committee, the driver stated that as he picked the complainants up from their house they were recording him on a mobile phone, which had confused him. He was sneezing and dizzy at the time, but he took them to their destination.
Members asked whether the driver had an allergy and an exemption certificate. The driver confirmed that he did not have an exemption certificate and had not seen a doctor about getting one since the incident. He was not allergic to dogs.
The complainant addressed the Sub Committee, emphasising the driver would have known he was visually impaired because his guide dog’s harness was clearly labelled. He and his partner had to spend 10 minutes explaining to the driver why he had to take them and the dog, which they shouldn’t have had to do. They had missed a train because of the delay which affected their work.
The complainant’s partner added that he had started filming because he saw the driver looking at them while they approached the car and suspected he would refuse to let the dog in.
RESOLVED – that the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire driver’s licence be suspended for 7 days for unacceptable conduct.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control 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 RESOLVED TO BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
23/01705/VAR – BUTETOWN
RED DRAGON CENTRE AND COUNTY HALL, ATLANTIC WHARF, CARDIFF
A variation of condition application made pursuant to Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condition 2 (approved plans), Condition 9 (CEMP) and Condition 10 (Soil Resource Survey) of the detailed planning permission (Arena and Hotel) within hybrid planning permission reference: 21/02687/MJR
The application was approved as per recommendation subject to the amendments to the conditions set out with in the Amendment Sheet/Late Representations Schedule.
23/00050/FUL – CAERAU
LAND SOUTH OF NARBERTH ROAD, CAERAU, CARDIFF
Development of 83 residential units (use Class C3, including affordable housing) as well as associated vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian access, engineering and infrastructure works, landscaping, open space and sustainable urban drainage.
The application was approved as per recommendation subject to the amendments to the conditions set out with in the Amendment Sheet/Late Representations Schedule.
APPLICATION GRANTED
23/01501/FUL – FAIRWATER
CANTONIAN HIGH SCHOOL, FAIRWATER ROAD, FAIRWATER, CARDIFF
Construction of new Cantonian, Woodlands and Riverbank Schools and other associated buildings including new Health and Well-being Centre. Provision of various outdoor spaces, Sports Pitches and Multi-Use Games Areas, Flood-lighting, parking and access provision, cycle and refuse storage areas, SuDS provision and other associated work including the demolition of the school buildings.
The application was approved as per recommendation.
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.
The Sub Committee carefully considered the objection from South Wales Police and felt that the proposed variation would negatively impact the licensing objectives.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control 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
(Councillors Robson and Reid-Jones, in accordance with their prejudicial interests left the meeting during discussion of this item).
22/03007/DOC – Llandaff North and Llandaff
Land Either Side of River Taff Comprising Land South of Existing Access Road within Hailey Park and Land at Eastern Turning Head of De Braose Close, Danescourt
Discharge of Condition 3 (Landscaping) of 21/02608/MNR
RESOLVED: that
1. the local listing selection criteria (as set out at paragraph 18) be approved for consultation on the first phase review of the local list, the results of which will be reported back to Cabinet for approval.
2. Authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to make, serve and confirm any future Immediate and Non-Immediate Article 4 directions in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member, and/or Director of Legal Services, Section 151 officer if considered appropriate by the Head of Planning.
3. the use of Urgency Action powers to issue an Article 4 direction in respect of the Rompney Castle, Wentloog Road, Rumney Cardiff CF3 3EB be noted.
RESOLVED:
Council NOTED an urgent officer decision serving an Immediate Article 4 Direction in respect of the Rompney Castle, Wentloog Road, Rumney (Appendix A), and removing permitted development rights afforded under Parts 2 and 31 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended for Wales) in relation to the property.
RESOLVED:
The Council APPROVED the appointment of Mr Craig Hampton-Stone as an Executive Director of Cardiff City Transport Services Limited (Cardiff Bus)
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control 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 RESOLVED TO BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
(Councillor Adrian Robson, in accordance with his declaration of a prejudicial interest, left the meeting during discussion of his item)
22/02901/FUL - RIVERSIDE
51-65 COWBRIDGE ROAD EAST AND 2-8 LOWER CATHEDRAL ROAD, RIVERSIDE
Demolition of existing structures and the replacement with 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.
The application was approved as per recommendation, subject to the following:
· Para 8.1 should state that the analysis section is Section 9, not Section 10
· Para 9.48 should state 3pm and not 3am
· The removal of Condition 26 as this states that all Use Class A1 units shall not be used for purposes other than the sale of convenience goods.
RESOLVED: that
1) the disposal for the residential and commercial plots as set out in this report and the legal report attached at Confidential Appendix 2 and in line with independent valuers advice attached at Confidential Appendix 3 and the proposals at Confidential Appendix 5 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 conclude all legal agreements to complete the disposal strategy.
2) the lift and shift obligation set-out at Confidential Appendix 2 and the development of a Full Business Case to determine a long-term car parking solution for the ISV site to be presented back to Cabinet for approval in advance of the first call-down of land by the appointed developer be noted.
3) a soft market testing exercise be authorised to inform the further development of the Outline Business Case for the Energy Strategy to be presented back to a future meeting of Cabinet.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following development control 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
(Councillor Garry Hunt left the meeting during consideration of this application in accordance with his personal and prejudicial interest.)
23/00386/FUL – LLANRUMNEY
ST MELLONS CHURCH IN WALES, PRIMARY SCHOOL, DUNSTER ROAD, LLANRUMNEY
Construction of an Additional Learning Needs School, incorporating works associated with the construction of the new ALN school, including the provision of new outdoor amenity areas, play-space and sports provision, landscaping, boundary treatments, access, car-parking, drainage, and all associated works.
(Councillor Garry Hunt left the meeting during consideration of this application in accordance with his personal and prejudicial interest.)
23/00385/FUL – FAIRWATER
LAND TO THE SOUTH OF FAIRWATER PRIMARY SCHOOL, WELLWRIGHT ROAD, FAIRWATER
Construction of an Additional Learning Needs School, incorporating works associated with the construction of the new ALN school, including the provision of new outdoor amenity areas, play-space and sports provision, landscaping, boundary treatments, access, car-parking, drainage and all associated works.
23/01028/FUL – LLANDAFF NORTH
MEADOWBANK SPECIAL SCHOOL, COLWILL ROAD, LLANDAFF NORTH, CARDIFF
Addition of a single storey building on school site to accommodate increased pupil numbers, including associated external play area. Other development proposed on existing car parking area to increase drop off and parking provision in line with pupil and staff uplift.
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 agreed conditions with South Wales Police and Environmental Health Pollution Control
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 subject to the following conditions:
1. After 20:00 The use of the external area is restricted to dining customers only.
2. Allocation of customers to external tables must only be carried out by the DPS or duty manager.
3. After 20:00 a member of staff must undertake regular patrols of the external area and perimeter on Bangor Street to monitor noise levels from patrons. These patrols must be recorded and retained for a period of 3 months (either electronically or a physical document) The record should include the time, date of patrol, who it was undertaken by and any comments or resulting action taken. The premises is under an obligation to inform Cardiff Council if the noise levels are excessive on a regular basis.
4. No speakers or music will be used after 20:00 in the external area.
The premises licence holder shall invite residents to a meeting every 6 months.
RESOLVED: Pursuant to this Committee’s delegated powers the following
development control 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 RESOLVED TO BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO A BINDING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT.
(Councillor Adrian Robson left the meeting during consideration of this application in accordance with his prejudicial interest)
21/02984/MJR – CATHAYS
PLOTS 4 AND 5, CENTRAL SQUARE, CITY CENTRE, CARDIFF
Full planning application for a mixed-use building providing commercial uses at ground floor/mezzanine level (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/B1/D1/D2) and residential accommodation above (Use Class C3 and including non C3 Use Class residential), a pavilion (Use Classes A1/A2/A3), public realm, cycle parking, access, drainage and other infrastructure works required for the delivery of Central Square Plots 4 and 5.
Officers were requested to amend Condition 12 (Cycle Parking) to emphasise need for cycle parking to be secure and covered by CCTV.
RESOLVED: that
(1) the current state of the Highways Asset Management Plan - 3 (HAMP) be noted which will inform the Cabinet’s recommendations to Council for the Revenue and Capital 2024/25 and Medium-Term budget setting process.
(2) Approval be given to the expenditure of £2Million funding within 2023/24 budget against the carriageway asset as identified in this report to limit ongoing deterioration concerns relating to carriageways.