Roads, potholes, parking, buses, cycling, walking and speed limits.
What councils do
Councils look after local roads and pavements, street lights, parking and road safety, and support bus services that wouldn't run otherwise. Motorways and trunk roads are the Welsh Government's.
Who decides
The Cabinet member for transport leads. Traffic orders, such as new speed limits or parking restrictions, are advertised before they're made.
Having a say
Report potholes and broken street lights to the council or through FixMyStreet. You can object to a proposed traffic order during its notice period.
In numbers
Welsh councils plan to spend £107 per person on this in 2026-27.
It ranges from £62 in Vale of Glamorgan to £166 in Anglesey.
People killed or seriously injured on the roads: 38 per 100,000 people across Wales (2025).
RESOLVED : That the 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 – T H A T the attendance of the following Councillors at the site visit
indicated, held on 22nd February, 2024, be noted.
Apologies were received from Councillors G. Bruce, C.A. Cave, C.M. Cowpe,
H.M. Payne, S.D. Perkes and M.R. Wilson.
Land at Upper Cosmeston Farm, Councillor N.C. Thomas (Chair)
Lavernock Road, Penarth. Councillors I.R. Buckley, A.M. Ernest,
Dr. I.J. Johnson, N.P. Hodges,
C. Stallard and E. Williams.
RESOLVED – T H A T in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee,
the following applications be determined as indicated and any other necessary
action be taken.
2023/00285/RG3 Received on 25 April 2023
(p.112)
APPLICANT: Vale of Glamorgan Council Kelly Williams, Sustainable
Communities for Learning, Civic Offices, Holton Road, Barry, CF63 4RU
AGENT: The Urbanists Mr. Mark Farrar, The Creative Quarter, 8a, Morgan
Arcade, Cardiff, CF10 1AF
St. Richard Gwyn RC High School, Argae Lane, St. Andrews Major
Proposed replacement St. Richard Gwyn Catholic High School including access,
parking, landscape works, formal and informal recreation space, and demolition of
the existing school.
A recorded vote was called for the Application, based on the recommendations
within the report as amended, with the results as follows:
Member For Against Abstain
G. Bruce √
I. Buckley √
C.A. Cave √
C. Champion √
M. Cowpe √
P. Drake √
A. Ernest √
W. Gilligan
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson √
H. Payne √
S. Perkes √
I. Perry √
C. Stallard √
N. Thomas √
E. Williams √
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 15 1 0
Minutes - MS
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report as set out
on the Matters Arising note.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00491/FUL Received on 7 August 2023
(p.179)
APPLICANT: Mr Sean Mayor, 1st Floor, Wellington House, Wellington Street,
Cardiff, CF11 9BE
AGENT: Mr Sean Mayor, 1st Floor, Wellington House, Wellington Street, Cardiff,
CF11 9BE
Port Road West, Rhoose
Dog Adventure Land proposes to repurpose this site for a new dog daycare centre
as part of their plans for growth in South Wales. We are proposing for the site to
be used for grooming and outdoor/indoor daycare. The site will be fenced off to
secure the perimeter, create a large carpark for staff and visitor on the existing
hard standing, fencing the fields into sections for dogs to be safely and securely
exercised in and providing educational course to the public. We would require the
land to have a change of use from B1,B2 & B8 to Sui Generis.
A recorded vote was called for the Application, based on the recommendations
within the report as amended, with the results as follows:
Member For Against Abstain
G. Bruce √
I. Buckley √
C.A. Cave √
C. Champion √
M. Cowpe √
P. Drake √
A. Ernest √
W. Gilligan
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson √
H. Payne √
S. Perkes √
I. Perry √
C. Stallard √
Minutes - MS
N. Thomas √
E. Williams √
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 15 1 0
REFUSED – For the reasons set out in the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00577/FUL Received on 26 January 2024
(p.193)
APPLICANT: Harris and Ford Ltd., Fonmon Castle, Fonmon, CF62 3ZN
AGENT: Mr Geraint John Office 16 (House 1, 2nd Floor), The Maltings, East
Tyndall Street, Cardiff, CF24 5EA
Fonmon Castle, Fonmon
Creation of 9 off-line ponds within the floodplain.
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00826/FUL Received on 20 March 2024
(p.208)
APPLICANT: Former Darren Farm, Westgate, Cowbridge, CF717AQ
AGENT: David Williams 1 Embankment Way, Ringwood , BH24 1EU
Darren Farm, Westgate, Cowbridge
Redevelopment of site incorporating the erection of a Class B1 office building and
a retirement living scheme for older people with communal lounge, refuse, guest
suite, electric buggy, and house manager accommodation. Associated car parking
with electric charging points, cycle storage realigned vehicular access, sub station,
retaining walls, sustainable drainage and landscaped grounds.
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report including
subject to Section 106 Agreement and subject to variation as set out on the
matters arising note that a ‘Viability Review’ be included in the Heads of Terms of
the Section 106 Agreement.
Minutes - MS
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/01265/FUL Received on 19 December 2023
(p.270)
APPLICANT: Welsh Water Linea, Fortran Road, St Mellons, Cardiff. CF3 0LT
AGENT: Miss Chloe Jones Arcadis Cymru House, St Mellons Business Park,
Fortran Road, Cardiff. CF30EY
Sewage Disposal Works, Brook Lane, St. Nicholas
Full planning permission was sought for the expansion of the existing Waste
Water Treatment Works to include the following: Inlet Works, Trickling Filter,
Buried Humus Tanks, Sludge Holding Tank, Motor Control Centre Kiosk, Reed
Bed, Reed Bed Blower Kiosk, Alkalinity Dosing Kiosk, Trickling Filter Distribution
Chamber, De-sludge Pumps and Slabs, Landscaping, Internal Access Road,
Lighting, along with a Temporary Contractor’s Compound and Construction
Access.
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report and subject
to variation to Condition 11 as set out on the matters arising note.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
Minutes - MS
AGREED –
(1) T H A T the response report be noted.
(2) T H A T a further update report on bus services in the Vale of Glamorgan
be presented to Committee in six months’ time, with an invitation extended to the
Chief Executive of Cardiff Bus Services to attend the same Committee meeting.
Reason for decision
(1) Having regard to the contents of the response report on the past, present,
and future aspects of local bus services in the Vale of Glamorgan following a
request for consideration from Penarth Town Council.
(2) To provide further information and context for bus services available within
the Vale of Glamorgan at that time.
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 – T H A T in pursuance of the powers delegated to the Committee, the
following applications be determined as indicated and any other necessary action be
taken.
2020/01170/OUT Received on 14 October 2020
(P. 1)
APPLICANT: Welsh Government Land Division, Permanent Secretary's Group,
Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NQ
AGENT: Ms Catherine Blyth Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park,
Cardiff, CF23 8RS
Land at Upper Cosmeston Farm, Lavernock Road, Penarth
Outline application for residential development, a primary school, community space
and public open space with all matters reserved other than access.
A recorded vote was called for the Application, based on the recommendations
within the report, with the results as follows:
No.
Members For Against Abstain
G. Bruce
I.R. Buckley √
C.A. Cave
C.E.A. Champion √
C.M. Cowpe √
P. Drake √
A.M. Ernest √
W. Gilligan √
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson √
H.M. Payne √
S.D. Perkes √
I.A.N. Perry
C. Stallard √
N.C. Thomas √
E. Williams √
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 12 2
RESOLVED – T H A T subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106
agreement to provide for the following (based on 576 dwellings):
• Procure that 40% (up to 231) of the dwellings built on the site pursuant to the
planning permission are built and thereafter maintained as affordable housing
units in perpetuity.
• Pay a contribution of £1,324,800 towards sustainable transport improvements.
No.
• Pay a financial contribution towards education requirements arising from the
development of £6,476,088, in addition to the transfer of the 1ha school site to
the Council.
• Provision of suitable open space within the confines of the site (inclusive of 1
x NEAP, 3 x LEAPs and 4 x LAPs).
• Pay 1% of project budget towards public art.
• Cliff monitoring contribution of £59,150
• To provide community facilities of circa 0.1-0.2 hectares within the
development
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00032/FUL Received on 27 January 2023
(P. 79)
APPLICANT: Biomass UK No.2 Limited -, -,
AGENT: Mr Philip Murphy 21 Soho Square, London, W1D 3QP
Barry Biomass Renewable Energy Facility, David Davies Road, Barry
Retrospective full planning permission for development comprising a wood fired
renewable energy plant and associated structures without complying with Condition
5 (Drawings) attached to planning permission 2015/00031/OUT.
A recorded vote was called for the Application, based upon whether Members were
for or against Rejection of the Application, with the results as follows:
Members For Against Abstain
G. Bruce
I.R. Buckley √
C.A. Cave √
C.E.A. Champion √
C.M. Cowpe √
P. Drake √
A.M. Ernest
W. Gilligan √
No.
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson √
H.M. Payne √
S.D. Perkes √
I.A.N. Perry √
C. Stallard √
N.C. Thomas √
E. Williams √
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 13 2
REFUSED – Subject to the following reasons:
(1) The unauthorised addition of the ancillary structures, minor alterations, and
associated layout changes including:- a Lean-to Fuel Reception Building, lean-to
Compressor House, urea Silo, externally mounted discharge Incline conveyor,
screening tower and dust extraction plant, emergency diesel generator and fire
kiosk, fire water tank and pump house, amendment to stack width and an
enlargement to the noise attenuator located at the base of the chimney stack; have
detrimentally affected the appearance of the development over and above that
approved in 2015 and will harm the amenity of nearby residential properties in both
the Waterfront and Dock View Road. The Development is accordingly contrary to
policies MD 2 (Design of New Development) and MD5 (Development Within
Settlement Boundaries) of the adopted Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan.
(2) The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be adverse
environmental impacts because the EIA fails to adequately and fully assess the
impacts regarding waste; particularly as there is no specific chapter dealing with this
key issue. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies MD 2 (Design of New
Developments), MD 7 (Environmental Protection) and MD 20 (Assessment of waste
Management Proposals) of the adopted Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
No.
2023/00033/FUL Received on 24 January 2023
(P. 130)
APPLICANT: Biomass UK No. 2 Ltd., c/o Agent, -, -
AGENT: Mr Philip Murphy, 21, Soho Square, London, W1D 3QP
Land to the North of Barry Biomass Renewable Energy Facility, David Davies
Road, Barry
Retrospective planning permission for external storage, vehicle turning and vehicle
layover, and perimeter fencing for use in association with the adjacent renewable
energy plant.
A recorded vote was called for the Application, based upon whether Members were
for or against Rejection of the Application, with the results as follows:
Members For Against Abstain
G. Bruce √
I.R. Buckley √
C.A. Cave √
C.E.A. Champion √
C.M. Cowpe √
P. Drake √
A.M. Ernest
W. Gilligan √
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson √
H.M. Payne √
S.D. Perkes √
I.A.N. Perry √
C. Stallard √
N.C. Thomas √
No.
E. Williams
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 15
REFUSED – Subject to the following reasons:
1. The proposal comprises an integral and operational part of the wider
development which, by reason of the unauthorised ancillary structures, minor
alterations, and associated layout changes that include:- a Lean-to Fuel Reception
Building, lean-to Compressor House, urea Silo, externally mounted discharge Incline
conveyor, screening tower and dust extraction plant, emergency diesel generator
and fire kiosk, fire water tank and pump house, amendment to stack width and an
enlargement to the noise attenuator located at the base of the chimney stack; has
detrimentally affected the appearance of the development over and above that
approved in 2015 and will harm the amenity of nearby residential properties in both
the Waterfront and Dock View Road. The Development is accordingly contrary to
policies MD 2 (Design of New Development) and MD5 (Development Within
Settlement Boundaries) of the adopted Vale of Glamorgan Local Development Plan.
2. The proposal comprises an integral and operational part of the wider
development, which is not supported by adequate information to demonstrate that
there would not be adverse environmental impacts (due to the EIA failing to assess
fully the impacts regarding waste, particularly as there is no specific chapter dealing
with this key issue). The proposal is therefore contrary to policies MD 2 (Design of
New Developments), MD 7 (Environmental Protection) and MD 20 (Assessment of
waste Management Proposals) of the adopted Vale of Glamorgan Local
Development Plan.
Reason for decisions
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
2023/00895/FUL Received on 17 January 2024
(P. 156)
APPLICANT: Mr Huw Llewellyn Great House Farm, Penllyn, Cowbridge, CF71 7RQ
AGENT: Ms Bethan Evans Unit 9, Oak Tree Court, Cardiff Gate Business Park,
Cardiff, CF23 8RS
Great House Farm, Penllyn
Proposed change of use from agricultural use to glamping visitor accommodation
comprising 3 yurts, separate kitchen units and conversion of the existing barn to a
shower block and farm storage.
A recorded vote was called for the Application, based on the recommendations
within the report, with the results as follows:
No.
Members For Against Abstain
G. Bruce √
I.R. Buckley √
C.A. Cave √
C.E.A. Champion √
C.M. Cowpe √
P. Drake √
A.M. Ernest
W. Gilligan √
N.P. Hodges √
Dr. I.J. Johnson
H.M. Payne √
S.D. Perkes √
I.A.N. Perry √
C. Stallard √
N.C. Thomas √
E. Williams
M.R. Wilson √
TOTAL 13 1
APPROVED – Subject to the conditions as contained within the report.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the content of the report and discussions at the meeting.
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
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 –
(1) T H A T the policy with regard to not granting any level of discount for
unoccupied dwellings that have remained so for 6 months agreed for 2023-24,
be agreed for 2024-25.
(2) T H A T the long term empty property premium of 100% be agreed for
the 2023-24 financial year and continue for such properties from 2024-25 that
remain so for the period up to (but not including) 24 months.
(3) T H A T from 1st April, 2024 a premium of 150% be introduced for long
term empty properties that have remained as such for a continuous period of
24 months or more.
(4) T H A T from 1st April, 2025 a premium of 200% be introduced for long
term empty properties that have remained as such for a continuous period of
36 months or more.
(5) T H A T the policy to introduce a premium of 100% on second homes
for the 2024-25 financial year be agreed and reaffirmed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) The Council was required to determine its policy on discounts in
relation to unoccupied dwellings as defined in classes A, B and C to the
Council Tax (Prescribed Class of Dwellings) (Wales) Regulations 1998 each
year.
(2&4) The Council was required to determine its policy regarding premiums in
respect of long-term empty properties as defined in Sections 12A and 12B of
the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as inserted by the Housing (Wales)
Act 2014.
No.
(3) Upon reviewing the implementation of the premium for long term empty
properties introduced from the start of 1st April 2023, it was felt that a straight
increase to the premium levels as previously proposed, may counteract the
intention of the policy, which was to bring long term empty properties back
into use, if the level of charges due hindered necessary works required to
make a dwelling habitable. As such it was felt that a stepped approach would
be more in keeping with the policy to ensure that persistent long term empty
properties were targeted.
(5) The Council was required to determine its policy regarding premiums in
respect of second homes as defined in Sections 12A and 12B of the Local
Government Finance Act1992 as inserted by the Housing (Wales) Act 2014.
CORPORATE FRAUD ENFORCEMENT POLICY (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 25th January, 2024 (Minute No. C220)
together with the reference from Governance and Audit Committee of
11th December, 2023 (Minute No. 636) and had referred the same to Council
for consideration and approval. Having regard to the contents of the report
and the previous discussions at the meeting earlier in the meeting in respect
of the report titled amendments to the Constitution, it was subsequently
RESOLVED – T H A T the report and the Officer Delegation Scheme and
relevant provisions within the current Constitution be updated to reflect the
changes referred to in the report and as considered earlier in the agenda
under the Amendments to the Constitution report.
Reason for decision
To update the Officer Delegation Scheme and relevant provisions within the
current Constitution to reflect the changes outlined within the report and as
considered under an earlier report in the agenda.
DRAFT VALE OF GLAMORGAN COUNCIL ANNUAL DELIVERY PLAN 2024-25 (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 22nd February, 2024 (Minute No. C248
refers) and had referred the same to Council for consideration and approval.
The Leader took the opportunity to remind Members that the initial draft had
been considered by Cabinet and the Scrutiny Committees with the amended
draft coming back to Cabinet and to the Corporate Performance and
Resources Scrutiny Committee. Members had stated that they had been
pleased with the way the report had been presented which demonstrated how
their feedback had been included, with Members also being able to easily see
where the changes had been made.
There being no further comments, it was
No.
RESOLVED – T H A T the draft Annual Delivery Plan 2024-25, as attached at
Appendix A to the report to Cabinet on 22nd February, 2024 (Minute No.
C248), be approved.
Reason for decision
Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the meeting.
DRAFT BUDGET 2024/25 AND MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN 2024/25 TO 2028/29 (REF)
The Leader advised that the proposals had been published at the end of the
previous week, prior to the availability of Welsh Government ‘s settlement
figures. There had been no changes to the overall settlement following that
announcement but there was additional detail regarding the Standard
Spending Assessment that was subsequently detailed in the supplementary
information that had been distributed to all Members and published online
prior to the Cabinet meeting on 29th February, 2024.
The Council faced significant financial pressures in excess of £38m initially
and had undertaken significant work to mitigate those pressures. As a result,
it had not been possible to fund pay awards in full and there were limited
resources to meet the full demands of care providers to fully meet
demographic growth and the complexity of services required.
A 3.4% increase in the grant received by the Council from Welsh Government
alongside the proposed 6.7% increase in Council Tax fell short of meeting the
additional costs.
There would be a further UK budget announcement on the same day the
report would be considered by Full Council, and it remained to be seen if
there would be any further funding made available for Local Government, but
it was not expected there would be any further matters for Council to consider
on 6th March.
Consultation on how to allocate the available resources had taken place,
including a 4-week public budget consultation, consideration by the five
Council Scrutiny Committees and the ‘Life in the Vale’ survey where residents
were asked for their views on what they expected from the Council, where
residents were supportive of the ambition to target resources to social care,
affordable housing and schools and less supportive of any Council Tax
increase and increase in discretionary charges by the rate of inflation.
Council Tax levels in the Vale of Glamorgan were below the Welsh average
and below the level of expected rises for many Authorities across Wales, with
10% or more having been proposed by some.
No.
There had been in-depth discussions at Scrutiny but no alternatives put
forward prior to consideration at Full Council, where it was difficult to take
proposals on board at that point and achieve a balanced budget as was the
legal requirement for the Authority to do, but there would be a full debate at
Full Council on the day.
The proposal concerning charging for toilets at coastal areas had been
removed as Members felt that was not something they could support and the
£5k saving would be found elsewhere. The next year’s £7.7m savings
programme was mostly tactical and looked at how to provide and deliver
services more effectively, along with some transformational initiatives, as
having another multi-million pound savings programme next year would be
challenging.
The Leader further commented that the Cabinet and officers had been
working on the budget since June 2023. In July 2023 Cabinet had referred
the Financial Strategy to all Scrutiny Committees and November had brought
the refreshed Medium Term Financial Plan. Christmas had been cancelled
for a lot of the officers and a number of Cabinet Members. The things that it
had hoped to do were no longer possible until the funding gap could be
reduced to a reasonable level. In January 2024 the draft budget was
presented to all Scrutiny Committees which were attended by the Cabinet
Members who had listened to the discussions. There were some things she
said that were unpalatable, not liked and had reluctantly been accepted but
one recommendation had been made which had been accepted by Cabinet
that the proposed charges to Coastal toilets be removed.
The budget this evening, she said, proposed for a balanced budget, which
was required to be delivered by 11th March, considerations for which had
included the money that the Council would receive from Council Tax and as
the Council wanted to continue to support bus services and not make car
parking charges on streets etc., a 6.7% Council Tax was being proposed.
The budget was also she said based on supporting the Council’s most
vulnerable.
In referring to the recent Living in the Vale Survey she said the top priority for
residents had been easy accessibility to care and health care, the second
priority the ability to buy or rent a good quality home. The cost of living crisis
had also not gone away, in the feedback received 60% of respondents said
that they had chosen not to put the heating on at times, and 44% of them said
that they could not pay an unexpected bill of £850, so if their boiler went that
would be it.
There were a number of pressures for the Council, pressures in terms of
demography not just numbers of people but the complexity and scale of need,
people's lives and lived experience were hugely diverse in the Vale and as a
result the need was hugely diverse. Since the pandemic the Council was
aware that older residents had become more isolated, more frail and required
more care. Young people were struggling with anxiety and there were
behavioural issues across the Vale with the Council having to consider a
No.
range of ways to meet such needs. Service redesigns were being considered
and looking for ways to do things more effectively. Reviews of the street
cleansing service, litter etc, would be undertaken as well as transformational
change. The Leader referred to other areas of good work that had taken
place, which had included reshaping of the Library services, Big Fresh was
also delivering not only Universal Free School Meals to primary children, but
also delivering a surplus that can be reinvested into schools. Income
generation was being considered as well as generating income from fees and
charges for non-statutory services. However although the financial position
was difficult the Council, through its proposed budget, was still delivering
many services.
The Leader also referred to other aspects of Council provision such as each
week 105 recycling rounds were out in the communities with each vehicle
collecting from 550 properties a day. As a result over 850 articulated lorries
full of material that could be sold or reused with this year forecasting income
of between £1.2m and £1.4m from processing recycling at the new recycling
facility. With the support of residents the Council had managed to deliver over
a 70% recycling outcome being one of the top in Wales, one of the top in the
UK and actually one of the top in Europe.
The Council also managed 30 Feature Parks, 21 Recreation Grounds, 13
Conservation Parks, 88 Play Areas and 9 Skateboard areas and has 38
football pitches, 13 mini football pitches alongside rugby pitches, cricket, etc
which are all still supported. Over the past 3 years the Council had delivered
over 177,000 meters of active travel shared use being pedestrian and cycling
paths. The Council offered child pedestrian training, delivered cycle shelters
in schools and bought bikes for schools. 20 Car Parks were owned and
controlled by the Vale with only two of the town centre car parks with a
charge. The Leader further advised that 52,567 square meters of
carriageway resurfacing had been undertaken in the year, 3,261 square
meters of footway improvements and surface water gullies had been
cleansed. The Leader concluded by stating that she would be happy to
circulate some of the information recognising that the Council was still
providing services. With regard to queries of measuring productivity that she
had heard being said at meetings, she questioned how did you choose or
measure how productive a care worker was, how did you look at productivity
when you've had a child with severe learning needs. The Council would
measure where it was appropriate to do so and she ended by presenting the
budget to Council which was duly seconded by Councillor Brooks who
reserved her right to speak later in the debate.
Councillor Carroll commenced by saying the Labour Council was asking
residents to pay more for less. He said Labour had failed to show leadership
and manage budgets properly and was therefore imposing cuts to services
and charging for things like garden waste collections. He drew attention to
the multi-million pound bus station and enquired as to how much this Authority
spent on diversity and inclusion. At the Healthy Living and Social Care
Scrutiny Committee meeting Councillor Cave had made perfectly reasonable
comments about the funding of bus services in the rural Vale but instead of
No.
addressing Councillor Cave's concerns, the Leader ‘s comments many
residents had told him they considered to be a smear with Councillor Cave
being accused of using inflammatory language. Perhaps he said the Leader
could enlighten Council as to what aspect of Councillor Cave's remarks were
considered inflammatory. He also referred to a recent report where the
Leader had stated the 2% cut in National Insurance contributions announced
in November by the Conservative UK Government was disappointing and that
she had confirmed that this Council opposed tax cuts for millions of working
people with he said his only assumption from those comments was that the
Leader would oppose further tax cuts that had been announced that day.
The 6.7% rise proposed he said fitted with his view of the Administration’s
attitude that residents should pay more. The rise proposed significantly
exceeded inflation with CPI currently standing at 4%. He felt the rise was not
necessary as the Council had tens of millions of pounds in usable reserves
including £10,177mn sat in the bank in the Council Fund as a percentage of
the Authority's Revenue budget. If the Authority was to consider a real terms
freeze in Council Tax and increase it in line with inflation at 4% it would cost
£2,505m but given the amount held in Reserves it would be possible to go
further than that and to cut Council Tax in real terms, which is what he said
the Council should do. A 3% rise would cost £3.435m which he said would be
below the rate of inflation. This real terms cut stood in stark contrast to the
6.7% rise proposed by Labour and would ease the pressures on working
people across the Vale, so on behalf of the Conservative Group he proposed
an amendment to the revenue budget which would transfer £3.435m from the
Council's General Fund balances to support the base budget and he urged all
Members to support the amendment.
Councillor Charles, in seconding the amendment, said the additional income
required by the Council could well be taken from Reserves which the
taxpayers of the Vale of Glamorgan had already contributed to. She said she
believed this could be the fairest way of raising the revenue instead of
increasing the pressure on every household. The budget management of the
Council had, in her view, been mismanaged by Labour backed up Llantwit
Firsts and the people of the Vale of Glamorgan deserved better.
Councillor Dr. Johnson, speaking to the amendment by Councillor Carroll
whilst reserving his right to speak later on the proposed budget, asked after
listening to the Conservatives uncosted amendment taking money out of the
Reserves if £3.5m was taken out of the Reserves did the Conservative Group
have any idea how to return it as it would obviously be using the exact same
£3.5m next year and the year after and then the Council would be left with
nothing in the Reserves. This was not the way to run a Council, stating that
unfortunately the Conservatives had created the problems that were before
the Council. In 2010 Britain's debt was £1 trillion and now it's £2.7 trillion so
this was quite a shambles. What sort of ridiculous regime increased or cut
one country's budget based on the spending of a government in another
country. Taking a look at public spending in its entirety there was more spent
per head in London than anywhere else. A little bit higher than in Scotland
and Northern Ireland. The spending per head in London, Scotland and
No.
Northern Ireland was 500 times higher annually almost 4%, even if Wales only
received funding on an equal footing with these three it would be richer to the
tune of £1.5 billion and this was the type of money which could transform the
Vale’s local services and ensure that the Council did not need to increase
Council Tax as has been suggested, but the we don't and this was leading to
difficult decisions for all of us. Of course in Scotland the SNP Government
had used part of the additional funding to freeze Council Tax realising the
impact of the economic storm for families, but here with the challenging
budget across Wales the ordinary people must pay more a lot more to
maintain even basic services. Councillor Dr. Johnson ended by saying that
he did not accept the figures presented by the Conservative Group which had
not been costed in either a sensible or responsible manner which could be
sustained.
Councillor Wilson commented that he thought the amendment was pretty
interesting, in that we would be looking at a 3% Council Tax increase at least
where as in previous years the Conservatives had suggested no increase.
He said that in his view the Conservative Group did not have the right to talk
about financial mismanagement as Councillor Dr. Johnson had rightly said,
we have got huge issues with our debt at the moment. Referring to 2008
where he said Labour helped out the banks and stopped people running out
of money at cash points, which had happened in other places like Cyprus.
We do not need any lessons from the Conservatives about financial
management he said as in his view they didn’t have a clue how to manage the
budget.
Councillor Godfrey commented that if people were quoting facts then they
should be correct and encapsulate the whole picture including the impact of
the Ukraine war and BREXIT and he felt it quite wrong if people were not
doing that.
Councillor Hodges, in response to Councillor Godfrey’s comments, said yes
the Ukraine war and Covid had a dramatic effect on balances as did Brexit but
he felt that there was plenty of other mismanagement going on as well.
Councillor Goodjohn considered that the amendment didn’t appear to be a
very tactical solution to the Council’s issues and enquired of Councillor Carroll
as to exactly what mismanagement of the budget issues there were in the
Revenue proposals. He also asked the Conservative Leader to consider that
taking from Reserves would quite frankly cause cash flow issues in the
Council and what he would propose do in such situations as if there were
cash flow issues in the Council people would have delays in getting vital
services which would impact on their lives, being people's real lives here in
the real world rather than some abstract idea. He also took the opportunity to
remind Council of the current 10% inflation rate.
Councillor Hodges, in drawing attention to Social Care costs, said if they were
not funded what would happen going forward further, commenting that the
NHS was already struggling because of mismanagement from the
Conservative Government and its finances stating that he could not support
No.
the amendment as it had not been fully costed and would mean a cut in
schools provision and social care.
Councillor John said he could not believe what he was hearing from the
Conservative Group referring to the months of discussion on the budget that
had already taken place and that it was a good job the Council had reserves.
He mentioned other Councils, in particular Monmouth Council, who he said
did not have any Reserves to help them and their Council Tax had gone up to
7.5%.
Councillor Franks, listening with interest to Councillor Carroll’s and the
Conservative Members’ comments, said he felt that they were basically
saying that apart from them no one else could financially manage the Council
and referred to the catastrophic failures of Conservative Councils in England.
The Leader, in response, said that in her view the amendment was completely
preposterous in view of the financial position facing the Council and that she
would be voting against the amendment.
Councillor Perry said it was a shame that as Elected Members elected by the
communities that there was a lack of togetherness. He said he applauded
attempts to get rid of Council Tax or severely change it as, in his view, a land
value tax would be much fairer. He said he would not be supporting the
amendment because he believed that his residents would rather not spend
money on new tyres and suspensions on their vehicles that they would rather
if there were Reserves fix the roads and fix the other services and stop relying
on volunteers to run services and stop cheering the minority getting wealthier
and wealthier and have a more equitable society.
Following a vote on the amendment the amendment was lost it being noted
12 were in favour, 38 against and one abstention.
Councillor Dr. Johnson, speaking on the substantive Motion, said it had been
interesting to hear the conversations taking place and that some people might
almost be surprised to hear that he sympathised with the Leader of the
Council in respect of the challenge before her, but that was why Plaid did not
accept the propaganda about the Council being a great Council because the
average person did not feel this. We as a Council needed to provide on
demand services which were quickly rising as a result of lack of investment in
preventative services. We needed to consider the relationship between the
people that we served and the funding. Welsh Government added extra
funding at the last minute and that increased £25m between the provisional
and the final settlement £600,000 through to the Revenue Grant and around
£500,000 through the introduction of the K Grant where we're expecting a loss
and furthermore additional funding in the Housing Support Grant last week.
How much was still unclear but the Council intended to keep Council Tax at
the same level rather than considering a cut like last year when we received
last minute funding which the Council put in its Reserves. This year we
considered our energy savings to be too tight and so the money needed to go
to the coffers for that rather than reducing Council Tax. There was no
No.
scrutiny, and he had been to all of the meetings, there was no scrutiny which
would change the minds of those deciding Council Taxes and setting aside
funding elsewhere in the budget. He had mentioned in the past how the
Council looked after its bank balance before considering the public's needs
and of course this year the figures before us showed some spend of the
Reserves of £51m which was almost a half. Let's see if this was true because
the same types of figures which were provided to us in the past had been
incorrect. But he said there were challenges nonetheless. The public had
seen a huge cost of living rise over the last years from energy costs, everyday
shopping costs and housing costs, including 12.5% over the last two years for
people in our Council houses. He understood that the budget was tight but
said what was the purpose of Welsh Government providing extra funding for
Councils in the final settlement if it was only put into Reserves.
A number of things he said concerned him, he didn’t like the idea of the
administrative fee for residents in parking permanent zones. Of course he
stated the Council could provide any service if it forced people to pay for it.
There was not enough money for fundamental core services for residents
although he accepted that the situation was a difficult one, as was the case for
all Councils, and he expressed his concern that the mix of cuts for Council’s
consideration and the increase in Council Tax stating that between the both of
them this was not acceptable and that he would be voting against the Motion.
Councillor Brooks said the reality was that more and more Councils were
being pushed to the financial brink. More Councils had issued a Section 114
Notice in the previous year than in the previous 30 years combined which she
said was quite astounding. Welsh Government had quite rightly put the
protection of public services at the front and centre of their budget, however
the Council could not get away from the fact that their funding had been cut
for the last 14 years from the Westminster Government leaving them with no
alternative but to reduce their transfer funding for Local Authorities. The cost
of living crisis came out as a significant issue in the recent survey with 42% of
the population citing easily accessible care and health care closely followed
by the buying or renting of good quality homes. These were the issues that
really mattered to people and their priorities she said and she stood by the
commitment to protect services which supported the Council’s most
vulnerable residents. However, in conclusion she said difficult decisions had
to be made to deliver a balanced and fair budget and she was pleased that
the Council had been able to protect supported bus services as she felt many
residents in rural and deprived communities relied on the bus services.
Councillor Franks commented that the Council had heard about potholes
being filled, a bit of resurfacing, grass being cut, road gullies being emptied,
which was basically the standard work of all Councils. However, what did
surprise him a little bit was the quick reference to support for Education. He
was not sure if he had misheard but that's what he thought he heard, but our
support for education has led to a disastrous situation in our schools, we've
also heard a mention about people's priorities that was good to be reminded,
but he didn't think we heard mention of the consultation with the public which,
if his memory served him right, did not support the proposed level of increase.
No.
He wondered why we had that omission. Whereas other facts were
highlighted, he considered there to be an element of cherry-picking. In the
previous year’s budget debate almost a year to the day, the Cabinet proposed
a £2m plus cut in schools with Cabinet being warned at that time that this
would have had a terrible impact on school budgets. This was disregarded by
Labour Members who, in his view he said, cheerfully dismissed such
warnings. The result had been over 20 schools now facing a deficit budget, of
these 19 apparently indicated that there was no prospect of recovery within 3
years, however since then he understood that the situation had worsened,
both in terms of the numbers of schools and the size of the deficits. He
therefore asked how can we and the public have any faith in this year's
budget process now seeing that this year's allocation to schools would
basically be following last year's allocation. What was the situation going to
be in a year's time for our schools? What was going to be the size of the
deficits? How many schools were going to be facing at least 3 years in the
red and to add to their problems he understood that schools were going to be
asked to pay for school crossing patrols and for elements of grass cutting?
We really do need to know what the impact would be on schools in 2024/25.
What would be the accumulated overspend and what was the anticipated
overspend in the following year and he welcomed comments from the Cabinet
Member for Education on these points.
Councillor Birch, advising that she would be unable to answer all of the points
at the meeting that evening, said that all of the schools that had budget
deficits had been assisted by the finance teams with schools unable to
recover their deficits within 3 years being offered plans to restructure the debt
that they had so that they could eventually balance their budgets. Going
forward she could not say what the deficits would be like in three years’ time,
rather she hoped that they would be balanced. Furthermore, Councillor Birch
added that all that had been said during the debate had been about the
difficulties of various events in the last few years and the toll that that had
taken on budgets everywhere, so schools were not going to be immune from
that. It was obvious that balancing budgets was going to be more difficult for
some schools than others.
In conclusion, the Leader referred to the number of times the budget process
had been considered by Cabinet and Scrutiny however she was disappointed
with the questions at Council when a lot of the discussion could have been
held at the Scrutiny Committee meetings over the year with suggestions being
put forward for consideration. In referring to the issues of diversity and
inclusion that had been commented on during the debate, the Leader drew
attention to the budget for Corporate Resources being only 5% of the overall
total. Having regard to Reserves she said the detail was contained within the
report although they had been rationalised. In referring to the comments
relating to the 2% cut in National Insurance the Leader mentioned that if one
was of retirement age they wouldn’t receive this cut.
The Leader subsequently took the opportunity to repeat her earlier comments
that the proposed budget was a budget to protect the most vulnerable and
moved the recommendations within the report.
No.
The motion moved by the Leader and seconded by Councillor Brooks was
subsequently voted upon.
A recorded vote took place on the recommendations as contained within the
reference and the report, as follows:-
Members For Against Abstain
Anne Asbrey x
Julie Aviet x
Gareth Ball x
Rhiannon Birch x
Bronwen Brooks x
Gillian Bruce x
Ian Buckley x
Lis Burnett x
Samantha Campbell x
George Carroll x
Christine Cave x
Charles Champion x
Janice Charles x
Millie Collins x
Marianne Cowpe x
Pamela Drake x
Vincent Driscoll
Anthony Ernest x
Robert Fisher x
Christopher Franks x
No.
Wendy Gilligan x
Russell Godfrey x
Emma Goodjohn x
Ewan Goodjohn x
Stephen Haines x
Howard Hamilton x
Sally Hanks x
William Hennessy x
Nic Hodges x
Catherine Iannucci x
Gwyn John x
Dr. Ian Johnson x
Susan Lloyd-Selby x
Julie Lynch-Wilson x
Kevin Mahoney x
Naomi Marshallsea x
Michael Morgan x
Jayne Norman x
Helen Payne x
Elliot Penn x
Sandra Perkes x
Ian Perry x
Joanna Protheroe x
Ruba Sivagnanam x
Carys Stallard x
No.
Neil Thomas x
Rhys Thomas x
Steffan Wiliam x
Margaret Wilkinson x
Eddie Williams x
Mark Wilson x
Nicholas Wood x
TOTAL 30 21
The vote being carried, it was
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T a Council Tax increase of 6.7% be approved.
(2) T H A T the Revenue budget for 2024/25 and Medium Term Financial
Plan 24/25 to 28/29 be approved.
(3) T H A T the fees and charges presented for approval in January 2024,
which stood unchanged following review by Scrutiny, be noted.
(4) T H A T the information provided in the supplemental report to Cabinet
th
on 29 February 2024 regarding updated Standard Spending Assessment
figures be endorsed.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Setting the annual rate of Council Tax was a key policy decision for
Council.
(2) Setting a balanced budget was a statutory responsibility and decision
for Full Council.
(3) To confirm fees and charges for 2024/25.
(4) Having regard to the supplemental information which provided Full
Council with the most up to date figures as part of its final budget
deliberations.
No.
CAPITAL STRATEGY 2024/25 AND FINAL CAPITAL PROGRAMME PROPOSALS 2024/25 TO 2028/29 (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C261)
and had referred the same to Council for consideration and approval.
Appendix 1 to the report provided the Council's Capital Strategy for 2024/25.
The Capital Strategy provided a framework which outlined how capital
expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity contributed to
the provision of corporate objectives, along with an overview of how
associated risk was managed and the implications for future financial
sustainability.
The report set out the Council’s proposed Final Capital Programme for the
period 2024/25 to 2028/29 at Appendix 2.
The Council was facing significant pressures in relation to price inflation and
the cost-of-living crisis which had seen increases in the costs of materials and
labour. This had had an impact on the current schemes within the Capital
Programme and the funding available to fund new schemes within the Capital
Programme.
The total value of capital schemes over the next five years was £387.582m
which included £25.376m for the Band B Sustainable Communities for
Learning Programme (excluding the pipeline schemes) and £205.775m for the
Housing Improvement Programme.
Since the Draft Capital Programme proposals report in January, a number of
changes had been made including the reprofile and allocation of
decarbonisation schemes, City Deal reprofile, slippage from the 2023/24
Capital Programme into the 2024/25 Capital Programme and the Llanmaes
match funding was no longer being removed from the five year proposals.
The detail of these changes was covered later in the report.
The Leader subsequently moved the recommendations in the report, which
were seconded by Councillor Brooks, and there being no dissent it was
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Capital Strategy 2024/25, as set out in Appendix 1 to the
report to Cabinet on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C261), be approved.
(2) T H A T the final Capital Programme for the years 2024/25 to 2028/29,
as set out in Appendix 2 to the report to Cabinet on 29th February, 2024
(Minute No. C261), be approved.
(3) T H A T the Chief Executive and the Head of Finance / Section 151
Officer, in consultation with the Executive Leader and Cabinet Member for
No.
Performance and Resources, be granted delegated authority to make
additions, deletions or transfers to or from the:
i. 2024/25 to 2028/29 Housing Improvement Programme as
appropriate.
ii. 2024/25 to 2028/29 Asset Renewal budgets as appropriate.
iii. S106 funded schemes subject to Member consultation as
required under the existing process.
iv. Energy Management Schemes
v. Building Strong Communities Fund schemes.
vi. Sustainable Communities for Learning Band B programme
(Previously 21st Century Schools schemes).
vii. Discretionary Adaption Grant Schemes.
viii. Vale Regeneration Schemes.
(4) T H A T the Chief Executive, Head of Finance / Section 151 Officer,
and Director of Learning and Skills in consultation with the Executive Leader
and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources, be granted delegated
authority to increase the Capital Programme for the long term solution in
relation to the Successful Futures Centre at Pencoedtre High School when
the feasibility studies had been concluded. It being noted that £300k had
been ringfenced within reserves to carry out the scheme when feasibility
studies had been undertaken.
Reasons for decisions
(1) To approve the Capital Strategy for 2024/25.
(2) To set and approve future Capital Programmes to 2028/29.
(3) To enable the Housing Capital budget, Asset Renewal budgets, S106
schemes, Energy Management Schemes, Building Stronger Communities
Fund, Sustainable Communities for Learning Band B programme,
Discretionary Adaption Grant Schemes, and Vale Regeneration schemes to
be managed effectively.
(4) To enable the long term solution to the Successful Futures Centre at
Pencoedtre High School to proceed when the feasibility studies had been
concluded.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2024/25 AND UPDATE 2023/24 (REF)
Cabinet had considered the report on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C262)
and had referred the same to Council for consideration and approval.
The interim report outlined the proposed 2024/25 Treasury Management
Strategy detailed in Appendix 1 and provided an update on the Council’s
Treasury Management operations for the period 1st April to 31st December,
No.
2023. All activities were in accordance with the Council’s approved strategy
on Treasury Management.
Total external borrowing as of 31st December, 2023 was £145.479m at an
average rate of 4.37%. New external borrowing totalling £5.000m was
undertaken during the first 9 months of 2023/24 at a rate of 4.38% with
utilised the special project rate for Housing Revenue Account schemes.
The Council invested with the Debt Management Deposit Facility, Local
Authorities, Treasury Bills, Money Market Funds together with Lloyds Bank
Call Accounts. Total investments as of 31st December, 2023 stood at
£50.495m at an average rate of 4.53% over the nine-month period.
The Council had to ensure that the Prudential Code was complied with, which
had been developed by CIPFA as a professional code of practice, last
updated in December 2021. To demonstrate that the Council had fulfilled
these objectives, the Code set out a list of Prudential and Treasury indicators
that should be calculated together with other factors that had to be
considered. These were included in Appendix 1 to the report as part of the
Strategy.
The Council also had a legal requirement to comply with the Welsh
Government Guidance on Investments and had taken this guidance into
consideration when developing the Strategy.
New borrowing in the period to 2028/29 was expected to be £184.377m for
new Capital Expenditure and a further £14.000m of borrowing to replace
maturing loans and reflect the Council’s reducing ability to internally borrow
over the period.
Capital expenditure when financed by long term debt incurred two elements of
cost, interest and repayment of the principal sum borrowed. The resources
the Council must put aside in each year to repay the principal sum borrowed
was known as Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) and the Council's policy
for the calculation was detailed in the report.
The Treasury Management Policy Statement for 2024/25 was attached at
Appendix 2 to the report.
The Leader, in referring to the recent training provided to all Members, and
indeed training that was provided each year, on the subject, commented that
she had found the training to be a really constructive training session which
had also been recorded for Members to view it online.
RESOLVED –
(1) T H A T the Treasury Management interim report for the period 1 st April
st
to 31 December, 2023 be approved.
No.
(2) T H A T the policy for making Minimum Revenue Provision in 2024/25
be approved.
(3) T H A T the proposed 2024/25 Treasury Management and Investment
Strategy be approved, including the following specific resolutions (as detailed
in Appendix 1 to the report to Cabinet on 29th February, 2024 [Minute No.
C262]):
• The Authorised Limit for External Debt be set at £240.969m for
2023/24, £271.200m for 2024/25, £303.939m for 2025/26 and
£336.893m for 2026/27.
• The Operational Boundary for External Debt be set at
£226.147m for 2023/24, £255.687 for 2024/25, £287.406m for
2025/26 and £320.338m for 2026/27.
• The Section 151 Officer be granted delegated authority within
the total Authorised Limit and Operational Boundary as
estimated for individual years to effect movement between the
separately agreed limits for borrowing and other long term
liabilities.
• An upper limit of £0m for 2023/24, £10m for 2024/25, £10m in
2025/26 and £10m in 2026/27 be set for total principal sums
invested for over 364 days.
• The amount of projected borrowing that was fixed rate maturing
in each period as a percentage of total projected borrowing that
was fixed rate for 2024/25 be set as:
Table 1 – Upper and lower Limits for fixed rate borrowing
Upper Lower
Limit Limit
Under 12 months 20% 0%
12 months and within 24 months 20% 0%
24 months and within 5 years 30% 0%
5 years and within 10 years 40% 0%
10 years and above 100% 0%
(4) T H A T Prudential Indicators set out in Appendix 1 to the report to
Cabinet on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C262) be approved.
(5) T H A T the Treasury Management Policy Statement set out in
Appendix 2 to the report to Cabinet on 29th February, 2024 (Minute No. C262)
be approved.
Reasons for decisions
(1) Having regard to the contents of the report and discussions at the
meeting.
(2) To agree the basis of the Minimum Revenue Provision calculation for
2024/25.
No.
(3-5) In order for the Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy
as prepared be approved as required by the Local Government Act 2003.
PAY POLICY 2024/25 (REF)
The Council had a statutory requirement under the Localism Act 2011 to
prepare a pay policy statement for the new financial year 2024/25. The
statement needed to be approved and published by 31st March, 2024. The
document provided a framework for ensuring that employees were rewarded
fairly and objectively, in accordance with the service needs of the Council and
that there was openness and transparency in relation to the process. It being
a straightforward report the Leader moved the recommendations which were
seconded by Councillor Brooks.
Prior to putting the recommendations to Full Council the Mayor asked if there
were any points of clarification required by Members from the Head of Human
Resources. There being no clarifications required and no further comments, it
was subsequently
RESOLVED – T H A T the Council’s Pay Policy as attached at Appendix A to
the report to Cabinet on 8th February, 2024 (Minute No C234) be approved.
Reason for decision
To respond to the legal requirement under the Localism Act 2011 and to
provide openness and accountability in relation to how the Council rewards its
staff.
N.B.
All Chief Officers, save for the Head of Human Resources, left the meeting
when this item was considered. The Head of Human Resources remained in
the meeting, until the matter was to be voted upon, in order to provide any
clarification required by Elected Members.
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 – T H A T the attendance of the following Councillors at the site visits
indicated, held on 30th November 2023, be noted.
Apologies were received from Councillors G. Bruce (Leckwith Quay), C.A. Cave
(both sites), C.M. Cowpe (GM2 House), P. Drake (both sites), A.M. Ernest
(Leckwith Quay), W. Gilligan (both sites), N.P. Hodges (GM2 House),
Dr. I.J. Johnson (GM2 House), H.M. Payne (both sites), S.D. Perkes (both sites),
I.A.N. Perry (both sites), E. Williams (Leckwith Quay) and M.R. Wilson (Leckwith
Quay).
Minutes - AR
No.
(a) GM2 House, Plymouth Road, Councillor N.C. Thomas (Chair),
Penarth, CF64 3DQ. Councillors G. Bruce, I. Buckley,
C.E.A. Champion, A.M. Ernest,
C. Stallard, E. Williams and
M.R. Wilson.
(b) Leckwith Quay, Leckwith Road, Councillor N.C. Thomas (Chair),
Leckwith, CF11 8AU. Councillors I. Buckley,
C.E.A. Champion, C.M. Cowpe,
N.P. Hodges, Dr. I.J. Johnson, and
C. Stallard.
Also Present
Councillors: A. Asbrey and C.P.
Franks.