Lleoliad: Ystafelloedd Pwyllgor 2/3 - Swyddfeydd Dinesig, Stryd yr Angel, Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr CF31 4WB. Cyfarwyddiadau
Cyswllt: Michael Pitman
Roedd yn ofynnol i aelodau ethol Cadeirydd oherwydd absenoldeb y Cynghorydd David Lewis (Cadeirydd). Etholodd yr Aelodau y Cynghorydd Mike Kearn
Ymddiheuriadau am absenoldeb
Derbyn ymddiheuriadau am absenoldeb gan Aelodau.
Cyng DRW Lewis (Cadeirydd)
Datganiadau o fuddiant
Derbyn datganiadau o ddiddordeb personol a rhagfarnol (os o gwbl) gan Aelodau / Swyddogion yn unol â darpariaethau'r Cod Ymddygiad Aelodau a fabwysiadwyd gan y Cyngor o 1 Medi 2008.
Gwahardd y Cyhoedd
Nid oedd y adroddiad sy'n ymwneud â'r eitem canlynol yn cael eu cyhoeddi, gan fod eu bod yn cynnwys gwybodaeth eithriedig fel y'i diffinnir ym Mharagraffau 14 a 16 o Ran 4 a Pharagraff 21 o Ran 5, Atodlen 12A, Deddf Llywodraeth Leol 1972, fel y'i newidiwyd gan Orchymyn Llywodraeth Leol (Cymru) 2007 (Mynediad at Wybodaeth) (Amrywio).
Os, yn dilyn cymhwyso'r prawf budd y cyhoedd yn yr Is-Bwyllgor yn penderfynu yn unol â'r Ddeddf i ystyried yr eitem hyn yn breifat, bydd y cyhoedd yn cael eu gwahardd o'r cyfarfod yn ystod ystyriaeth o'r fath.
PENDERFYNWYD: Gwahardd y cyhoedd o’r cyfarfod, o dan Adran 100A (4) o Ddeddf Llywodraeth Leol 1972, fel y’i diwygiwyd gan Orchymyn Llywodraeth Leol (Mynediad at Wybodaeth) (Amrywiad) (Cymru) 2007, a hynny pan fyddai’r Aelodau’n trafod yr eitemau a ganlyn gan eu bod yn cynnwys gwybodaeth sydd wedi’i heithrio o dan Baragraff 12 yn Rhan 4 a/neu Baragraff 21 yn Rhan 5 o Atodlen 12A i’r Ddeddf.
Ar ôl cymhwyso prawf budd y cyhoedd, penderfynwyd, yn unol â’r Ddeddf y cyfeirir ati uchod, y dylid trafod yr eitemau a ganlyn mewn sesiwn breifat, gan wahardd y cyhoedd o’r cyfarfod, a hynny oherwydd, ym mhob un o’r amgylchiadau’n ymwneud â’r eitemau hyn, ystyriwyd bod y budd cyhoeddus a oedd ynghlwm wrth barhau â’r eithriad yn drech na’r budd cyhoeddus a oedd ynghlwm wrth ddatgelu’r wybodaeth, gan y byddai’r wybodaeth yn niweidiol i’r ymgeiswyr dan sylw.
Gwrandawiad Disgyblu ar gyfer Gyrwr Tacsi Presennol
2 Waterton Road
Mr Hughes was not in attendance.
The Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer presented a report which outlined the reason for the disciplinary hearing.
She advised Members that a hearing was called on the 4 June 2019 to determine the action to be taken but the applicant did not attend. The hearing was therefore deferred to the 11 June 2019 for determination.
She explained that as Mr Hughes was not in attendance again, they must make a decision to defer the hearing to a later date or continue with the hearing in his absence.
The Sub Committee made the decision to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Hughes.
The Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer noted that the driver was issued with a licence to drive on 14 December 2018. He was required to provide a Disclosure and Baring Service (DBS) certificate to the Council.
She explained that Mr Hughes was given notice in writing to produce a DBS certificate on the 4 April 2019 and again on the 23 April 2019 but had failed to do so.
A Member asked if Mr Hughes was driving at that time and if so what company he was working for
The Senior Licensing Enforcement Officer explained that he was not driving at that time but wished to retain his licence. He was not employed by a company and was acting as a Private Hire Operator.
She further explained that Mr Hughes was visited by a Licensing Enforcement Officer at his residence and although was assured a certificate would be provided had failed to do so.
The Sub Committee had no further questions therefore adjourned to make a decision. The decision read as follows:
RESOLVED: “The Committee determines to hear the matter in the absence of Mr Hughes. Mr Hughes has been given two opportunities to attend before the Committee but has failed to do so.
The Committee heard from the licensing officer who advised that the licence was issued to Mr Hughes on 14 December 2018 and was given notice to provide his DBS to the council on 04 April 2019 and again on the 23 April 2019 but failed to comply with that request. A licensing enforcement officer also visited Mr Hughes at his property and he assured the officer he would supply the DBS but unfortunately still failed to do so.
The Committee have to ensure that taxi drivers are fit and proper people and providing a DBS certificate is part of that process.
The Committee cannot satisfy themselves that Mr Hughes is a fit and proper person as he has not provided a DBS certificate and on this basis have decided to revoke the licence”.