Derbyn ymddiheuriadau am absenoldeb gan Aelodau.

Derbyniwyd ymddiheuriadau am absenoldeb gan y Cynghorydd RM James.

Derbyn datganiadau o ddiddordeb personol a rhagfarnol (os o gwbl) gan Aelodau/Swyddogion yn unol a darpariaethau’r Cod Ymddygiad Aelodau a fabwysiadwyd gan y Cyngor o 1 Medi 2008.

Dim

I dderbyn am gymeradwyaeth y Cofnodion cyfarfod y 18 04 18

PENDERFYNWYD:  Cymeradwyo cofnodion cyhoeddus cyfarfod yr Is-bwyllgor Trwyddedu B a gynhaliwyd ar 18 Ebrill 2018 fel rhai gwir a chywir.

71.         Cais i Drwyddedu Cerbyd Hurio Preifat

Cyflwynodd Cyfarwyddwr Corfforaethol y Gwasanaethau Gweithredol a Phartneriaeth adroddiad a ofynnodd i’r is-bwyllgor ystyried cais i roi trwydded ar gyfer cerbyd llogi preifat.

Gwnaethpwyd y cais gan Leanne Davies T/a Driven Personal Hire Limited i drwyddedu Mercedes C220 â’r rhif cofrestru CN13 KFU fel cerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 4 person.

Nid oedd y cais yn berthnasol i’r Polisi Cerbydau Llogi Preifat a gymeradwywyd gan y Pwyllgor Trwyddedu. Nid oedd y cerbyd yn hygyrch i gadeiriau olwyn, ond roedd canllawiau penodol mewn perthynas â thrwyddedu cerbydau llogi preifat am y tro cyntaf nad oeddent yn cyd-fynd â’r canllawiau polisi wedi’u nodi yn yr adroddiad. Roedd hanes triniaeth gan y cerbyd.

Yna archwiliodd yr Aelodau y cerbyd gan gadarnhau mai 66.275 oedd nifer y milltiroedd oedd wedi’u teithio hyd yn hyn.

Yna ystyrion nhw’r cais ymhellach, ac ar ôl hynny

PENDERFYNWYD:        (1)               Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn ystyried y cais am drwydded ar gyfer y cerbyd â’r rhif cofrestru CN13 KFU.

                                      (2)    Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn nodi nad yw’r cais yn berthnasol i baragraff 2.1 canllawiau polisi trwyddedu’r Cyngor.

                                      (3)    Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn cytuno i gymeradwyo'r cais y cyfeirir ato uchod fel cerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 4 person gan ei fod yn bodloni paragraffau 2.2 a 2.2.5 y Polisi Trwydded, o weld cyflwr eithriadol y cerbyd o ran y tu mewn iddo ac y tu allan iddo.</AI3>

Cyflwynodd Cyfarwyddwr Corfforaethol y Gwasanaethau Gweithredol a Phartneriaeth adroddiad a ofynnodd i’r is-bwyllgor ystyried cais i roi trwydded ar gyfer cerbyd llogi preifat.

Gwnaethpwyd y cais gan Gary Shaw i drwyddedu Seat Alhambra â'r rhif cofrestru LR17 FHK yn gerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 6 person.

Nid oedd y cais yn berthnasol i’r Polisi Cerbydau Llogi Preifat a gymeradwywyd gan y Pwyllgor Trwyddedu. Nid oedd y cerbyd yn hygyrch i gadeiriau olwyn, ond roedd canllawiau penodol mewn perthynas â thrwyddedu cerbydau llogi preifat am y tro cyntaf nad oeddent yn cyd-fynd â’r canllawiau polisi wedi’u nodi yn yr adroddiad. Roedd hanes triniaeth gan y cerbyd.

Yna archwiliodd yr Aelodau y cerbyd gan gadarnhau mai 21.463 oedd nifer y milltiroedd oedd wedi’u teithio hyd yn hyn.

Yna ystyrion nhw’r cais ymhellach, ac ar ôl hynny

PENDERFYNWYD:                 (1)Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn ystyried y cais am drwydded ar gyfer y cerbyd â’r rhif cofrestru LR17 FHK.

(2) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn nodi nad yw’r cais yn berthnasol i baragraff 2.1 canllawiau polisi trwyddedu’r Cyngor.

(3) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn cytuno i gymeradwyo'r cais y cyfeirir ato uchod fel cerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 6 person gan ei fod yn bodloni paragraffau 2.2 a 2.2.5 y Polisi Trwydded, o weld cyflwr eithriadol y cerbyd o ran y tu mewn iddo ac y tu allan iddo. 

Cyflwynodd Cyfarwyddwr Corfforaethol y Gwasanaethau Gweithredol a Phartneriaeth adroddiad i ystyried cais i roi trwydded ar gyfer cerbyd llogi preifat.

Gwnaethpwyd y cais gan Peyton Travel Limited i drwyddedu Dacia Logan Laureate â’r rhif cofrestru BN16 WCV yn gerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 4 person.

Nid oedd y cais yn berthnasol i’r Polisi Cerbydau Llogi Preifat a gymeradwywyd gan y Pwyllgor Trwyddedu. Nid oedd y cerbyd yn hygyrch i gadeiriau olwyn, ond roedd canllawiau penodol mewn perthynas â thrwyddedu cerbydau llogi preifat am y tro cyntaf nad oeddent yn cyd-fynd â’r canllawiau polisi wedi’u nodi yn yr adroddiad. Roedd hanes triniaeth gan y cerbyd.

Yna archwiliodd yr Aelodau y cerbyd gan gadarnhau mai 26.917 oedd nifer y milltiroedd oedd wedi’u teithio hyd yn hyn.

Yna ystyrion nhw’r cais ymhellach, ac ar ôl hynny

PENDERFYNWYD:         (1) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn ystyried y cais am drwydded ar gyfer y cerbyd â’r rhif cofrestru BN16 WCV.    

                                         (2) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn nodi nad yw’r cais yn berthnasol i baragraff 2.1 canllawiau polisi trwyddedu’r Cyngor.

(3) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn cytuno i gymeradwyo'r cais y cyfeirir ato uchod fel cerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 4 person gan ei fod yn bodloni paragraffau 2.2 a 2.2.5 y Polisi Trwydded, o weld cyflwr eithriadol y cerbyd o ran y tu mewn iddo ac y tu allan iddo.

Cyflwynodd Cyfarwyddwr Corfforaethol y Gwasanaethau Gweithredol a Phartneriaeth adroddiad a ofynnodd i’r is-bwyllgor ystyried cais i roi trwydded ar gyfer cerbyd llogi preifat.

Gwnaethpwyd y cais gan Peyton Travel Limited i drwyddedu Dacia Logan Laureate â’r rhif cofrestru EX66 FFB yn gerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 4 person.

Nid oedd y cais yn berthnasol i’r Polisi Cerbydau Llogi Preifat a gymeradwywyd gan y Pwyllgor Trwyddedu. Nid oedd y cerbyd yn hygyrch i gadeiriau olwyn, ond roedd canllawiau penodol mewn perthynas â thrwyddedu cerbydau llogi preifat am y tro cyntaf nad oeddent yn cyd-fynd â’r canllawiau polisi wedi’u nodi yn yr adroddiad. Nid oedd hanes triniaeth gan y cerbyd, gan nad oedd wedi teithio'r milltiroedd sydd angen i gael triniaeth.

Yna archwiliodd yr Aelodau y cerbyd gan gadarnhau mai 11.346 oedd nifer y milltiroedd oedd wedi’u teithio hyd yn hyn.

Yna ystyrion nhw’r cais ymhellach, ac ar ôl hynny

PENDERFYNWYD:          (1) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn ystyried y cais am drwydded ar gyfer y cerbyd â’r rhif cofrestru EX66 FFB.    

                                          (2) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn nodi nad yw’r cais yn berthnasol i baragraff 2.1 canllawiau polisi trwyddedu’r Cyngor.

(3) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn cytuno i gymeradwyo'r cais y cyfeirir ato uchod fel cerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 4 person gan ei fod yn bodloni paragraffau 2.2 a 2.2.5 y Polisi Trwydded, o weld cyflwr eithriadol y cerbyd o ran y tu mewn iddo ac y tu allan iddo.

</AI7>

<AI8>

Cyflwynodd Cyfarwyddwr Corfforaethol y Gwasanaethau Gweithredol a Phartneriaeth adroddiad a ofynnodd i’r is-bwyllgor ystyried cais i roi trwydded ar gyfer cerbyd llogi preifat.

Gwnaethpwyd y cais gan Peyton Travel Limited i drwyddedu Renault Trafic Business â’r rhif cofrestru EY66 ZVV yn gerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 8 person.

Nid oedd y cais yn berthnasol i’r Polisi Cerbydau Llogi Preifat a gymeradwywyd gan y Pwyllgor Trwyddedu. Nid oedd y cerbyd yn hygyrch i gadeiriau olwyn, ond roedd canllawiau penodol mewn perthynas â thrwyddedu cerbydau llogi preifat am y tro cyntaf nad oeddent yn cyd-fynd â’r canllawiau polisi wedi’u nodi yn yr adroddiad. Nid oedd hanes triniaeth gan y cerbyd, gan nad oedd wedi teithio'r milltiroedd sydd angen i gael triniaeth.

Yna archwiliodd yr Aelodau y cerbyd gan gadarnhau mai 5,415 oedd nifer y milltiroedd oedd wedi’u teithio hyd yn hyn.

Yna ystyrion nhw’r cais ymhellach, ac ar ôl hynny

PENDERFYNWYD:            (1) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn ystyried y cais am drwydded ar gyfer y cerbyd â’r rhif cofrestru EX66 ZVV.     

                                            (2) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn nodi nad yw’r cais yn berthnasol i baragraff 2.1 canllawiau polisi trwyddedu’r Cyngor.

(3) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn cytuno i gymeradwyo'r cais y cyfeirir ato uchod fel cerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 8 person gan ei fod yn bodloni paragraffau 2.2 a 2.2.5 y Polisi Trwydded, o weld cyflwr eithriadol y cerbyd o ran y tu mewn iddo ac y tu allan iddo.</AI8>

<AI9>

Cyflwynodd Cyfarwyddwr Corfforaethol y Gwasanaethau Gweithredol a Phartneriaeth adroddiad a ofynnodd i’r is-bwyllgor ystyried cais i roi trwydded ar gyfer cerbyd llogi preifat.

Gwnaethpwyd y cais gan Peyton Travel Limited i drwyddedu Vauxhall Vicaro CDTI â’r rhif cofrestru LC65 OXU yn gerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 8 person.

Nid oedd y cais yn berthnasol i’r Polisi Cerbydau Llogi Preifat a gymeradwywyd gan y Pwyllgor Trwyddedu. Nid oedd y cerbyd yn hygyrch i gadeiriau olwyn, ond roedd canllawiau penodol mewn perthynas â thrwyddedu cerbydau llogi preifat am y tro cyntaf nad oeddent yn cyd-fynd â’r canllawiau polisi wedi’u nodi yn yr adroddiad. Roedd hanes triniaeth gan y cerbyd.

Yna archwiliodd yr Aelodau y cerbyd gan gadarnhau mai 63.133 oedd nifer y milltiroedd oedd wedi’u teithio hyd yn hyn.

Nododd yr Aelodau o’r adroddiad mai un o’r rhesymau y gallai'r Aelodau wneud yn groes i’r Polisi Trwyddedu, oedd a yw’r cerbyd mewn cyflwr eithriadol mewn perthynas â’i olwg mewnol ac allanol, heb dystiolaeth o ddiffygion, tolciau, marciau neu unrhyw dystiolaeth arall o ddifrod afresymol.

Nododd yr Aelodau wrth archwilio'r cerbyd fod sawl tolc a marc ar y cerbyd, sy’n groes i baragraff 2.2.5 y Polisi.

Yna ystyrion nhw’r cais ymhellach, ac ar ôl hynny

PENDERFYNWYD:                       (1) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn ystyried y cais am drwydded ar gyfer y cerbyd â’r rhif cofrestru LC65 OXU.    

                                            (2) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn nodi nad yw’r cais yn berthnasol i baragraff 2.1 canllawiau polisi trwyddedu’r Cyngor.

                                            (3) Nododd yr Aelodau hefyd fod sawl mân ddiffyg ar ei gorff fel y cyfeirir atynt uchod, ac am y rheswm hwn, gwrthodwyd y cais gan nad oedd yn cyd-fynd â darpariaethau’r Polisi y’i nodir uchod.

Cyflwynodd Cyfarwyddwr Corfforaethol y Gwasanaethau Gweithredol a Phartneriaeth adroddiad a ofynnodd i’r is-bwyllgor ystyried cais i roi trwydded ar gyfer cerbyd llogi preifat.

Gwnaethpwyd y cais gan Peyton Travel Limited i drwyddedu Vauxhall Vario CDTI â’r rhif cofrestru LO65 XGK yn gerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 8 person.

Nid oedd y cais yn berthnasol i’r Polisi Cerbydau Llogi Preifat a gymeradwywyd gan y Pwyllgor Trwyddedu. Nid oedd y cerbyd yn hygyrch i gadeiriau olwyn, ond roedd canllawiau penodol mewn perthynas â thrwyddedu cerbydau llogi preifat am y tro cyntaf nad oeddent yn cyd-fynd â’r canllawiau polisi wedi’u nodi yn yr adroddiad. Roedd hanes triniaeth gan y cerbyd.

Yna archwiliodd yr Aelodau y cerbyd gan gadarnhau mai 68.099 oedd nifer y milltiroedd oedd wedi’u teithio hyd yn hyn.

Yna ystyrion nhw’r cais ymhellach, ac ar ôl hynny

PENDERFYNWYD:            (1) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn ystyried y cais am drwydded ar gyfer y cerbyd â’r rhif cofrestru LC65 XGK.    

                                            (2) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn nodi nad yw’r cais yn berthnasol i baragraff 2.1 canllawiau polisi trwyddedu’r Cyngor.

(3) Bod yr Is-bwyllgor yn cytuno i gymeradwyo'r cais y cyfeirir ato uchod fel cerbyd llogi preifat ar gyfer 8 person gan ei fod yn bodloni paragraffau 2.2 a 2.2.5 y Polisi Trwydded, o weld cyflwr eithriadol y cerbyd o ran y tu mewn iddo ac y tu allan iddo.

I ystyried unrhyw eitemau o fusnes y, oherwydd amgylchiadau arbennig y cadeirydd o'r farn y dylid eu hystyried yn y cyfarfod fel mater o frys yn unol â Rhan 4 (pharagraff 4) o'r Rheolau Trefn y Cyngor yn y Cyfansoddiad.

Dim

Nid oedd y cofnodion ac adroddiadau sy'n ymwneud â'r eitemau 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 eitemau hyn yn breifat, bydd y cyhoedd yn cael eu gwahardd o'r cyfarfod yn ystod ystyriaeth o'r fath.

PENDERFYNWYD:      Gwahardd y cyhoedd, dan Adran 100A(4) Deddf Llywodraeth Leol 1972, fel y’i diwygiwyd gan Orchymyn Llywodraeth Leol (Mynediad i Wybodaeth) (Amrywiad) (Cymru) 2007, rhag y cyfarfod tra bod yr eitemau busnes hyn yn cael eu hystyried gan eu bod yn cynnwys gwybodaeth wedi'i heithrio fel y diffinnir ym Mharagraff 12 o Ran 4 a/neu Baragraff 21 o Ran 5 o Atodlen 12A y ddeddf hon.

                                       Yn dilyn y  prawf o fuddiant y cyhoedd, penderfynwyd, yn unol â’r Ddeddf y cyfeirir ati uchod, ystyried yr eitemau canlynol mewn preifat, gyda’r cyhoedd wedi’i wahardd o’r cyfarfod, gan y ystyriwyd, ym mhob amgylchedd sy’n ymwneud â’r eitemau, y byddai buddiant y cyhoedd mewn cynnal yr eithriad yn drech na fuddiant y cyhoedd mewn datgelu’r wybodaeth, gan y byddai’r wybodaeth yn niweidiol i’r ymgeiswyr wedi sôn amdanynt. 

I dderbyn am gymeradwyaeth y Cafnodian gwahardd Cyfardod y 18 04 18

RESOLVED:                  That the exempt Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee B dated 18 April 2018, be approved as a true and accurate record.

Jamie Byles

72 Illtyd Avenue

Llantwit Major

Vale of Glamorgan

The applicant was present in support of his application.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked Mr. Byles if the details in the report were correct and if there were any matters pending against him through the Courts, to which he replied yes and no, respectively.

She then advised him that following a Disclosure and Barring check having been made against him, this had revealed that he had received a Caution for an offence of Common Assault committed on 13 December 2013. The Team Manager (Licensing) asked the applicant to give an account of this offence for the benefit of Members.

Mr. Byles confirmed that this had involved his mother who had lent a previous family friend her mobile phone, and had a problem on getting this back. The Police had spoken to this person about the situation, and the ex-friend had advised the Police that he no longer had the phone which was a lie.

Mr. Byles then informed Members that he had subsequently approached the ex-friend about the missing mobile, following which this person verbally abused him. As he had also invaded Mr. Byles personal space during the confrontation, Mr. Byles had pushed him after which the ex-friend reported him to the Police.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked Mr. Byles if his ex-friend had also got arrested ie over the confrontation and/or the stolen mobile phone, to which he replied that he didn’t know.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked Mr. Byles if his application was successful, did he have a job to go to in terms of taxi driving, to which he replied that he did with Jackson Cars

The applicant and Officers then retired from the meeting whilst the Sub-Committee made a decision upon the application. Upon their return, it was

RESOLVED:                      The Sub-Committee considered the application made by Mr. Byles for a taxi licence and heard his explanation for the caution he had received for Common Assault.

                                           The Sub-Committee have decided to grant his application for a licence as the caution was five years ago, and he had received no further cautions and convictions, and had been of good character since that date.

Jennens Shelley Geeraerts

2 Ty-Bryn Cottages

Hendre Road

Pencoed

The applicant was present in support of his application.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked Mr. Geeraerts if the details in the report were correct, and if there were any matters pending against him through the Courts, to which he replied yes and no, respectively.

She then advised him that following a Disclosure and Barring check having been made against him, that this had disclosed that on 7 April 2018 he had been Cautioned for Battery, and she asked Mr. Geeraerts to give an account of the circumstances that had led to this offence.

Mr. Geeraerts confirmed that this had been issued to him by the South Wales Police, following an incident that had taken place between his ex-girlfriend and himself outside their house. He continued by stating that they had an argument following which he tried to leave the premises, but firstly, he needed to collect some of his possessions from there. This was when she had called the Police claiming that he had assaulted her. When the Police asked her if she wished to take the matter further, she replied that she didn’t, as this could result in the issuing of a Court Order. Mr Geeraerts claimed that he had not assaulted his ex-partner

The Legal Officer advised Mr. Geeraerts that he must have admitted to what he had done, ie being cautioned for Battery, otherwise the Police would have not cautioned him for this.

Mr. Geeraerts claimed that though the argument between him and his ex-girlfriend had been a heated one, he had not used any physical violence against her.

The Legal Officer contended this, adding that if it was Battery there must have been some physical contact made against his ex-girlfriend.

Mr. Geeraerts advised that his ex-girlfriend did have scram marks on her hand, but this had been done by the cat next door to where she lived.

Regardless of whether or not Mr. Geeraerts had made any physical contact against his ex-girlfriend, the Legal Office emphasised that he must have admitted to the Police he had, or the Caution would have not been for an incident of Battery.

Mr. Geeraerts advised that he had admitted being verbally aggressive to the Police, but he stressed once more that he had not made any physical contact against his partner at the time, other than possibly shoving her out of the way, in order that he could proceed to leave the premises. He added that she subsequently dropped the charges in any event.

He apologised to her and assured the Police that there would not be a repeat of the incident.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked Mr. Geeraerts if he had a job to go to if his application proved successful, to which he replied that he had, with Valley Cars.

The Chairperson asked Mr. Geeraerts if the Police had fully explained to him the meaning and definition of the Caution ie for Battery when they interviewed him after the  ...  Gweld y cofnodion lawn ar gyfer eitem 82.

Ian Johns

37 Alexandra Road

Pontycymmer

Bridgend

The applicant was present in support of his application.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked Mr. Johns if the details in the report were correct, and if there were any matters pending against him through the Courts, to which he replied yes and no, respectively.

She then advised that following a Disclosure and Barring check having been made against him, that this had disclosed that on 8 September 2017 he had been convicted of an offence, namely for a CU80 Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile phone, for which he had received 6 points on his Licence. The Team Manager (Licensing) asked Mr. Johns to give an account of the circumstances that had led to this offence.

Mr. Johns advised Members that he had been travelling on his way back from a Caravan holiday with his wife, and had received a call which confirmed that his son had fallen and fractured his collarbone. He had taken this call whilst driving, and had been caught by the Police as a result of this, as they had been driving behind him at the time. He had subsequently visited the hospital where it was revealed that his son had injured his collarbone, elbow and wrist.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked Mr. Johns if he was still involved in driving HGV’s, to which he replied that that he was an HGV driver for many years, however, his licence had now lapsed as he did not wish to drive this type of vehicle any more.

The Team Manager (Licensing) reminded Mr. Johns that he had 6 points on his licence, and that they would not be removed until 12 months from the present date.

The applicant and Officers then retired from the meeting whilst the Sub-Committee made a decision upon the application. Upon their return, it was

RESOLVED:                      The Sub-Committee have considered the application made by Mr. Johns for a taxi licence, and heard his explanation for his Conviction of 8th September 2017.

                                           The Sub-Committee have taken into consideration that this is his only Conviction, and that he has been an experienced lorry driver for many years. On this basis Members were prepared to grant him a licence.

Leslie Howard Romans

11 Cuckoo Street

Pantygog

Bridgend

The applicant was present in support of his application.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked if the details in the report were correct and if there were any matters pending through the Courts against him, to which he replied yes and no, respectively.

She added that due to the nature of the Convictions contained in the report, and the severity of the sentences for some of these, she felt it necessary to share with Members not only Mr. Romans unspent Convictions, but his spent Convictions also. She reminded those present that one of the roles of a taxi driver, was for the public to have trust in them.

The Team Manager (Licensing) then referred to Mr. Romans previous Convictions as shown in paragraph 4.2 of the report, and she asked him to explain the circumstances that had led to each of these for the benefit of Members, commencing with the Conviction dated 17 March 1995.

Mr. Romans advised that this took place when he was entering into a Nightclub and got stopped by the Door Control person who searched him and upon doing so, had found out that he was carrying a controlled drug, namely amphetamine. He claimed that he was young and stupid then, and as he had got older he had become more responsible as a person.

The Team Manager (Licensing) asked Mr. Romans if anyone else had been involved in this, to which he replied no.

The second Conviction had taken place on 2 November 2004, and this was for Conspire/being concerned in supplying a controlled drug – Class B – Cannabis. The Team Manager (Licensing) asked Mr. Romans to give an account of the circumstances that had led to this particular Conviction, for which he was imprisoned for 4 years.

He advised that at this time of his life he had become involved with the wrong people, which he now regretted. He emphasised that the product was cannabis resin and that he had not grown this in his property etc.

The Team Manager (Licensing) sought clarification from Mr. Romans that he was supplying this, to which he replied that he was, and that he was using his own vehicle to transport this to buyers.

The Team Manager (Licensing) further noted from the Conviction that he also had to forfeit and or had other things confiscated as a result of him being caught for this offence, and she asked what these were.

Mr. Romans confirmed that he also had the vehicle taken off him as well as £990 in money that he had paid to him from buyers of the drug.

He added that he had received rehabilitation as part of his sentence where he had become a prison ‘listener’, and taken on a kind of Samaritan role, whereby he both seen and taught others the impact that drugs had on people. He had witnessed this first hand also, he added.

The Team Manager (Licensing) then asked the applicant to  ...  Gweld y cofnodion lawn ar gyfer eitem 84.