The tiny Cabs64 office in Glebe St faces another potential conflict with the Vale of Glamorgan Council

The tiny Cabs64 office in Glebe St faces another potential conflict with the Vale of Glamorgan Council

The Vale of Glamorgan has confirmed that it is to investigate an alleged breach of planning permission in respect of premises operated by the Penarth taxi firm Cabs 64 at 20B Glebe Street (on the corner on the North side of Plassey St) .

The investigation relates not to the first floor office where the firm is based  but to “parking issues” on the street outside.

The Vale Council had originally refused permission for a “change of use” of the premises because of the possible detrimental effect on neighbours  living nearby.

David Mais founder of cabs 64

No pushover: David Mais founder of Cabs 64

Cabs 64’s owner Mr David Mais had contested that decision  and took the issue to a Planning Inspectorate appeal in July 2014.

At that appeal, the  Vale Council had argued that “the use of the premises as a private hire taxi office would have potential to create a significant level of noise and general disturbance caused by vehicular engines and doors, the comings and goings of staff and customers ” .

The Labour-controlled Vale Council patted itself on the back at last week’s planning meeting on its  “85% success record” of defeating appeals against it  (which included forcing an elderly widow out of her own home just yards away from the taxi office  – see PDN ).

However Cabs 64 proved a tougher nut to crack. The Planning Inspectorate ruled against the Vale Council and came down in favour of Cabs 64.

The Planning Inspectorate however did acknowledge that concerns had been raised about “local car parking and the effect on highway safety” . The inspector had said “I do  not consider there to be a reasonable likelihood that a number of vehicles associated with the business would be parked within the immediate vicinity at any given time.” 

The premises of Cabs 64 are on the first floor of the building

The premises of Cabs 64 are on the first floor of the building

The Planning Inspectorate’s officer  went on to say  ” I acknowledge that there may be times when taxis may be parked on the public highway, such as when fares are being dropped off. I also recognise the high demand for on street parking within the area which can lead to congestion. However, a high demand for on street parking is common place in such commercial areas and, whilst some parking may spill over into adjacent residential streets, given the size of the taxi office and the operating arrangements of the proposed business, I do not consider the change of use would materially add to such problems. ”

Yesterday however the Vale of Glamorgan council announced that “parking issues”  in the vicinity, associated with the change of use application for Cabs 64 and its appeal victory, are to be the subject of Planning Enforcement Inquiry.

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address . Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. AK says:

    The inspector’s ruling however did acknowledge that concerns had been raised about “local car parking and the effect on highway safety” . The inspector had said “I do not consider there to be a reasonable likelihood that a number of vehicles associated with the business would be parked within the immediate vicinity at any given time.”

    Hahahaha, what an idiot !

  2. Martin gossage says:

    Someone is having a laugh.There are2 bigger illegal taxi parking issues within walking distance of here .If council wants to be taken seriously go and deal with them first!!

  3. Jonnyoneye says:

    If they are not breaking parking laws, then there is no issue to answer I would suggest.
    There is however a very common breaking of parking laws outside the local chip shop, which has a direct impact on the risk factor for people wishing to use the crossing there. This is the more urgent issue, surely ?

  4. Martin Coffee says:

    I do think Barry has got its priorities wrong here. Surely the dangerous illegal parking which they ignore should be a higher priority than this.

    I also fear there is an element of vindictiveness here.

    • Jonnyoneye says:

      Yes, I tend to agree with you Martin.
      Perhaps our local councillors would like to comment ?

  5. Martin gossage says:

    I have a lovely picture of a delivery to the chip shop parked illegally .How do I get that picture on here and it shows the chip shop can’t say ooh its our customers we can’t stop them

    • Bobby says:

      To be fair to the chip shop it is not their responsibility to police where people park outside their shop. I have seen people park on the zigzags and go in to the betting shop on the corner and others walk off along Glebe Street, so although the majority of the offenders in the evening are quite possibly calling at the chip shop, during the day they could be going anywhere nearby.

  6. Ivor Bagman says:

    You need to see the punters
    Parking by the Bookies
    Opposite the cons club !
    They put a double on the yellow !!

  7. Christopher David says:

    Sour grapes, vindictiveness (this is the VOG) or genuine reason for concern. What do the locals say?

  8. Colin says:

    Weren’t they on the Penarth parking page recently? Also, if your do smoke, you shouldn’t smoke in the car, as the chap in the silver Citroen does (plate no. 028) And keep to the speed limit outside Albert road school. Don’t do M4 speeds here, its not an autobahn. Plate no’ M4RACY.
    DROS AC ALLAN!!!!!

    • Jonnyoneye says:

      Colin, assuming that these allegations are true, I wish to make the following comments.
      The parked taxi featured twice on the Penarth Parking pages photos (041), if it is a Cab64 taxi, is clearly in breach of parking regulations, but not outside the taxi firms office premises and therefore not a planning condition breach.
      The speeding allegation outside Albert Road school, is just that, a speeding offence and nothing to do with a breach of planning conditions in Plassey or Glebe Street, and the smoking driver in the silver Citroen is a breach of the smoking laws, but again nothing to do with a breach of planning conditions on the taxi firms office premises.
      May i suggest that you make a complaint to the taxi licencing section at the VoG Council offices if you have concrete evidence of any taxi company clearly breaching such licensing laws.

      • Colin says:

        Yes, already done, with pictures to of the gentleman smoking, plus the 34 second video clip of m4racy, the driver even smiled as he passed, (on the phone) as he dodged the green cones. Trust me, the footage is excellent.

      • Jonnyoneye says:

        Colin, then the VoG need to be following those up instead of picking on very dubious ‘breaches of planning conditions’.
        Any taxi firm that allows it’s drivers to behave like that, deserves to be warned that their licence to operate is in danger and the least that the owner can do is give a severe warning of dismissal to the drivers involved, should those incidents happen again.
        Meanwhile, the VoG pursues some quite possibly legal parking as some sort of stick to beat a small business with. Shocking !

  9. Neale Biscoe says:

    Cabs 64 offer a reliable, fully professional service to businesses and the local community alike.
    They were granted planning permission, and also won an appeal re parking, Nothing has changed!…..
    Yet another hurdle now thrown down by the sour grape council, for a local businesses, who employs local people, who are trying to earn an honest day’s pay !
    Have these council “jobswoths” got nothing better to do ? Go and tackle some real problems instead of picking on the “small man” !…..

  10. Alan says:

    What a load of nonsense from the VoG council. I live close to the Cabs 64 offices and have experienced no such problem. I’ve seen the minibus parked up a few times but that’s never outside a residential property. And why the focus on Cabs 64? And what about the other taxi firms, such as Windsor on Albert Road or K-Tax on Station Approach? Believe it or not, it’s pretty common to see a taxi or two outside a taxi office! This looks like sheer vindictiveness to me.

  11. Huw says:

    It was part of the planning consent that the taxis wouldn’t congregate in the versinity, and seeing as there’s always taxis there it would be quite evident they’re flouting their conditions. It’s simple planning regulations, and anyway to save the council money on the enforcement notice , a certain councilor is probably pouring through the paper work trying to broker a deal that will allow all to save face .

  12. Guido says:

    Unless it can be proven that there has been a demonstrable change in how the business operates, which in my experience is highly unlikely in cases like this, then the Council will have no reason to pursue further. I assume this is the result of a public complaint and as such, the Council is obligated to record and investigate.

  13. David mais says:

    Vacancies for drivers with their own vehicles or using one of our already licensed vehicles. Contact David immediately to discuss details, terms and conditions.
    02920 706464

    • Christopher David says:

      Hi Mr Mais- you’d do yourself a favour of you addressed the alleged driver problems mentioned here!

      • David says:

        Hi Christopher
        I keep my vehicles away from My office the best I can. If everyone would like to view our Facebook page the local residents are saying I don’t cause any problems. There are no conditions to where I park my cars, I keep them away so none of this happens. I know the lady who is causing all this and she doesn’t live in Glebe street. I would like to thank everyone who is supporting me.

      • Marie says:

        With all due respect, I believe this to be a little unfair – I always see Cabs64 cars parked well away from the office and legally.

  14. A Local Nutter says:

    More to the point, do they have a current TV licence for the premises (TV in main picture) and are they registered with the PRS as there is entertainment in the background when people call in or ring.
    Have all equipment been electrically PATs tested (no stickers on plugs in picture) to European safety reg’s and do they have a fire risk assessment and a current evacuation plan for the offices.
    Has an asbestos survey been carried out, eh?
    Never mind about the parking let shaft these small businesses as these concerns need to be addressed urgently!
    More coffee and chlorpromazine please nurse.

  15. Christopher David says:

    Damn right Local- you really need all that to run a one man band business (but still creating jobs and giving a service) in an office 7′ x 7′ eh!

  16. Christopher David says:

    Marie / David- I was referring to the alleged speeding, smoking in cars etc. I broadly support Mr Mais. Bullying small businesses in a vindictive manner as the VOG appear to be and Stephen Doughty has done is very unfair.

  17. Don says:

    I use have used (and will use again) cabs 64 and found no problems. I know they park well away from the office on glebe street as that area is congested. From my understanding they park up on harbour view road, where it is quiet, while waiting for calls.

    Why pick pick on this small business VOG?

  18. David Mais says:

    I would like to thank everybody for their support. . The VOG did not contact me at any point to inform me of an investigation into an alleged breach. Thank you to Penarth Daily News for the alert! I am not even sure what I was in breach of as I did not receive a condition from the planning inspectorate regarding parking. I keep my cars away from the office as much as possible to keep the locals & my drivers happy. I am doing my best to run a small business I am not here to upset anyone.

    I can confirm from checking the VOG planning portal that the case is now closed – No Breach.

    Thanks one again – until the next time!!!!

  19. Christopher David says:

    Well done an be sure to tell us if they have another go. Just keep the drivers on their toes 🙂

Comments are closed.