THURSDAY, May 2 is your chance to vote for the Dyfed-Powys Police and Crime Commissioner.

Don’t forget to use your vote and head to your local polling station between 7am and 10pm.

They are elected by the public to hold Chief Constables and the police force to account on their behalf.

A Police and Crime Commissioner’s job is to set the police budget and make sure it is spent effectively, appoint the local police forces Chief Constables, set police and crime plans in collaboration with residents and work closely with the local council and other organisations on these plans. 

This is the first election in Wales where you will need photographic ID to vote. 

Accepted forms of ID include a UK, European Economic Area (EEA) or Commonwealth passport or drivers’ licence; and some concessionary travel passes, such as an older person’s bus pass or an Oyster 60+ card. Voters will be able to use expired ID if they are still recognisable from the photo.

Or you may have applied for a Voter Authority Certificate which is also accepted. 

If you plan on taking your Postal Vote to a polling station or County Hall main reception remember to fill in a vote return form. Without the completed form those postal vote(s) will be rejected. 

You can only hand in your own postal vote, and postal votes for up to five other people.

You can find out more about the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections online (opens in new window). 

THE LOOK on Vaughan Gething’s face could’ve curdled milk.

It had all started with an innocent enough question from former ministerial colleague Julie Morgan.

Ms Morgan asked about access to transport for visually impaired people.

Mr Gething responded with a combination of soft soap and reassurance.

Ms Morgan followed up by relating what happened to one of her visually impaired constituents, Ryan Moreland.

Mr Moreland needed to attend hospital. He ordered a taxi. The taxi driver saw Mr Moreland waiting with his guide dog and drove off. Later, another taxi driver charged him (unlawfully) an extra £5 for letting his guide dog into the taxi.

Mr Gething moved from smooth reassurance to practised outrage with barely a flicker. The facts were so immediately to hand that it was almost as though he knew what Julie Morgan would ask him.

The taxi company, Veezu, had dismissed the driver who had failed to collect Mr Moreland and reported them to Cardiff City Council’s licensing department.

Vaughan Gething praised Veezu for its prompt action.

Disability discrimination was unacceptable, and the First Minister stressed his government’s determination to provide disability training to taxi drivers to avoid repetition.

Even a pointier question from the Conservative Shadow Transport Minister, Natasha Ashgar, about facilities at TFW-operated railway stations didn’t deflect Mr Gething.

His government is committed to doing the right thing.

Andrew RT Davies rose to ask a without-notice question.

Mr Davies began neutrally: “The question that started this session of question time from Julie Morgan indicated that a taxi firm obviously had broken the discrimination rules against disabled people.”

The Conservative leader pressed home his point more combatively.

“I believe the owner of that taxi firm contributed to your leadership campaign, First Minister.”

Veezu did contribute. It contributed £25,000.

Mr Davies continued: “In referencing them, I am sure you inadvertently would have declared an interest. Still, I’m sure you’ll want to put that on the record so people can understand that you did receive a donation from them.”

At that point, Mr Gething’s face turned to stone.

Since the last Questions, he’d spent the time claiming the £200,000 donation to his leadership campaign by an environmental crook was not a matter that needed independent scrutiny. 

And he’d been pantsed by Andrew RT Davies in front of the whole Chamber for a basic oversight.

The pretence he should be judge and jury over ministerial proprietary flew out of the window.

Mr Davies pressed further, but the damage had been done with his initial point.

Plaid leader Rhun ap Iorwerth underlined Mr Davies’s point. 

Before asking the First Minister about the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service, Mr ap Iorwerth observed: “Perhaps the First Minister should reflect on whether a declaration of interest is needed when he mentioned not once but twice, in positive terms, a taxi firm, Veezu, that he was given £25,000 by as a donation to his campaign.”

Mr Gething responded by confusing the declarations of contributions made to the Electoral Commissions about who bankrolled his leadership campaign and his absolute obligation to declare a personal and potentially prejudicial interest regarding Veezu to the Welsh Parliament. 

They are entirely separate issues. 

If the First Minister doesn’t understand the difference, an independent inquiry will clarify it for him. It’d certainly do a better job than a very limited internal review/whitewash headed by Carwyn Jones.

THE HANGAR has been operating as an occasional events venue in Milford Haven since last September. Authorisation for the events is granted by the council through temporary event notices. Until recently, the council had consistently issued permissions for events, but today, in County Hall, the Licensing Sub-Committee decided to prevent an event, planned for May 31st, from occurring.

The objection was raised by one of the council’s own officers, who stated that the venue has become a public nuisance due to noise complaints received. The role of the councillors on the sub-committee was to examine this single objection and determine whether the noise complaints were substantial enough to justify halting the event. The committee heard from The Hangar’s manager, Steve Bartram, that the event on May 31st, planned as a ‘boxing night’, would inherently be quieter than other events held at the venue.

Speaking for the Council Environmental Officer, David Walters countered that complaints had been received not only in connection with music at the venue but also concerning the ingress and egress of patrons, as well as the noise from vehicles leaving the event. However, when pressed for details, Mr Walters could not provide the committee with a definitive number of complaints received, nor was the nature of the complaints discussed in detail.

Steve Bartram told the council that he believed the complaints were ‘unfounded’ and originated from two councillors, Alan Dennison, who serves on Pembrokeshire County Council, and Milford Haven Town Councillor Nicola Harteveld. The Herald has learned that Councillor Dennison is a director of another licensed venue in Milford Haven.

Emails obtained by this newspaper also reveal that Councillor Dennison lodged an official complaint to Licensing Enforcement last summer, prior to The Hangar’s opening, alleging it was intending on operating without planning permission. However, there is no legal requirement for a venue used temporarily, under temporary event notices for events lasting less than 28 days, to have planning permission. The Herald understands that this was the advice given to The Hangar’s management by council officers just before it started hosting events.

There was a debate in the chamber regarding whether the complaint from Nicola Harteveld represented the view of Milford Haven Town Council or her personal opinion. Steve Bartram contended it was her personal view and not her acting in her official capacity.

This newspaper has verified with Milford Haven Town Council, whose clerk stated that the Town Council had not been notified about the application and therefore had not discussed it.

In fact, the only statutory consultees are the Noise Pollution Officer and the police.

Some of the complaints, the Herald has learned, seem unfounded. Like one complaint about noise from the burger van generator, when it runs off batteries – and another about a noisy car driving past, but no one could confirm it was anything to do with events at the venue.

On the day before the hearing, Councillor Dennison stated that while he supported the idea of a music venue for Milford Haven, he had ‘concerns’ about the noise levels at The Hangar.

“I was at Nicola Harteveld’s house, as she had called me over. I could clearly hear the noise from inside her house—a booming kind of music. It’s evident that something needed to be done about the sound,” he explained.

“Nicola remarked jokingly that it wouldn’t be so bad if the music were more appealing rather than the repetitive booming we can hear now.”

At the meeting, Steve Bartram earnestly tried to persuade the members to allow the boxing night to proceed, stating, “Since the initial decision to open The Hangar, I have done everything within my power to meet all the licensing objectives, before any work was carried out inside. I also sought guidance from all responsible authorities on my plans and how I intended to manage The Hangar. These included Geraint Griffiths, Nathan Miles, Stuart McDonald, and Nigel Lewis. During these meetings, everything was discussed in detail, outlining the plans and intentions for the event hub.

“Not once was it suggested by any of the responsible authorities that planning permission should have been sought, should it have been necessary at the time, as I have done since receiving the planning enforcement warning letter.

“Regarding the temporary events notices, according to regulations, up to 15 can be issued within a calendar year, and currently, I am well within that limit at nine.

“As part of the planning application, I have had, at substantial cost, noise surveys carried out—one at a scientific ‘pink noise’ survey and another during a ‘dance event’ on Saturday 30th March. I have a 36-page document supporting these findings which confirms that we are operating well within legal noise limits.”

Members of the Licensing Sub-Committee, despite being advised to focus solely on the noise issue, questioned The Hangar’s management on a broad array of topics, including their long-term plans for the venue, why a Full Public Entertainment License had not been applied for, and why planning permission for a change of use for the building had not yet been sought. Bartram explained that a ‘Change of Use Planning Application’ had been submitted on Tuesday 30th April, with the assistance of a planning professional.

Journalists covering the hearing noted that much of the discussion was irrelevant to the issue at hand, which was whether the event proposed for May 31st was likely to cause a public nuisance.

However, the actual event itself was only briefly mentioned, and no substantial details about the complaints, or their number, were provided.

It can only be concluded that the Licensing Sub-Committee members made their decision to stop the boxing event on May 31st without asking relevant questions or having any detailed understanding of the noise complaints at the venue.

It was up to a reporter from The Pembrokeshire Herald to press the council on how many complaints had been received since The Hangar had first opened. The answer we were given was ‘around six’.

After the hearing, the management of The Hangar indicated their intention to appeal to a Magistrates’ Court within 21 days.

Readers should note that the ‘Abba Tribute Night’ planned for May 11th is unaffected by this decision, and the sold-out event is still going ahead.