Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and drew attention to the safety information.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Estella Tincknell.

Councillor Sultan Khan confirmed that he had previously declared that the applicant had contacted him but, in accordance with the Member code of conduct, was confident that he did not have a conflict of interest and could make an impartial judgement.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item*Democratic Services Officer check time limit for your particular Committee*

Any member of the public or Councillor may participate in Public Forum.  The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda.  Public Forum items should be emailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:-

Questions - Written questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the meeting.  For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by5 pm on *name deadline date*

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the working day prior to the meeting.  For this meeting this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12.00 noon on *name deadline date*.

There was no public forum.

Recommended – that having regard to the quasi-judicial nature of the business

on the Agenda, those Committee Procedure Rules relating to the moving of

motions and the rules of debate (CMR10 and 11) be suspended for the duration

of the meeting.

RESOLVED – that having regard to the quasi-judicial nature of the business on the Agenda, those Committee Procedure Rules relating to the moving of motions and the rules of debate (CMR10 and 11) be suspended for the duration of the meeting.

Recommended – that under Section 11A(4) of the Local GovernmentAct 1972

the public beexcluded from themeeting for thefollowing items of business on theground that involve the likely disclosure of exemptinformation as defined in Part 1of Schedule 12A to theAct, as amended.

RESOLVED that under Section 11A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the ground that involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act, as amended.

The applicant, his legal representative and a witness were in attendance.  Also in attendance were the Civic Enforcement Officer (CEO), Parking Services Manager and Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) who had attended the incident.

Cllr Eddy reported that the applicant’s representative had requested that witnesses be excluded for part of the hearing, but that this had not been agreed as it was not the normal procedure of the Committee to exclude witnesses and there was no reason to do so in this case.

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer outlined the case as follows:

·         This was an application for the renewal of a PHD Licence;

·         The applicant had been issued with a temporary two month PHD Licence from 11 December 2018 - 10 February 2019 while waiting the results of a DBS check;

·         During this period, on 9^th January 2019, the Neighbourhood Enforcement Team received a telephone call from the Parking Services Manager to report an incident involving the applicant and a CEO in which it was alleged that the applicant acted in an aggressive way to a lone female;

·         The CEO had issued the applicant with a parking ticket as his car was parked 50% on double yellow lines;

·         The CEO alleged that she was intimidated by 2 men after issuing the ticket and on returning to her vehicle, the applicant stood in front of her car and refused to move;

·         The CEO then activated the “Orbis” button on her radio as thought the situation could become volatile and she also dialled 999;

·         The applicant also dialled 999 at the same time claiming that the CEO had driven into him;

·         A PCSO attended the incident and interviewed the CEO and applicant (this was recorded on the body camera evidence);

·         As a result of the incident, the applicant attended an interview with the neighbourhood enforcement team.  During the interview he admitted parking on double yellow lines outside his house while using the bathroom and claimed to have been working for UBER on the day in question.  He claimed that the CEO had stuck two fingers up at him and that he didn’t raise his voice as he was naturally loud speaking.

·         On contacting UBER, it was confirmed that the applicant had not been working for them on the day in question;

·         The tracking device on the CEO’s vehicle confirmed that the vehicle had not moved between 10.17am – 10.58am which suggested that she had not driven into him as alleged.

·         The application had been adjourned from a meeting on 19^th February pending the availability of Body Camera evidence and the recording of the 999 calls made to police by the CEO and applicant and this evidence was now available.

At this appoint in the proceedings, the Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer played the Body Camera Footage and recording of the 999 calls made by both the applicant and the CEO.

The Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer gave further details of the applicant’s history:

·         The applicant had held a PHD licence since at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.