County councillor suspended for four months after breaching code of conduct

Bruce Sinclair Local Democracy Reporter

A Welsh councillor has been suspended from office for four months for breaching the authority’s code of conduct over a planning matter on behalf of a friend he had holidayed in Mexico with.

At a meeting of Pembrokeshire County Council’s standards committee, Milford Haven North county councillor Alan Dennison was found to have breached the code of conduct for members.

The committee found Cllr Dennison failed to declare personal and prejudicial interests in relation to a call by an applicant known to him to have a planning application decided by committee rather than by officers.

In an application before Pembrokeshire County Council, Lee Bridges had sought permission for retrospective engineering works to provide an external dining area at Masonic Hall, Imperial Function Centre, Hamilton Terrace Address, Milford Haven, works having started in 2021.

The application was due to be decided by planning officers, but, at the request of Cllr Dennison on behalf of local member Councillor Terry Davies, who was unable to attend due to a family issue, an unsuccessful call for it to be decided by councillors was brought before the county council’s planning delegation panel meeting of February 2025.

The May 2025 special standards meeting heard of a string of connections between Cllr Dennison and Mr Bridges.

These include that the councillor had been secretary of the local Masonic Lodge which owned the building where the works took place from 2018-2022 and became director of Imperial Hall Ltd – Mr Bridges’ company – from 2020-2023 after providing a since-repaid loan to him.

The meeting also heard Cllr Dennison was aware of the planning history regarding the applicant, who he and his family had gone on a two-week holiday with Mr Bridges and his family to Mexico, and that their connection was “more than a casual acquaintanceship”.

The committee also heard the issue of a potential prejudicial interest was raised with Cllr Dennison by the council’s monitoring officer, advising him to withdraw representations at the delegation meeting due to a “perception of bias and predetermination”.

After concerns were raised by councillors, a complaint was made to the Ombudsman by Assistant chief Executive Richard Brown. The Ombudsman concluded that a member of the public with the knowledge of the facts would see a potential prejudicial interest.

Cllr Dennison, at the meeting, said his representations at the delegation meeting were only made in a signed-for form on behalf of Cllr Davies, saying it was not his but Cllr Davies’ call, he only attended the meeting as a member of the public.

Speaking on behalf of Cllr Dennison, applicant Lee Bridges said he had been provided with the loan by Cllr Dennison after he encountered financial difficulties, making him a director for a period of time “as a form of gratitude,” adding that he had approached Cllr Davies as local member over the planning issue, but he was unable to proceed at the meeting due family issues.

Members found that Cllr Dennison had a personal interest based on his “close personal association with Mr Bridges,” along with Cllr Dennison being a member of the Masonic Lodge which occupied the land and building, as well as an ongoing friendship which effectively made him “an advocate”.

They also found that Cllr Dennison should have left the public gallery as soon as he became aware of the item under discussion, in accordance with Ombudsman guidelines.

Cllr Dennison said there was confusion over the monitoring officer’s advice and he felt as thoug he was unfairly treated over a lack of information about legal support available to him during the hearing process, hoping that “lessons would be learned” council-wide.

Defending himself personally, he said that he, as a councillor, was “driven for the benefit of the people of Pembrokeshire,” with his councillor salary donated to a dogs’ hospital charity in Sri Lanka.

Cllr Dennison was told the breach would attract a “mid-level suspension,” aggravated by his “blatant disregard of the advice of the monitoring officer,” his “seeking to unfairly blame others,” along with “refusal to accept the facts despite clear evidence to the contrary and continuing to deny the facts,” mitigated by the isolated nature of the offence, his “previous good service” and “relatively short length of service,” having only been a councillor since 2022.