Imperial Hall director Lee Bridges questions consistency after standards case linked to same Milford Haven planning dispute

THE PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN FOR WALES has confirmed that a complaint concerning Cllr Guy Woodham remains under investigation following fresh questions raised by Imperial Hall director Lee Bridges.

The development follows last week’s Standards Committee hearing in which Cllr Alan Dennison was found to have breached the Members’ Code of Conduct and suspended for four months.

Same planning dispute

The Dennison case centred on the long-running planning dispute involving the former Masonic Hall, also known commercially as the Imperial Hall, in Hamilton Terrace, Milford Haven.

The original planning row related to retrospective engineering works for an external dining area at the venue. The works had started in 2021 and later became the subject of a disputed planning process involving officers, councillors, the Planning Delegation Panel, and eventually the Ombudsman.

Cllr Dennison’s involvement arose when Cllr Terry Davies, the local member, sought help completing documentation to ask for the matter to be considered by elected councillors rather than determined by officers.

Cllr Dennison said he signed the referral form “pp” — per procurationem — on behalf of Cllr Davies, with his authority.

The call to send the application to committee was considered by the Planning Delegation Panel on February 25, 2025, but was unsuccessful. Officers later refused the application in June 2025 on heritage and conservation grounds, citing concerns over the historic environment.

The Standards Committee later found that Cllr Dennison had failed to declare personal and prejudicial interests, had no dispensation from the Standards Committee, and had made a written representation in relation to the matter.

Complaint remains live

Mr Bridges has now written to the Ombudsman asking for clarification about consistency and proportionality in the way complaints arising from the same planning dispute are being handled.

In his email, sent on June 3, Mr Bridges said the Dennison case involved a councillor who had assisted another elected member in completing paperwork, and who was not the decision-maker in respect of the planning application itself.

He contrasted that with his complaint concerning Cllr Woodham, which he says involves alleged undeclared interests while chairing and participating in the Planning Delegation Panel meeting connected to the Imperial Hall application.

Mr Bridges wrote: “Unlike the circumstances considered in the Dennison case, this concerns not simply the completion of paperwork but the alleged failure to declare interests whilst actively participating in, and chairing, a meeting directly connected to the matter in question and directly negatively affecting its outcome.”

He said he accepted that every case must be considered on its own facts, but asked whether his complaint was being afforded “the same level of scrutiny and investigative rigour” as the Dennison matter.

He also asked whether allegations involving undeclared interests and participation in decision-making processes were considered serious enough to warrant the same level of resource, legal support and enforcement action.

The Ombudsman’s confirmed that the Woodham complaint remains live and has not been dismissed.

The issue is likely to attract significant local attention because both complaints arise from the same planning dispute, but involve very different alleged conduct.

Dennison vows appeal

Cllr Dennison has strongly rejected the Standards Committee’s decision and says he intends to challenge the four-month suspension.

In a statement to residents of the North Ward, he said: “I wish to reaffirm my role as your County Councillor and to address what I believe to be a misinterpretation by the recent Standards Committee, a decision I plan to challenge vigorously.”

He said he had been approached in December 2024 by Cllr Terry Davies, who asked for help completing documentation due to personal circumstances limiting his availability.

Cllr Dennison said: “The application was correctly completed, received and accepted by the Head of Planning in this format, was placed before the planning delegation committee and ultimately, it was denied thereby concluding the matter.”

He said the complaint against him had been lodged by Cllr Jacob Williams, Cabinet member for Planning, because of Dennison’s prior interactions with Mr Bridges.

He described the complaint as containing “false accusations” and “vexatious comments”, although he said the Monitoring Officer did not agree with his observations.

Cllr Dennison said the Ombudsman was represented at the hearing by a barrister, while he had no legal representation.

He said: “As constituents, you might reasonably perceive a bias from the council, especially considering it was their own Assistant Chief Executive who reported me to the Ombudsman.”

‘PP’ signature defence

Cllr Dennison said his defence was based on the legal meaning of “pp”, arguing that when someone signs with authority on behalf of another person, the named person remains the principal and owner of the document.

He said: “The application was correctly completed, received and accepted by the Head of Planning in this format.”

Cllr Dennison also said part of the evidence against him related to his attendance at the Planning Delegation Panel meeting.

He said he was in the public gallery, responded to a question from Cllr Woodham, and did not otherwise participate.

He added: “I was surprised when the Chair solicited the Ombudsman’s barrister for a recommendation on an appropriate penalty, disregarding my legal arguments based on case law.”

Fresh conflict claims

Cllr Dennison also raised further concerns about possible conflicts elsewhere in the process.

He said: “Ironically, the Assistant Chief Executive who reported me to the Ombudsman has responsibility for Scolton Manor, a PCC-owned wedding venue which could potentially benefit financially should other wedding venues fail.

“Similarly, Cllr Woodham, who chaired the Planning Delegation Committee and exercised his casting vote with full awareness of the potential repercussions for Mr Bridges, served as Treasurer and is married to the Chair of a competing wedding venue located less than a mile from Mr Bridges’ establishment.

“It appears that I am not the only one neglecting to declare a conflict of interest in this situation. It’s a funny old world.”

Those remain allegations made by Cllr Dennison.

Bridges criticises process

Mr Bridges has also strongly criticised the handling of the planning matter and the standards process.

In his statement, he said the matter “stems entirely” from his request for Cllr Terry Davies to submit an appeal as the elected member for the ward in which his business is located.

He said Cllr Davies was unable to complete paperwork within the deadline due to family circumstances and sought help from Cllr Dennison.

Mr Bridges said: “Councillor Dennison simply assisted in completing the paperwork and signed it on behalf of Councillor Davis with his authority.

“At no stage did Councillor Dennison have any involvement whatsoever in the decision-making process relating to the outcome of the matter in question. Consequently, there was no declarable interest requiring disclosure.”

Mr Bridges said it was “deeply concerning” that the issue appeared to be “being used as part of what can only be perceived as a personal campaign against Councillor Dennison”.

He also criticised what he described as “excessive bureaucracy, inconsistency” and “serious concerns about transparency and fairness within County Hall.”

When previously asked Cllr Guy Woodham, who recently stepped down from the Cabinet due to ill health, said he was unable to comment whilst the matter was under investigation.