A PEMBROKESHIRE 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 May 26 extraordinary meeting of Pembrokeshire County Council’s standards committee, Milford Haven North county councillor Alan Dennison was alleged, and later 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 long string of connections between Cllr Dennison and Mr Bridges.

These included the councillor had been secretary, from 2018-2022, of the local Masonic Lodge which owned the building where the works took place, and becoming 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, their connection “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 concluding 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 attending 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 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, along with the ongoing friendship 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 advice given and felt 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 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 first become a councillor in 2022.

Swansea Council says demand has risen sharply, but new supported accommodation is expected to reduce reliance on hotels

SWANSEA COUNCIL spent more than £7.2m placing people in bed and breakfast accommodation last year, as the city continues to face mounting pressure from homelessness and a shortage of affordable homes.

The bill for 2025-26 was almost three times higher than in 2022-23, when temporary accommodation costs stood at £2.5m.

Figures released under freedom of information laws show 1,499 people were placed in B&B accommodation during the year. The most expensive placement lasted 498 nights and cost £34,860, equal to £70 per night.

The council recovered around £3.4m through Welsh Government funding, housing benefit and Home Office funding for released prisoners.

A council spokesman said Swansea, like towns and cities across the UK, was facing both a housing shortage and rising demand.

He said many people needing emergency accommodation were dealing with difficult circumstances, including family breakdown or domestic abuse.

The authority hopes its reliance on bed and breakfasts will fall following the opening of Llys Glas, the former Swansea Central police station on Orchard Street, which has been converted with Codi Group into temporary supported accommodation.

The building opened in January and provides around 70 rooms for single people and couples, along with kitchen facilities.

Further supported accommodation is also planned at a former office block and student development on St Helen’s Road.

Homelessness charity The Wallich said the costs were high, but warned that the alternative would be leaving vulnerable people without support.

A spokeswoman said Wales had too many older homes and too few properties available, adding that councils were struggling to find enough social housing.

She said private rents could not solve the crisis, with the average one-bedroom flat in Swansea now costing around £750 per month, compared with a local housing allowance rate of £525.

She added that rough sleeper teams in Swansea had not seen an increase in people sleeping on the streets since the pandemic, despite the rise in housing demand.

The Welsh Local Government Association said more than 10,500 people were currently in emergency temporary accommodation across Wales, including more than 2,200 children.

A spokesman said building more social rented homes remained a vital part of the response.

The new Welsh Government is expected to set out its homelessness priorities shortly.

Standards Committee finds Milford Haven councillor breached code despite claims he only helped another councillor complete paperwork

A PEMBROKESHIRE councillor has been found to have breached the Members’ Code of Conduct in a case which raises serious questions about proportionality, common sense, and the way standards complaints are pursued at County Hall.

Cllr Alan Dennison was found in breach by Pembrokeshire County Council’s Standards Committee on Tuesday (May 26) following a hearing into his involvement in a planning referral linked to Milford Haven businessman Lee Bridges.

The committee found that Cllr Dennison had no dispensation from the Standards Committee and had made a written representation in relation to the matter.

But the evidence heard during the hearing painted a far more nuanced picture than a simple case of a councillor using his position to influence a planning decision.

The central issue was a planning referral form relating to Mr Bridges’ business at the former Masonic Hall, also known commercially as the Imperial Hall, in Milford Haven.

Cllr Dennison’s case was that he did not act for Mr Bridges at all. He said he signed the document “pp” on behalf of Cllr Terry Davies, the elected local member, who was entitled to request that the matter be referred to committee.

“If Terry Davies had signed it himself, we would not be here today,” Cllr Dennison told the hearing.

He said the document belonged to Cllr Davies, not to him, and repeatedly argued that he should not have been before the committee.

“I rest that the document was signed for Terry Davies, and that I should not be sat here,” he said.

Mr Bridges supported that account. In a statement, he said the matter stemmed entirely from his request for Cllr Terry Davies to submit an appeal in his capacity as the elected member for the ward where the business is located.

He said Cllr Davies had been unable to complete the required paperwork within the allotted timeframe due to family circumstances and had sought assistance from Cllr Dennison, a fellow member of the same democratic group.

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.”

That point goes to the heart of the controversy.

Cllr Dennison did not vote on the planning application. He did not sit on the committee deciding the outcome. He did not, on the evidence heard, have power to determine the application. His role, according to his case and Mr Bridges’ evidence, was limited to helping another councillor complete paperwork.

The Ombudsman’s case focused on Cllr Dennison’s links to Mr Bridges. The committee heard that he had previously provided a private loan to Mr Bridges’ business during Covid, which was later repaid; had briefly been recorded as a non-executive director; had gone on holiday to Mexico with Mr Bridges and their wives; and that Mr Bridges’ wife is godmother to Cllr Dennison’s grandson.

Mr Bridges accepted he and Cllr Dennison remained friends, but said he had not known him before taking on the lease of the premises.

He also stressed that Cllr Dennison had never been a shareholder, employee, or paid officer of his business.

“For transparency, I want it to be crystal clear,” Mr Bridges said. “I can confirm I am the sole and only shareholder of the business, and always have been.

“Councillor Dennison has never been a shareholder or an employee. He has never received any salary payments, dividends, or any other financial remuneration from the business at any time whatsoever.”

He said Cllr Dennison’s non-executive directorship had been temporary and linked to the Covid-era loan, which was repaid.

Mr Bridges said he felt “very aggrieved” for Cllr Dennison and believed he had been placed in this position for helping a fellow councillor who was unable to complete his responsibilities at the time.

Cllr Hugh Murphy also gave evidence supporting Cllr Dennison’s position.

He said: “I hold the belief that Mr Dennison is correct. If you sign a document pp, the owner of that document is in the name of the person, it is not Councillor Dennison.”

Cllr Murphy said his understanding was that only the local member could submit the planning delegation application, and that the local member in this case was Cllr Terry Davies.

He also questioned the circumstances in which Cllr Dennison spoke at a planning meeting, saying it had been “the chair’s decision to ask him to speak” and adding that he believed “the chair acted in error.”

Cllr Murphy also raised concerns about the way the case had been framed, saying the Ombudsman’s report made “great play” of the close personal relationship between Cllr Dennison and Mr Bridges.

He suggested the wider background involved political objections raised by other councillors. Cllr Dennison himself referred during the hearing to objections raised by Cllr Jacob Williams and the late Cllr Mike Stoddart, saying: “This is why we are here.”

Mr Stoddart was no political ally of Mr Bridges, who had stood against him in a recent council election.

Under questioning from David Gardner, appearing for the Ombudsman, Cllr Murphy was referred to a section of council procedure which provides for a deputy local member to be designated where a councillor is prevented from seeking a referral because of a personal and prejudicial interest or prolonged absence.

Cllr Murphy said he had not been advised that such a procedure was available.

“If a legal expert who knows the constitution informed me, then yes, we might have adopted that procedure,” he said.

He added that no officer had made him aware of that aspect of the planning delegation policy, which he said “might be a matter of regret.”

That exchange may prove one of the most important of the hearing. If a formal route existed for another councillor to act, why was that route not clearly pointed out at the time? And if officers accepted the form as submitted, is it fair to later treat the method of submission as a standards breach?

Cllr Dennison repeatedly complained that his corrections to the factual account had not been properly taken into account.

“No one is listening to my corrections,” he told the hearing.

At one point, he challenged the way the Ombudsman’s report described the building, saying the historic building was the Masonic Hall and that Imperial Hall was Mr Bridges’ trading name. The chair suggested the distinction was “semantics”, while the barrister said the impact was minimal.

Cllr Dennison responded that not taking his views into account was “not minimal”.

The committee ultimately found a breach on the basis that he had no dispensation and had made a written representation.

That is the formal finding.

But the wider public interest question remains whether this was a proportionate use of the standards regime.

On the evidence heard, this was not a case of a councillor voting in secret, making a planning decision for a friend, or financially benefiting from an outcome. It was a case about a councillor helping another councillor complete a form — a form the council accepted — in circumstances where the final decision would still rest with the proper planning process.

Mr Bridges described the case as “deeply concerning” and said it appeared to be “being used as part of what can only be perceived as a personal campaign against Councillor Dennison, seemingly designed to damage his reputation rather than address any genuine procedural wrongdoing.”

He also criticised the wider handling of the planning issue, saying it had been characterised by “excessive bureaucracy, inconsistency” and concerns about “transparency and fairness within County Hall.”

The committee decided to suspend Cllr Dennison as a councillor for a period of four months.

This sanction will not kick in until the end of any potential appeal process.