Sunday, 21st June, 2026
Disgraced Dennison’s double defeat
• Cllr. Alan Dennison files complaint against me
• Alleges my part in his ethics case was ‘vexatious’
• But Alan’s complaint was dead on arrival
• Ombudsman throws it out at the first hurdle: ‘no evidence provided’ to ‘substantiate complaint’
It hasn’t been a great few weeks for rogue Pembrokeshire county councillor Alan “p.p. Terry Davies” Dennison.
My last blogpost outlined how the Milford Haven member was fingered for his failed efforts to grease the wheels of his mate’s retrospective planning application.
Dennison was slapped with a four-month suspension from office at the conclusion of last month’s monumental standards committee hearing.
It found he abused his elected position, “advocating” for his pal’s application by trying to divert it to the planning committee on which he sat.
Issuing their stiffest ever sentence for councillor misconduct, standards committee members didn’t fall for Dennison’s hopeless argument that his signature on a fellow councillor’s behalf “absolves” him of wrongdoing.
Freemason Dennison had been an investor and company director at the wedding and events business, Imperial Hall Limited, run by his friend Lee Bridges, who’d conducted illegal development impacting the listed building.
The premises is owned by Cllr. Dennison’s Masonic lodge’s property holding company, of which Dennison had also been a director and secretary.
The committee also heard how the Dennison and Bridges families’ close links included a fortnight’s Mexico holiday and godmothership to Dennison’s grandchild.
Defiant Dennison says he intends to appeal the case brought by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (PSOW).
However I can reveal Alan’s just been dealt a double defeat at the hands of the ombudsman.
My previous post explained how I had referred my concerns over Cllr. Dennison’s interference in his friend’s planning case in an email to the council’s monitoring officer.
Per the members’ code of conduct, I was under a direct obligation to write that email to the council’s legal chief – which I sent in the knowledge it would become public at any standards hearing.
My email doesn’t constitute evidence and I was neither a complainant, witness, nor ever contacted by the ombudsman or any party to proceedings.
Sources with direct knowledge say Alan’s stewing over what he sees as my part in his downfall.
His response? To report me to the ombudsman for sending that email!
Remember: he submitted his complaint just days after the case against him landed a record punishment, guilty on all four counts.
According to Cllr. Dennison, my part in his losing misconduct case was “vexatious!”
Under the complaint form’s heading:
“Please explain how the individual has breached the Code of Conduct.”
Cllr. Dennison’s threadbare complaint says of JW:
“I believe he has potentially breached the Code of Conduct, specifically sections 6.1a and 6.1d, through his written remarks, which I find to be vexatious. For your reference, I have included these comments verbatim below.”
Dennison then partially quotes short snippets, which he numbers 1-5, from my concerned email to the monitoring officer.
Interestingly, Cllr. Dennison partially quotes the following isolated sentence from my email:
“4. There is already a well-known perception of corruption and sleaze in planning.”
He also read this line out at his shambolic standards hearing appearance (at the 2:45:35 mark) so he obviously thinks it’s significant.
Well in that remark I’m referring to shameless rogues just like Alan Dennison – who think nothing of abusing their privileged public position.
My readers are sophisticated enough to keep an open mind on whether Cllr. Dennison’s complaint against me was sincere and not retaliation for my part in his standards shellacking.
But it’s difficult to give Alan the benefit of the doubt considering his final line – where he directs the PSOW to dig out their own conduct breach case file against him:
“All relevant documentation can be found in the Ombudsman case file numbered ███████” [Dennison’s ombudsman case number was redacted just like that by the PSOW.]
Unfortunately for Dennison his tip was dead on arrival. I’m pleased to report that the PSOW swiftly (for them) rejected his complaint against me at the very first opportunity, choosing not even to investigate it, telling me:
“The Ombudsman has now completed the assessment of a complaint about you from Councillor Dennison. The Ombudsman has now decided that the complaint should not be investigated. We enclose a Decision Notice which explains the reasons for the decision.”
Their decision notice breaks down their refusal to investigate, as dismissed against both of their two assessment criteria:
(1) Whether there is evidence to suggest that there may have been breaches of the Code of Conduct.
The Complainant [Councillor Alan Dennison] considered that the Member [Councillor Jacob Williams] had breached paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code, this provision provides that a member must not conduct themselves in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or authority into disrepute, and paragraph 6(1)(d) of the Code, which says, members must not make vexatious, malicious or frivolous complaints against other members or anyone who works for, or on behalf of, their authority. The Complainant said he considered the Member’s remarks about him to be vexatious.
In support of the complaint the Complainant provided an excerpt of the remarks made by the Member, and referred to a previous Ombudsman investigation for other relevant documentation, the Complainant did not specify, however, which documents he considered were relevant.
Nevertheless, it was clear that the remarks the Complainant quoted in the complaint were included in an email the Member had sent to the Monitoring Officer of the Council. The Member, it appears, had concerns about a planning meeting and the Complainant’s involvement in said meeting. He therefore raised those concerns with the Monitoring Officer.
Based on the limited information provided by the Complainant, and having considered the full context of the Member’s comments, I do not consider them to be suggestive of a breach of the Code.
Going on:
While the comments the Member made have caused some concern to the Complainant, the evidence provided is not indicative of outrageous or offensive behaviour which would engage the Code and warrant interference with the Member’s right to political speech on this occasion. The Complainant said he considered the Member’s remarks to be vexatious, however there was no evidence provided to suggest the Member’s opinion was not honestly held or that the Member’s comments were deliberately false or misleading.
I am of the view that the Member was raising legitimate concerns in an attempt to resolve a genuine concern.
Evidence has not been provided to substantiate the complaint, and the Ombudsman will not investigate unless there is reasonably strong evidence to suggest that the member concerned may have breached the Code.
(2) Whether an investigation is required in the public interest
The conduct complained about does not meet the first stage of the test, as set out above, therefore, there is no need to consider the second stage of the test.
Outcome
The complaint should not be investigated.
Before he submitted this complaint against me we could say Dennison was unable to regulate his own conduct.
Now we know he’s unable to gauge others’ adherence to the expected standards, too.
Dennison’s deadline to appeal his four-month suspension from office is said to be Tuesday, 23rd June – the Brexit referendum’s ten-year anniversary!
No appeal would mean his suspension starts immediately – he’ll revert to being a mere member of the public.
No weight to throw around. Not permitted use of council resources or access to council premises that any member of the public couldn’t.
It seems unlikely he’ll self-style as ‘Mister Dennison’ during his four-month absence.
‘Councillor Dennisoff,’ perhaps?
It’s arguably been a triple ombudsman whammy for Dennison. His mate Lee Bridges – the retrospective planning applicant whom Alan comically roped into his standards hearing – submitted a PSOW complaint against another councillor!
Bridges, hopeful that Dennison’s assistance could wangle planning permission through the planning committee instead of being refused again by planning officers, came unstuck when a council panel rejected Dennison’s rum referral request.
Bridges’ ire was elevated by the panel chair, Cllr. Guy Woodham, having the casting vote.
As a result the planning application stayed delegated to officers. It was ultimately refused, and Bridges rectified the works to comply with an enforcement notice which he had also unsuccessfully appealed.
Bridges sits on Milford Haven Town Council with Woodham, and claims he was a friend.
This, along with his allegations that Cllr. Woodham had links to competing business venues in the town, formed the basis of Mr. Bridges’ complaint that Cllr. Woodham had failed to declare interests in this council business.
If only he’d kept such a lookout for his friend Alan’s ethical sins!
Mr. Bridges’ complaint against Cllr. Woodham – under investigation for several months – has been extensively referenced by Cllr. Dennison through his own standards breach case, including at his webcasted hearing, and in online commentary afterwards.
However the complaint against Woodham has now been thoroughly rejected by the ombudsman.
The Pembrokeshire Herald’s reporting on the joint Bridges/Dennison planning/standards scandal has been uncharacteristically dismissive of the duo’s wrongdoing – despite the fact they’ve lost every legal process they’ve faced to date.
Nonetheless, the Herald appears to have access to the rejection letter, reporting on its contents as follows:
Why the complaint was made
The complaint had been made by Mr Bridges following the Planning Delegation Panel meeting, during which councillors declined a request to refer the Imperial Hall planning application to committee.
Mr Bridges had argued there were potential conflicts involving Cllr Woodham linked to community venues in Milford Haven and alleged competing interests connected to the local events sector.
Those concerns later formed part of wider criticism voiced publicly by both Mr Bridges and Cllr Dennison.
And:
However, after reviewing evidence, interviewing witnesses and viewing the webcast of the meeting, the Ombudsman concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
The decision notice states: “The evidence did not suggest that the Member had a personal or prejudicial interest.”
It added there was no evidence the decision could reasonably be regarded as affecting Cllr Woodham’s wellbeing or financial position, or that of someone with whom he had a close personal association.
The Ombudsman therefore decided there was “no evidence of a breach of the Code.”
Under the sub-heading “Ombudsman draws distinction,” the Herald reports:
The Ombudsman’s findings appear to draw a clear distinction between the Woodham complaint and the circumstances which led to the sanction against Cllr Dennison.
In Cllr Dennison’s case, the Standards Committee concluded he had personal and prejudicial interests arising from a combination of factors, including his previous directorship of Imperial Hall Limited, a financial loan to the business during Covid, involvement with the Masonic Hall company, social links with Mr Bridges and prior advice from the Monitoring Officer warning him not to become involved.
The committee found Cllr Dennison had acted as an “advocate and champion” for the application by drafting and signing paperwork to seek committee determination on behalf of local member Cllr Terry Davies.
By contrast, the Ombudsman concluded the evidence in the Woodham matter did not establish either a sufficiently close personal association or a financial or personal interest requiring declaration.
Recent posts…
You could be the first to comment.