Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That the witnesses be permitted to give evidence during the Hearing. The Committee considered further preliminary procedural matters raised by Councillor Dennison. Councillor Dennison sought clarification as to whether the complaint had been made by the Council or by Mr Richard Brown in an individual capacity. The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed, having reviewed the complaint documentation, that the complaint had been submitted by Mr Brown in his capacity as Assistant Chief Executive of the Council, and therefore on behalf of the Council. Councillor Dennison also queried whether the Monitoring Officer was to be called as a witness on behalf of the Ombudsman. In response, Mr Gardner confirmed that no witnesses were being called. It was noted that the Ombudsman relied solely on the documentary evidence and material already provided to the Committee, including the investigation report and supporting documentation. Councillor Dennison sought clarification that statements provided by officers formed part of that documentary evidence. The Committee noted that all evidence relied upon by the Ombudsman was contained within the documentation before it. The Chair then invited Councillor Dennison to raise any further procedural matters. Councillor Dennison queried the role of the Deputy Monitoring Officer, noting that her line manager was the Monitoring Officer whose evidence formed part of the documentation before the Committee. He suggested that there may be a perception of a conflict of interest. In response, the Chair reiterated that it was the established role of the Monitoring Officer or Deputy Monitoring Officer to act as legal adviser to the Committee during such hearings. It was emphasised that, in undertaking that role, the officer acted independently and objectively in advising the Committee. The Chair placed on record his confidence in the integrity and professionalism of the Deputy Monitoring Officer. Councillor Dennison acknowledged the response. Councillor Dennison further sought to emphasise that the referral form had been submitted by himself on behalf of another Member. The Chair advised that this did not constitute a procedural matter and would instead be considered at the appropriate stage when the Committee addressed the facts. The Committee received the agreed and undisputed facts, as set out in the investigation report, which were read by the Chair. It was noted that these facts included the Member’s previous roles in relation to Imperial Hall, his association with the planning applicant, his involvement in submitting the referral request, and his actions in relation to the Planning Delegation Panel meeting, including the absence of any declared interest. The Committee further noted the two disputed issues, namely whether the Member had: (a) a personal interest; and (b) a prejudicial interest in respect of the referral request. Mr Gardner addressed the Committee in support of the findings contained within the investigation report. He advised that the Ombudsman’s conclusions were based largely on the undisputed facts and directed the Committee to the relevant sections of the report. It was submitted that, on balance of probabilities, the Member had both a personal and prejudicial interest. In particular, reference was made to: (a) the Member’s previous directorship and involvement with Imperial Hall; (b) his membership of the Masonic Lodge and associated company; (c) his close personal association with the planning applicant; and (d) the potential financial and personal impact of the planning decision on the applicant. The Committee was referred to relevant extracts of the investigation report, interview transcript, and correspondence, including advice provided by the Monitoring Officer, which indicated that the Member had been advised that he had a personal and prejudicial interest and should not have been involved in the matter. It was further submitted that the appropriate test was whether a reasonable member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would consider the interest sufficiently significant to prejudice the Member’s judgement. On that basis, the Ombudsman invited the Committee to adopt the findings that both a personal and prejudicial interest existed. The Committee considered the Member’s representations in response to the findings of fact. Councillor Dennison sought to emphasise that the Ombudsman’s conclusions relied significantly on an interview conducted several months after the events in question, and invited the Committee to take into account the potential limitations of recollection over that period. The Chair confirmed that the weight to be attached to such evidence would be a matter for the Committee. Councillor Dennison began to raise matters relating to the undisputed facts, including additional points he considered relevant; however, the Chair advised that the Committee was to proceed based on the agreed undisputed and disputed facts and focus on the matters in dispute, namely whether a personal and/or prejudicial interest existed. The Committee proceeded to review the undisputed facts with Councillor Dennison. The Committee noted that, subject to limited qualifications and clarifications, Councillor Dennison accepted the majority of the agreed undisputed facts, and that the principal matters remaining for determination were those identified as disputed, namely whether Councillor Dennison had a personal and prejudicial in the matter. The Committee considered the Member’s representations in relation to the disputed facts. Councillor Dennison was invited to address whether he had a personal and/or prejudicial interest in the matter. In response, he submitted that he had signed the referral request on behalf of the local Member, using “pp” (per procurationem), and therefore did not consider the document to be his own. He outlined his understanding of the legal position of signing “pp”, stating that he had authority to act on behalf of the Local Member and that the document should be regarded as belonging to that Member. He further stated that, as the referral was submitted in the name of the Local Member, this negated any personal or prejudicial interest on his part. He noted that the form had been accepted by Planning Officers and had proceeded through the relevant process without issue until concerns were later raised. Councillor Dennison also stated that he had not intended to attend the Planning Delegation Panel meeting, explaining that he had been with a constituent at the time and only entered the public gallery briefly whilst on his way to another meeting. He maintained that he did not participate in the proceedings and considered that his presence in the public gallery was permissible as a member of the public. Ms Hughes queried how long Councillor Dennison had been seated in the public gallery and whether he had been aware of the proceedings. Councillor Dennison responded that he had only been present briefly, estimating approximately two minutes before being addressed, and stated that it had not been his intention to attend the meeting. Councillor Carter questioned why Councillor Dennison had responded when invited to speak if he considered himself unable to participate as a member of the public, and whether such participation would be permitted. Councillor Dennison responded that it was his understanding that individuals seated in the public gallery were not permitted to take part in proceedings, notwithstanding the invitation from the Chair, and that he therefore believed he was not able to speak. Councillor Dennison concluded that, in his view, he did not have a prejudicial interest in the matter and that his involvement, acting on behalf of the local Member, should not be regarded as a breach of the Code. The Chair confirmed that the Committee would take these representations into account when determining the disputed facts. Councillor Huw Murphy was called as a witness by Councillor Dennison. Councillor Murphy stated that he had been present at the Planning Delegation Panel meeting held on 25 February. He provided his view that members of the public would not ordinarily be permitted to speak during such meetings and that, in his opinion, any such participation would normally require formal involvement through Democratic Services. He suggested that the Chair’s request for Councillor Dennison to speak may not have followed usual procedure. Councillor Murphy advised that he had not been specifically aware of Councillor Dennison’s presence at the meeting and confirmed that both he and Councillor Dennison had arrangements to meet with the Section 151 Officer later that day to discuss budget matters. He further expressed concerns regarding the circumstances leading to the hearing, including matters relating to process and perceived inconsistencies in how relationships had been considered. In response to questions from Mr Gardner, Councillor Murphy was referred to the relevant constitutional provision regarding the nomination of a substitute to act on behalf of a Local Member. Councillor Murphy acknowledged the existence of such a procedure but stated that he had not been made aware of it at the time and therefore it had not been followed. Mr Gardner further queried whether the question of whether Councillor Dennison had a personal or prejudicial interest was separate from any interests of other Members. Councillor Murphy confirmed that these were separate considerations. Mr Lee Bridges was called as a witness and addressed the Committee. He stated that his initial request for assistance in respect of the planning application had been directed to the Local Member, Councillor Terry Davies, and not to Councillor Dennison. He confirmed that he had not contacted Councillor Dennison directly regarding the matter and understood that Councillor Dennison’s involvement arose from assistance requested by Councillor Davies. Mr Bridges outlined the background to his business arrangement with Councillor Dennison, confirming that a loan had been provided during the COVID-19 period, which had since been repaid in full. He stated that Councillor Dennison had not been a shareholder or employee of the business and had not received any financial remuneration, and that any directorship had been non-executive in nature and related to the loan arrangement. In response to questions from the representative of the Ombudsman, Mr Gardner, who asked whether Councillor Dennison had been a director of his business during the relevant period, whether a loan had been provided to the business, and whether they had travelled together and whether Mr Bridges had set out the financial impact of the planning matter, Mr Bridges confirmed that Councillor Dennison had been recorded as a director for a period, accepted that a loan had been provided and subsequently repaid, confirmed that they had travelled together on a holiday in January 2023, and accepted that he had sent correspondence outlining the potential financial consequences of the planning matter on his business. Mr Gardner asked about the duration and nature of their relationship to which Mr Bridges responded that he had not known Councillor Dennison prior to taking on the premises and that their association arose through Councillor Dennison’s role with the Masonic Hall Company. He stated that the loan had been provided in support of the building and business rather than as part of a pre-existing personal relationship. In response to a question from Councillor Carter as to how he had become aware of the Planning Delegation Panel referral process, Mr Bridges stated that he had been advised by professional advisers, including his architect and planning consultants, and confirmed that he had followed that advice in seeking assistance from the Local Member. Councillor Carter asked whether Councillor Dennison had provided any further financial assistance. Mr Bridges responded that no additional financial support had been provided and confirmed that he had personally secured further funding to address the financial position of the business. In response to a question from Ms Hughes as to why Councillor Dennison had been appointed as a director of the company, Mr Bridges explained that the position had been offered as a form of security in relation to the loan provided and as a gesture of good faith, and confirmed that Councillor Dennison had no operational involvement in the running of the business. Ms Hughes further asked how such an arrangement may be perceived by a member of the public, given the Companies House record. Mr Bridges acknowledged that Councillor Dennison had been recorded as a director during the relevant period but reiterated that the role had been non-operational and temporary in nature. Councillor Carter asked whether Mr Bridges considered Councillor Dennison to be a close personal friend. Mr Bridges responded that he regarded Councillor Dennison positively in light of the assistance provided but could not speak to how Councillor Dennison would characterise the relationship. Following the witness evidence, Councillor Dennison sought to clarify that steps had been taken to remove his directorship from Companies House records at the relevant time, but that administrative delays had occurred. The Committee then considered excluding the public from their deliberations on findings of fact in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). Moved by Ms Moira Saunders; Seconded by Mr Nadeem Ahmad. The Motion, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). . The webcast was then paused at 12:19. The Committee then retired to deliberate on findings of fact. The webcast was then resumed at 13:26. Following deliberations, the Committee resumed in open session. The Chair confirmed that, at the conclusion of Stage 2 of the Hearing, the Committee was required to determine its findings in respect of the disputed facts. A summary of its reasoning would be provided, with full written reasons to be included in a subsequent formal report. In respect of the first disputed issue, namely whether Councillor Dennison had a personal interest in the planning matter, the Committee determined that a personal interest did exist. This finding was based on Councillor Dennison’s close personal association with Mr Bridges, the potential impact of the matter on Mr Bridges’ well-being and financial position, and Councillor Dennison’s membership of the Masonic Lodge, which had an interest in the premises concerned. The Committee then considered whether Councillor Dennison had a prejudicial interest in the matter. Having carefully reviewed the evidence, including the Ombudsman’s report and the representations made at the hearing, and applying the balance of probabilities and the public perception test, the Committee determined that a prejudicial interest had arisen. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee had particular regard to Councillor Dennison’s previous directorship of Imperial Hall Limited and his awareness of the planning application history; his previous role as Secretary of the Masonic Hall Company and involvement in enforcement matters; his ongoing membership of the Masonic Lodge and shareholding in the Masonic Hall Company; and his personal relationship with the planning applicant, including shared social activities. The Committee further considered the circumstances in which Councillor Dennison had completed and submitted the referral request on a “pp” basis on behalf of another Member. It concluded that a reasonable member of the public, having knowledge of the relevant facts, would consider that Councillor Dennison had acted as an advocate for and in support of the planning application. The Committee confirmed that these constituted their findings of fact. The meeting was then adjourned for lunch at 13:30. The meeting resumed at 14:15. The Committee proceeded to Stage 3 of the Hearing to determine whether the Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. The Chair invited the representative of the Investigating Officer, Mr Gardner, to make representations. Mr Gardner referred the Committee to the Ombudsman’s report and, in particular, to the summary of findings relating to breaches of the Code. He advised that, in light of the Committee’s findings that a personal and prejudicial interest existed, the Ombudsman maintained that four breaches of the Code were established. He submitted that a breach of paragraph 11(2)(a) had occurred, in that the Member had a personal interest and had made written representations without declaring that interest. Mr Gardner further submitted that a breach of paragraph 14(1)(a) had occurred, as the Member had a prejudicial interest and had failed to withdraw from the place where the meeting was being held, noting that remaining in the public gallery did not satisfy the requirement to withdraw. In addition, he submitted that there had been a breach of paragraph 14(1)(c), as the Member had sought to influence a decision in which he had a prejudicial interest. Finally, he submitted that there had been a breach of paragraph 14(1)(d), in that the Member had made written representations in relation to the matter despite having a prejudicial interest. Mr Gardner advised that these findings arose from the undisputed facts together with the Committee’s findings of fact and invited the Committee to adopt the Ombudsman’s conclusions. The Chair then invited Councillor Dennison to make any representations in response. Councillor Dennison confirmed that he had no additional representations to make. The Committee then considered excluding the public from their deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act(as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). Moved by Ms Moira Saunders; Seconded by Mr David Parsons. The Motion, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). . The webcast was then paused at 14:24 The Committee then retired to consider whether there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct. The webcast was then resumed at 15:02. Following deliberations, the Committee resumed in open session and the Chair advised thathaving considered all of the evidence, the Committee determined that breaches of the Code had occurred. In respect of Paragraph 11(2)(a), the Committee determined that Councillor Dennison had a personal interest and had made a written communication without declaring that interest, and therefore a breach of the Code had occurred. In respect of Paragraph 14(1)(a), the Committee determined that Councillor Dennison had a prejudicial interest and had failed to withdraw from the place where the meeting was being held, noting that his presence in the public gallery did not meet the requirement of the Code. The Committee further noted that it had considered the applicability of Paragraph 14(2), as referenced during the hearing, but determined that it did not apply in this instance as members of the public were not entitled to make representations at the Planning Delegation Panel meeting. In respect of Paragraph 14(1)(c), the Committee determined that Councillor Dennison had sought to influence a decision in which he had a prejudicial interest, by completing and submitting the referral request and by his presence during the meeting. In respect of Paragraph 14(1)(d), the Committee determined that Councillor Dennison had made written representations in relation to the matter despite having a prejudicial interest and without having obtained dispensation, and that a further breach of the Code had therefore occurred. The Committee then proceeded to Stage 4 of the Hearing to consider the issue of sanction. The Chair invited Mr Gardner to make representations as to whether a sanction should be applied. Mr Gardner referred the Committee to the relevant guidance on sanctions and outlined the recommended approach to determining an appropriate sanction, including consideration of the seriousness of the breach, the type of sanction available, and any mitigating and aggravating factors. He submitted that, having regard to those factors, the matter was likely to fall within the range of a mid-level suspension, noting in particular the number of breaches and the relevance of advice provided to the Member. The Chair then invited Councillor Dennison to make representations in respect of sanction. Councillor Dennison addressed the Committee and submitted that the matter arose from a specific and unusual set of circumstances, including his role in assisting another Member. He referred to advice he stated had been provided to him by the Monitoring Officer in a previous and unrelated matter concerning the role of a director of a company, which he considered to be inconsistent with advice given in the current case, and suggested that this had contributed to uncertainty in his understanding of the application of the Code. He expressed concern regarding the process and the length of time taken to reach the hearing and advised that the matter had had a personal impact upon him. He also raised concerns regarding his ability to access representation. Councillor Dennison invited the Committee to consider that the matter was distinct in nature and suggested that it would be appropriate for no formal sanction to be imposed, with lessons instead being learned for future practice. In response to questions from Members, including a question from Mr Parsons seeking information regarding his length of service, role as a Councillor, and contribution to Council and community activities, Councillor Dennison advised that he had been elected in 2022 and outlined his involvement in Council business and community work. He stated that he regularly attended meetings, served on several committees, and undertook additional responsibilities, including attending meetings at short notice and supporting matters beyond his ward where required. Councillor Murphy provided supporting evidence in this regard, stating that Councillor Dennison was an active Member who regularly attended meetings and undertook substitute duties at short notice to support Council business. Ms Hughes asked Councillor Dennison to identify which mitigating factors, if any, applied to his circumstances in accordance with the relevant guidance. Councillor Dennison acknowledged that the matter was an isolated incident, stated that he had acted in good faith and indicated a willingness to undertake further training and to seek appropriate advice in the future. The Committee then considered excluding the public from their deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). . Moved by Ms Maggie Hughes; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The Motion, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). . The webcast was then paused at 15:42 The Committee then retired to consider possible sanctions. The webcast was then resumed at 16:37. Following deliberations, the Committee resumed in open session and the Chair confirmed that the Committee had carefully considered the sanctions guidance issued by the Adjudication Panel for Wales, including the five-stage process. The Committee determined that the seriousness and consequences of the breaches were significant, noting in particular the disregard of advice provided by the Monitoring Officer and the potential reputational impact on the Council. It was therefore concluded that the breaches were to be regarded as very serious. The Committee confirmed that, in line with the principles of fairness and proportionality, consideration had commenced with the least severe options. However, it was determined that the options of taking no action or issuing a censure were not appropriate in this case. The Committee therefore determined that the appropriate starting point was a mid-level sanction of suspension, with an initial reference point of three months. The Committee then considered mitigating and aggravating factors. It was determined that the mitigating factors included Councillor Dennison’s relatively short length of service, his previous record of good service, his willingness to undertake further training in respect of the Code of Conduct and his commitment to seek advice on the Code in future. The Committee further determined that the aggravating factors included attempts to attribute responsibility to others, deliberate conduct which had the effect of benefiting another individual, a lack of full acceptance of the misconduct and its consequences and a refusal to accept findings of fact despite clear evidence. The Committee noted that the overarching purpose of the sanctions regime was to uphold standards of conduct in public life and to maintain public confidence in local democracy. Accordingly, having balanced all relevant factors, the Committee determined that a suspension for a period of four months was an appropriate and proportionate sanction. It was further noted that the Committee’s full decision and reasons would be issued in writing to the Member, the complainant, and the Ombudsman in due course. RESOLVED The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions in this matter and determined that: 1. Councillor Dennison (“the Member”) had a personal interest in the matter for the following reasons: (a) Mr Lee Bridges was a close personal associate, whose well-being or financial position might reasonably be regarded as affected by the application to the Planning Delegation Panel (paragraph 10(2)(c)(i) of the Code of Conduct); (b) the application to the Planning Delegation Panel might reasonably be regarded as affecting the business of Imperial Hall Limited carried on by Mr Lee Bridges, a close personal associate (paragraph 10(2)(c)(ii) of the Code of Conduct); and (c) the application to the Planning Delegation Panel related to or was likely to affect the Masonic Hall Company, a private club in which the Member had membership (paragraph 10(2)(a)(ix)(ee) of the Code of Conduct). 2. Given the established personal interests, a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, specifically: (a) the Member’s awareness of and inextricable link to the planning application history through both being a previous director of Imperial Hall Limited and Secretary of the Masonic Hall Company, including attendance at planning enforcement meetings as a representative of the Masonic Hall Company; (b) the Member’s ongoing membership of the Masonic Hall Company; and (c) the Member’s close personal association with Mr Lee Bridges, would reasonably regard the interests as so significant they were likely to prejudice judgment of the public interest (paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct). 3. The Member had breached the following paragraphs of the Code for the reasons set out below: 11(2)(a) – where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority and you make written representations to a member or officer of your authority regarding that business; you should include details of that interest in the written communication. Reason(s) - The Member made written representations within the submitted referral request, including setting out the reasons he considered the criteria for referral were met and additional information in support of the referral to Planning Committee request, but failed to include details of his personal interests; 14(1)(a) – subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (2A), (3) and (4), where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority you must, unless you have obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, withdraw from the room, chamber or place where a meeting considering the business is being held whenever it becomes apparent that business is being considered at that meeting. Reason(s) - The Member had no dispensation from the Standards Committee but attended the meeting of the Planning Delegation Panel when the referral request was being considered. Upon it becoming apparent planning application 24/0470/PA was being considered, the Member failed to declare his interest and withdraw from the meeting place. It was accepted that the Member sat in the public gallery and not the main Chamber, however, in reaching its conclusion, the Committee gave particular consideration to paragraphs 3.45 and 3.46 [324] of the published Guidance from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales on the Code, which highlighted as a key point that where a Member has a prejudicial interest in a matter being discussed at a meeting, the Member must, having declared their personal interest, leave the room, chamber or place where the meeting is being held, and that the Member was not permitted to remain in the public gallery to observe the discussion as their very presence could influence the decision, or be perceived by a reasonable member of the public as doing so. The Committee did not consider sub-paragraph (2) applied as members of the public were considered not to have the right to speak at Planning Delegation Panel meetings and sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) were not relevant; 14(1)(c) –– subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (2A), (3) and (4), where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority you must, unless you have obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, not seek to influence a decision about that business. Reason(s) - Given the Member’s prejudicial interest and not having obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, by completing and submitting the referral request and attending the meeting of the Planning Delegation Panel the Member was considered to be seeking to influence the decision as to referral; and 14(1)(d) – subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (2A), (3) and (4), where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority you must, unless you have obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, not make any written representation in relation to that business. Reason(s) - Given the Member’s prejudicial interest and not having obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, the written representations contained in the referral request form were considered to be a breach of paragraph 14(1)(d). 4. A sanction of four month’s suspension was appropriate in this case. 1.FIELD_TITLE FIELD_SUMMARY 2.FIELD_TITLE FIELD_TITLE FIELD_TITLE FIELD_SUMMARY FIELD_SUMMARY
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Viv Stoddart and Vanessa Thomas. Councillor Viv Stoddart wished for her apologies to be noted to the Committee that they were given due to a conflict of interest/perception of bias, on the matter to be discussed during the meeting.
The following declaration of interest was received: Item 3 - Members' Code of Conduct - Alleged Breach by County Councillor - Standards Committee Hearing Community Councillor David Edwards declared a personal and prejudicial interest by virtue of being a close friend of the late Councillor Mike Stoddart, a relevant party involved within the case. Following his declaration, Councillor Edwards left the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the witnesses be permitted to give evidence during the Hearing. The Committee considered further preliminary procedural matters raised by Councillor Dennison. Councillor Dennison sought clarification as to whether the complaint had been made by the Council or by Mr Richard Brown in an individual capacity. The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed, having reviewed the complaint documentation, that the complaint had been submitted by Mr Brown in his capacity as Assistant Chief Executive of the Council, and therefore on behalf of the Council. Councillor Dennison also queried whether the Monitoring Officer was to be called as a witness on behalf of the Ombudsman. In response, Mr Gardner confirmed that no witnesses were being called. It was noted that the Ombudsman relied solely on the documentary evidence and material already provided to the Committee, including the investigation report and supporting documentation. Councillor Dennison sought clarification that statements provided by officers formed part of that documentary evidence. The Committee noted that all evidence relied upon by the Ombudsman was contained within the documentation before it. The Chair then invited Councillor Dennison to raise any further procedural matters. Councillor Dennison queried the role of the Deputy Monitoring Officer, noting that her line manager was the Monitoring Officer whose evidence formed part of the documentation before the Committee. He suggested that there may be a perception of a conflict of interest. In response, the Chair reiterated that it was the established role of the Monitoring Officer or Deputy Monitoring Officer to act as legal adviser to the Committee during such hearings. It was emphasised that, in undertaking that role, the officer acted independently and objectively in advising the Committee. The Chair placed on record his confidence in the integrity and professionalism of the Deputy Monitoring Officer. Councillor Dennison acknowledged the response. Councillor Dennison further sought to emphasise that the referral form had been submitted by himself on behalf of another Member. The Chair advised that this did not constitute a procedural matter and would instead be considered at the appropriate stage when the Committee addressed the facts. The Committee received the agreed and undisputed facts, as set out in the investigation report, which were read by the Chair. It was noted that these facts included the Member’s previous roles in relation to Imperial Hall, his association with the planning applicant, his involvement in submitting the referral request, and his actions in relation to the Planning Delegation Panel meeting, including the absence of any declared interest. The Committee further noted the two disputed issues, namely whether the Member had: (a) a personal interest; and (b) a prejudicial interest in respect of the referral request. Mr Gardner addressed the Committee in support of the findings contained within the investigation report. He advised that the Ombudsman’s conclusions were based largely on the undisputed facts and directed the Committee to the relevant sections of the report. It was submitted that, on balance of probabilities, the Member had both a personal and prejudicial interest. In particular, reference was made to: (a) the Member’s previous directorship and involvement with Imperial Hall; (b) his membership of the Masonic Lodge and associated company; (c) his close personal association with the planning applicant; and (d) the potential financial and personal impact of the planning decision on the applicant. The Committee was referred to relevant extracts of the investigation report, interview transcript, and correspondence, including advice provided by the Monitoring Officer, which indicated that the Member had been advised that he had a personal and prejudicial interest and should not have been involved in the matter. It was further submitted that the appropriate test was whether a reasonable member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would consider the interest sufficiently significant to prejudice the Member’s judgement. On that basis, the Ombudsman invited the Committee to adopt the findings that both a personal and prejudicial interest existed. The Committee considered the Member’s representations in response to the findings of fact. Councillor Dennison sought to emphasise that the Ombudsman’s conclusions relied significantly on an interview conducted several months after the events in question, and invited the Committee to take into account the potential limitations of recollection over that period. The Chair confirmed that the weight to be attached to such evidence would be a matter for the Committee. Councillor Dennison began to raise matters relating to the undisputed facts, including additional points he considered relevant; however, the Chair advised that the Committee was to proceed based on the agreed undisputed and disputed facts and focus on the matters in dispute, namely whether a personal and/or prejudicial interest existed. The Committee proceeded to review the undisputed facts with Councillor Dennison. The Committee noted that, subject to limited qualifications and clarifications, Councillor Dennison accepted the majority of the agreed undisputed facts, and that the principal matters remaining for determination were those identified as disputed, namely whether Councillor Dennison had a personal and prejudicial in the matter. The Committee considered the Member’s representations in relation to the disputed facts. Councillor Dennison was invited to address whether he had a personal and/or prejudicial interest in the matter. In response, he submitted that he had signed the referral request on behalf of the local Member, using “pp” (per procurationem), and therefore did not consider the document to be his own. He outlined his understanding of the legal position of signing “pp”, stating that he had authority to act on behalf of the Local Member and that the document should be regarded as belonging to that Member. He further stated that, as the referral was submitted in the name of the Local Member, this negated any personal or prejudicial interest on his part. He noted that the form had been accepted by Planning Officers and had proceeded through the relevant process without issue until concerns were later raised. Councillor Dennison also stated that he had not intended to attend the Planning Delegation Panel meeting, explaining that he had been with a constituent at the time and only entered the public gallery briefly whilst on his way to another meeting. He maintained that he did not participate in the proceedings and considered that his presence in the public gallery was permissible as a member of the public. Ms Hughes queried how long Councillor Dennison had been seated in the public gallery and whether he had been aware of the proceedings. Councillor Dennison responded that he had only been present briefly, estimating approximately two minutes before being addressed, and stated that it had not been his intention to attend the meeting. Councillor Carter questioned why Councillor Dennison had responded when invited to speak if he considered himself unable to participate as a member of the public, and whether such participation would be permitted. Councillor Dennison responded that it was his understanding that individuals seated in the public gallery were not permitted to take part in proceedings, notwithstanding the invitation from the Chair, and that he therefore believed he was not able to speak. Councillor Dennison concluded that, in his view, he did not have a prejudicial interest in the matter and that his involvement, acting on behalf of the local Member, should not be regarded as a breach of the Code. The Chair confirmed that the Committee would take these representations into account when determining the disputed facts. Councillor Huw Murphy was called as a witness by Councillor Dennison. Councillor Murphy stated that he had been present at the Planning Delegation Panel meeting held on 25 February. He provided his view that members of the public would not ordinarily be permitted to speak during such meetings and that, in his opinion, any such participation would normally require formal involvement through Democratic Services. He suggested that the Chair’s request for Councillor Dennison to speak may not have followed usual procedure. Councillor Murphy advised that he had not been specifically aware of Councillor Dennison’s presence at the meeting and confirmed that both he and Councillor Dennison had arrangements to meet with the Section 151 Officer later that day to discuss budget matters. He further expressed concerns regarding the circumstances leading to the hearing, including matters relating to process and perceived inconsistencies in how relationships had been considered. In response to questions from Mr Gardner, Councillor Murphy was referred to the relevant constitutional provision regarding the nomination of a substitute to act on behalf of a Local Member. Councillor Murphy acknowledged the existence of such a procedure but stated that he had not been made aware of it at the time and therefore it had not been followed. Mr Gardner further queried whether the question of whether Councillor Dennison had a personal or prejudicial interest was separate from any interests of other Members. Councillor Murphy confirmed that these were separate considerations. Mr Lee Bridges was called as a witness and addressed the Committee. He stated that his initial request for assistance in respect of the planning application had been directed to the Local Member, Councillor Terry Davies, and not to Councillor Dennison. He confirmed that he had not contacted Councillor Dennison directly regarding the matter and understood that Councillor Dennison’s involvement arose from assistance requested by Councillor Davies. Mr Bridges outlined the background to his business arrangement with Councillor Dennison, confirming that a loan had been provided during the COVID-19 period, which had since been repaid in full. He stated that Councillor Dennison had not been a shareholder or employee of the business and had not received any financial remuneration, and that any directorship had been non-executive in nature and related to the loan arrangement. In response to questions from the representative of the Ombudsman, Mr Gardner, who asked whether Councillor Dennison had been a director of his business during the relevant period, whether a loan had been provided to the business, and whether they had travelled together and whether Mr Bridges had set out the financial impact of the planning matter, Mr Bridges confirmed that Councillor Dennison had been recorded as a director for a period, accepted that a loan had been provided and subsequently repaid, confirmed that they had travelled together on a holiday in January 2023, and accepted that he had sent correspondence outlining the potential financial consequences of the planning matter on his business. Mr Gardner asked about the duration and nature of their relationship to which Mr Bridges responded that he had not known Councillor Dennison prior to taking on the premises and that their association arose through Councillor Dennison’s role with the Masonic Hall Company. He stated that the loan had been provided in support of the building and business rather than as part of a pre-existing personal relationship. In response to a question from Councillor Carter as to how he had become aware of the Planning Delegation Panel referral process, Mr Bridges stated that he had been advised by professional advisers, including his architect and planning consultants, and confirmed that he had followed that advice in seeking assistance from the Local Member. Councillor Carter asked whether Councillor Dennison had provided any further financial assistance. Mr Bridges responded that no additional financial support had been provided and confirmed that he had personally secured further funding to address the financial position of the business. In response to a question from Ms Hughes as to why Councillor Dennison had been appointed as a director of the company, Mr Bridges explained that the position had been offered as a form of security in relation to the loan provided and as a gesture of good faith, and confirmed that Councillor Dennison had no operational involvement in the running of the business. Ms Hughes further asked how such an arrangement may be perceived by a member of the public, given the Companies House record. Mr Bridges acknowledged that Councillor Dennison had been recorded as a director during the relevant period but reiterated that the role had been non-operational and temporary in nature. Councillor Carter asked whether Mr Bridges considered Councillor Dennison to be a close personal friend. Mr Bridges responded that he regarded Councillor Dennison positively in light of the assistance provided but could not speak to how Councillor Dennison would characterise the relationship. Following the witness evidence, Councillor Dennison sought to clarify that steps had been taken to remove his directorship from Companies House records at the relevant time, but that administrative delays had occurred. The Committee then considered excluding the public from their deliberations on findings of fact in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). Moved by Ms Moira Saunders; Seconded by Mr Nadeem Ahmad. The Motion, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). . The webcast was then paused at 12:19. The Committee then retired to deliberate on findings of fact. The webcast was then resumed at 13:26. Following deliberations, the Committee resumed in open session. The Chair confirmed that, at the conclusion of Stage 2 of the Hearing, the Committee was required to determine its findings in respect of the disputed facts. A summary of its reasoning would be provided, with full written reasons to be included in a subsequent formal report. In respect of the first disputed issue, namely whether Councillor Dennison had a personal interest in the planning matter, the Committee determined that a personal interest did exist. This finding was based on Councillor Dennison’s close personal association with Mr Bridges, the potential impact of the matter on Mr Bridges’ well-being and financial position, and Councillor Dennison’s membership of the Masonic Lodge, which had an interest in the premises concerned. The Committee then considered whether Councillor Dennison had a prejudicial interest in the matter. Having carefully reviewed the evidence, including the Ombudsman’s report and the representations made at the hearing, and applying the balance of probabilities and the public perception test, the Committee determined that a prejudicial interest had arisen. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee had particular regard to Councillor Dennison’s previous directorship of Imperial Hall Limited and his awareness of the planning application history; his previous role as Secretary of the Masonic Hall Company and involvement in enforcement matters; his ongoing membership of the Masonic Lodge and shareholding in the Masonic Hall Company; and his personal relationship with the planning applicant, including shared social activities. The Committee further considered the circumstances in which Councillor Dennison had completed and submitted the referral request on a “pp” basis on behalf of another Member. It concluded that a reasonable member of the public, having knowledge of the relevant facts, would consider that Councillor Dennison had acted as an advocate for and in support of the planning application. The Committee confirmed that these constituted their findings of fact. The meeting was then adjourned for lunch at 13:30. The meeting resumed at 14:15. The Committee proceeded to Stage 3 of the Hearing to determine whether the Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. The Chair invited the representative of the Investigating Officer, Mr Gardner, to make representations. Mr Gardner referred the Committee to the Ombudsman’s report and, in particular, to the summary of findings relating to breaches of the Code. He advised that, in light of the Committee’s findings that a personal and prejudicial interest existed, the Ombudsman maintained that four breaches of the Code were established. He submitted that a breach of paragraph 11(2)(a) had occurred, in that the Member had a personal interest and had made written representations without declaring that interest. Mr Gardner further submitted that a breach of paragraph 14(1)(a) had occurred, as the Member had a prejudicial interest and had failed to withdraw from the place where the meeting was being held, noting that remaining in the public gallery did not satisfy the requirement to withdraw. In addition, he submitted that there had been a breach of paragraph 14(1)(c), as the Member had sought to influence a decision in which he had a prejudicial interest. Finally, he submitted that there had been a breach of paragraph 14(1)(d), in that the Member had made written representations in relation to the matter despite having a prejudicial interest. Mr Gardner advised that these findings arose from the undisputed facts together with the Committee’s findings of fact and invited the Committee to adopt the Ombudsman’s conclusions. The Chair then invited Councillor Dennison to make any representations in response. Councillor Dennison confirmed that he had no additional representations to make. The Committee then considered excluding the public from their deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act(as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). Moved by Ms Moira Saunders; Seconded by Mr David Parsons. The Motion, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). . The webcast was then paused at 14:24 The Committee then retired to consider whether there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct. The webcast was then resumed at 15:02. Following deliberations, the Committee resumed in open session and the Chair advised thathaving considered all of the evidence, the Committee determined that breaches of the Code had occurred. In respect of Paragraph 11(2)(a), the Committee determined that Councillor Dennison had a personal interest and had made a written communication without declaring that interest, and therefore a breach of the Code had occurred. In respect of Paragraph 14(1)(a), the Committee determined that Councillor Dennison had a prejudicial interest and had failed to withdraw from the place where the meeting was being held, noting that his presence in the public gallery did not meet the requirement of the Code. The Committee further noted that it had considered the applicability of Paragraph 14(2), as referenced during the hearing, but determined that it did not apply in this instance as members of the public were not entitled to make representations at the Planning Delegation Panel meeting. In respect of Paragraph 14(1)(c), the Committee determined that Councillor Dennison had sought to influence a decision in which he had a prejudicial interest, by completing and submitting the referral request and by his presence during the meeting. In respect of Paragraph 14(1)(d), the Committee determined that Councillor Dennison had made written representations in relation to the matter despite having a prejudicial interest and without having obtained dispensation, and that a further breach of the Code had therefore occurred. The Committee then proceeded to Stage 4 of the Hearing to consider the issue of sanction. The Chair invited Mr Gardner to make representations as to whether a sanction should be applied. Mr Gardner referred the Committee to the relevant guidance on sanctions and outlined the recommended approach to determining an appropriate sanction, including consideration of the seriousness of the breach, the type of sanction available, and any mitigating and aggravating factors. He submitted that, having regard to those factors, the matter was likely to fall within the range of a mid-level suspension, noting in particular the number of breaches and the relevance of advice provided to the Member. The Chair then invited Councillor Dennison to make representations in respect of sanction. Councillor Dennison addressed the Committee and submitted that the matter arose from a specific and unusual set of circumstances, including his role in assisting another Member. He referred to advice he stated had been provided to him by the Monitoring Officer in a previous and unrelated matter concerning the role of a director of a company, which he considered to be inconsistent with advice given in the current case, and suggested that this had contributed to uncertainty in his understanding of the application of the Code. He expressed concern regarding the process and the length of time taken to reach the hearing and advised that the matter had had a personal impact upon him. He also raised concerns regarding his ability to access representation. Councillor Dennison invited the Committee to consider that the matter was distinct in nature and suggested that it would be appropriate for no formal sanction to be imposed, with lessons instead being learned for future practice. In response to questions from Members, including a question from Mr Parsons seeking information regarding his length of service, role as a Councillor, and contribution to Council and community activities, Councillor Dennison advised that he had been elected in 2022 and outlined his involvement in Council business and community work. He stated that he regularly attended meetings, served on several committees, and undertook additional responsibilities, including attending meetings at short notice and supporting matters beyond his ward where required. Councillor Murphy provided supporting evidence in this regard, stating that Councillor Dennison was an active Member who regularly attended meetings and undertook substitute duties at short notice to support Council business. Ms Hughes asked Councillor Dennison to identify which mitigating factors, if any, applied to his circumstances in accordance with the relevant guidance. Councillor Dennison acknowledged that the matter was an isolated incident, stated that he had acted in good faith and indicated a willingness to undertake further training and to seek appropriate advice in the future. The Committee then considered excluding the public from their deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). . Moved by Ms Maggie Hughes; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The Motion, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). . The webcast was then paused at 15:42 The Committee then retired to consider possible sanctions. The webcast was then resumed at 16:37. Following deliberations, the Committee resumed in open session and the Chair confirmed that the Committee had carefully considered the sanctions guidance issued by the Adjudication Panel for Wales, including the five-stage process. The Committee determined that the seriousness and consequences of the breaches were significant, noting in particular the disregard of advice provided by the Monitoring Officer and the potential reputational impact on the Council. It was therefore concluded that the breaches were to be regarded as very serious. The Committee confirmed that, in line with the principles of fairness and proportionality, consideration had commenced with the least severe options. However, it was determined that the options of taking no action or issuing a censure were not appropriate in this case. The Committee therefore determined that the appropriate starting point was a mid-level sanction of suspension, with an initial reference point of three months. The Committee then considered mitigating and aggravating factors. It was determined that the mitigating factors included Councillor Dennison’s relatively short length of service, his previous record of good service, his willingness to undertake further training in respect of the Code of Conduct and his commitment to seek advice on the Code in future. The Committee further determined that the aggravating factors included attempts to attribute responsibility to others, deliberate conduct which had the effect of benefiting another individual, a lack of full acceptance of the misconduct and its consequences and a refusal to accept findings of fact despite clear evidence. The Committee noted that the overarching purpose of the sanctions regime was to uphold standards of conduct in public life and to maintain public confidence in local democracy. Accordingly, having balanced all relevant factors, the Committee determined that a suspension for a period of four months was an appropriate and proportionate sanction. It was further noted that the Committee’s full decision and reasons would be issued in writing to the Member, the complainant, and the Ombudsman in due course. RESOLVED The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions in this matter and determined that: 1. Councillor Dennison (“the Member”) had a personal interest in the matter for the following reasons: (a) Mr Lee Bridges was a close personal associate, whose well-being or financial position might reasonably be regarded as affected by the application to the Planning Delegation Panel (paragraph 10(2)(c)(i) of the Code of Conduct); (b) the application to the Planning Delegation Panel might reasonably be regarded as affecting the business of Imperial Hall Limited carried on by Mr Lee Bridges, a close personal associate (paragraph 10(2)(c)(ii) of the Code of Conduct); and (c) the application to the Planning Delegation Panel related to or was likely to affect the Masonic Hall Company, a private club in which the Member had membership (paragraph 10(2)(a)(ix)(ee) of the Code of Conduct). 2. Given the established personal interests, a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, specifically: (a) the Member’s awareness of and inextricable link to the planning application history through both being a previous director of Imperial Hall Limited and Secretary of the Masonic Hall Company, including attendance at planning enforcement meetings as a representative of the Masonic Hall Company; (b) the Member’s ongoing membership of the Masonic Hall Company; and (c) the Member’s close personal association with Mr Lee Bridges, would reasonably regard the interests as so significant they were likely to prejudice judgment of the public interest (paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct). 3. The Member had breached the following paragraphs of the Code for the reasons set out below: 11(2)(a) – where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority and you make written representations to a member or officer of your authority regarding that business; you should include details of that interest in the written communication. Reason(s) - The Member made written representations within the submitted referral request, including setting out the reasons he considered the criteria for referral were met and additional information in support of the referral to Planning Committee request, but failed to include details of his personal interests; 14(1)(a) – subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (2A), (3) and (4), where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority you must, unless you have obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, withdraw from the room, chamber or place where a meeting considering the business is being held whenever it becomes apparent that business is being considered at that meeting. Reason(s) - The Member had no dispensation from the Standards Committee but attended the meeting of the Planning Delegation Panel when the referral request was being considered. Upon it becoming apparent planning application 24/0470/PA was being considered, the Member failed to declare his interest and withdraw from the meeting place. It was accepted that the Member sat in the public gallery and not the main Chamber, however, in reaching its conclusion, the Committee gave particular consideration to paragraphs 3.45 and 3.46 [324] of the published Guidance from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales on the Code, which highlighted as a key point that where a Member has a prejudicial interest in a matter being discussed at a meeting, the Member must, having declared their personal interest, leave the room, chamber or place where the meeting is being held, and that the Member was not permitted to remain in the public gallery to observe the discussion as their very presence could influence the decision, or be perceived by a reasonable member of the public as doing so. The Committee did not consider sub-paragraph (2) applied as members of the public were considered not to have the right to speak at Planning Delegation Panel meetings and sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) were not relevant; 14(1)(c) –– subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (2A), (3) and (4), where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority you must, unless you have obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, not seek to influence a decision about that business. Reason(s) - Given the Member’s prejudicial interest and not having obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, by completing and submitting the referral request and attending the meeting of the Planning Delegation Panel the Member was considered to be seeking to influence the decision as to referral; and 14(1)(d) – subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (2A), (3) and (4), where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority you must, unless you have obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, not make any written representation in relation to that business. Reason(s) - Given the Member’s prejudicial interest and not having obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, the written representations contained in the referral request form were considered to be a breach of paragraph 14(1)(d). 4. A sanction of four month’s suspension was appropriate in this case. 1.FIELD_TITLE FIELD_SUMMARY 2.FIELD_TITLE FIELD_TITLE FIELD_TITLE FIELD_SUMMARY FIELD_SUMMARY
The Committee received a report in respect of a hearing convened to consider alleged breaches of the Council’s Code of Conduct by County Councillor William Alan Dennison (referred to as “the Member”). The Chair outlined that a complaint had been submitted to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales by the Assistant Chief Executive on 28 April 2025. Following an investigation, the Ombudsman’s report, dated 30 January 2026, had been referred to the Council’s then Deputy Monitoring Officer for consideration by the Standards Committee. The Committee, at its meeting held on 17 February 2026, resolved that the Member be given the opportunity to make representations in respect of the findings of the investigation and any alleged failure to comply with the Code. The purpose of the hearing was therefore to determine: (a) the findings of fact; (b) whether, based on those facts, the Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct; and (c) if so, what action, if any, should be taken. The Chair advised that, in accordance with the relevant Regulations, the Committee was required to determine one of the following: (a) that there was no evidence of any failure to comply with the Code; (b) that there had been a failure, but no action was required; (c) that the Member should be censured; or (d) that the Member should be suspended or partially suspended for a period not exceeding six months. The procedure for the hearing was outlined as set out in Appendix 3 to Section 19 of the Council’s Constitution. It was noted that the process comprised four stages: 1. consideration of any preliminary procedural matters; 2. determination of any disputed facts; 3. determination of whether the Code had been breached; and 4. if a breach was found, consideration of any sanction. It was further noted that, at appropriate stages, the Committee could resolve to exclude the public to deliberate in private before announcing its findings. The Committee noted that the burden of proof to be applied throughout was the “balance of probabilities”, meaning that the Committee must be satisfied that it was more likely than not that a fact was proven. The Chair introduced those present and confirmed that the Committee comprised independent Co-opted Members and an Elected Member. The Deputy Monitoring Officer was present to act as legal adviser to the Committee. The Committee then considered a request from Councillor Dennison to call witnesses during the hearing. The Chair noted that Councillor Dennison had indicated his intention to call witnesses and invited him to identify those individuals. Councillor Dennison confirmed that he wished to call Mr Lee Bridges, the planning applicant, and Councillor Huw Murphy. The Chair highlighted that, in accordance with normal procedure, witnesses would ordinarily be identified at an earlier stage of proceedings Councillor Dennison explained that, due to uncertainty regarding the hearing date following changes to previously agreed arrangements, he had been unable to confirm witness attendance until shortly before the hearing. The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that no witness statements had been submitted in advance, as would normally be expected. It was therefore suggested that, to assist the Committee, the Member outline the relevance of the proposed witnesses and the nature of the evidence they would provide. Councillor Dennison stated that the evidence to be given by the witnesses would not deviate from the facts already contained within the documentation before the Committee. Mr Gardner, the representative of the Ombudsman, addressed the Committee, noting that the absence of prior witness statements made it more difficult to respond and prepare. It was further observed that the relevance of the witnesses was unclear considering the agreed and disputed facts already identified. However, it was acknowledged that the decision as to whether to admit the witnesses was a matter for the Committee. Members of the Committee expressed the view that, whilst the absence of advance statements was not ideal, consideration should be given to the principles of natural justice. The Vice Chair suggested that any evidence heard would be given appropriate weight given it had not been submitted in advance and to possible time limit the duration of evidence. The Deputy Monitoring Officer cautioned against this, reminded the Committee to run the hearing in accordance with the requirements of natural justice and the real question was the relevance of the evidence to be given. The Chair reminded the Committee that, in accordance with the procedure, it may conduct the hearing in any manner it considered appropriate to clarify the issues and ensure the fair handling of proceedings. Councillor Dennison reiterated his request that the witnesses be permitted to give evidence and confirmed that he intended to call them at the stage of the hearing dealing with the facts. The Motion, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the witnesses be permitted to give evidence during the Hearing. The Committee considered further preliminary procedural matters raised by Councillor Dennison. Councillor Dennison sought clarification as to whether the complaint had been made by the Council or by Mr Richard Brown in an individual capacity. The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed, having reviewed the complaint documentation, that the complaint had been submitted by Mr Brown in his capacity as Assistant Chief Executive of the Council, and therefore on behalf of the Council. Councillor Dennison also queried whether the Monitoring Officer was to be called as a witness on behalf of the Ombudsman. In response, Mr Gardner confirmed that no witnesses were being called. It was noted that the Ombudsman relied solely on the documentary evidence and material already provided to the Committee, including the investigation report and supporting documentation. Councillor Dennison sought clarification that statements provided by officers formed part of that documentary evidence. The Committee noted that all evidence relied upon by the Ombudsman was contained within the documentation before it. The Chair then invited Councillor Dennison to raise any further procedural matters. Councillor Dennison queried the role of the Deputy Monitoring Officer, noting that her line manager was the Monitoring Officer whose evidence formed part of the documentation before the Committee. He suggested that there may be a perception of a conflict of interest. In response, the Chair reiterated that it was the established role of the Monitoring Officer or Deputy Monitoring Officer to act as legal adviser to the Committee during such hearings. It was emphasised that, in undertaking that role, the officer acted independently and objectively in advising the Committee. The Chair placed on record his confidence in the integrity and professionalism of the Deputy Monitoring Officer. Councillor Dennison acknowledged the response. Councillor Dennison further sought to emphasise that the referral form had been submitted by himself on behalf of another Member. The Chair advised that this did not constitute a procedural matter and would instead be considered at the appropriate stage when the Committee addressed the facts. The Committee received the agreed and undisputed facts, as set out in the investigation report, which were read by the Chair. It was noted that these facts included the Member’s previous roles in relation to Imperial Hall, his association with the planning applicant, his involvement in submitting the referral request, and his actions in relation to the Planning Delegation Panel meeting, including the absence of any declared interest. The Committee further noted the two disputed issues, namely whether the Member had: (a) a personal interest; and (b) a prejudicial interest in respect of the referral request. Mr Gardner addressed the Committee in support of the findings contained within the investigation report. He advised that the Ombudsman’s conclusions were based largely on the undisputed facts and directed the Committee to the relevant sections of the report. It was submitted that, on balance of probabilities, the Member had both a personal and prejudicial interest. In particular, reference was made to: (a) the Member’s previous directorship and involvement with Imperial Hall; (b) his membership of the Masonic Lodge and associated company; (c) his close personal association with the planning applicant; and (d) the potential financial and personal impact of the planning decision on the applicant. The Committee was referred to relevant extracts of the investigation report, interview transcript, and correspondence, including advice provided by the Monitoring Officer, which indicated that the Member had been advised that he had a personal and prejudicial interest and should not have been involved in the matter. It was further submitted that the appropriate test was whether a reasonable member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would consider the interest sufficiently significant to prejudice the Member’s judgement. On that basis, the Ombudsman invited the Committee to adopt the findings that both a personal and prejudicial interest existed. The Committee considered the Member’s representations in response to the findings of fact. Councillor Dennison sought to emphasise that the Ombudsman’s conclusions relied significantly on an interview conducted several months after the events in question, and invited the Committee to take into account the potential limitations of recollection over that period. The Chair confirmed that the weight to be attached to such evidence would be a matter for the Committee. Councillor Dennison began to raise matters relating to the undisputed facts, including additional points he considered relevant; however, the Chair advised that the Committee was to proceed based on the agreed undisputed and disputed facts and focus on the matters in dispute, namely whether a personal and/or prejudicial interest existed. The Committee proceeded to review the undisputed facts with Councillor Dennison. The Committee noted that, subject to limited qualifications and clarifications, Councillor Dennison accepted the majority of the agreed undisputed facts, and that the principal matters remaining for determination were those identified as disputed, namely whether Councillor Dennison had a personal and prejudicial in the matter. The Committee considered the Member’s representations in relation to the disputed facts. Councillor Dennison was invited to address whether he had a personal and/or prejudicial interest in the matter. In response, he submitted that he had signed the referral request on behalf of the local Member, using “pp” (per procurationem), and therefore did not consider the document to be his own. He outlined his understanding of the legal position of signing “pp”, stating that he had authority to act on behalf of the Local Member and that the document should be regarded as belonging to that Member. He further stated that, as the referral was submitted in the name of the Local Member, this negated any personal or prejudicial interest on his part. He noted that the form had been accepted by Planning Officers and had proceeded through the relevant process without issue until concerns were later raised. Councillor Dennison also stated that he had not intended to attend the Planning Delegation Panel meeting, explaining that he had been with a constituent at the time and only entered the public gallery briefly whilst on his way to another meeting. He maintained that he did not participate in the proceedings and considered that his presence in the public gallery was permissible as a member of the public. Ms Hughes queried how long Councillor Dennison had been seated in the public gallery and whether he had been aware of the proceedings. Councillor Dennison responded that he had only been present briefly, estimating approximately two minutes before being addressed, and stated that it had not been his intention to attend the meeting. Councillor Carter questioned why Councillor Dennison had responded when invited to speak if he considered himself unable to participate as a member of the public, and whether such participation would be permitted. Councillor Dennison responded that it was his understanding that individuals seated in the public gallery were not permitted to take part in proceedings, notwithstanding the invitation from the Chair, and that he therefore believed he was not able to speak. Councillor Dennison concluded that, in his view, he did not have a prejudicial interest in the matter and that his involvement, acting on behalf of the local Member, should not be regarded as a breach of the Code. The Chair confirmed that the Committee would take these representations into account when determining the disputed facts. Councillor Huw Murphy was called as a witness by Councillor Dennison. Councillor Murphy stated that he had been present at the Planning Delegation Panel meeting held on 25 February. He provided his view that members of the public would not ordinarily be permitted to speak during such meetings and that, in his opinion, any such participation would normally require formal involvement through Democratic Services. He suggested that the Chair’s request for Councillor Dennison to speak may not have followed usual procedure. Councillor Murphy advised that he had not been specifically aware of Councillor Dennison’s presence at the meeting and confirmed that both he and Councillor Dennison had arrangements to meet with the Section 151 Officer later that day to discuss budget matters. He further expressed concerns regarding the circumstances leading to the hearing, including matters relating to process and perceived inconsistencies in how relationships had been considered. In response to questions from Mr Gardner, Councillor Murphy was referred to the relevant constitutional provision regarding the nomination of a substitute to act on behalf of a Local Member. Councillor Murphy acknowledged the existence of such a procedure but stated that he had not been made aware of it at the time and therefore it had not been followed. Mr Gardner further queried whether the question of whether Councillor Dennison had a personal or prejudicial interest was separate from any interests of other Members. Councillor Murphy confirmed that these were separate considerations. Mr Lee Bridges was called as a witness and addressed the Committee. He stated that his initial request for assistance in respect of the planning application had been directed to the Local Member, Councillor Terry Davies, and not to Councillor Dennison. He confirmed that he had not contacted Councillor Dennison directly regarding the matter and understood that Councillor Dennison’s involvement arose from assistance requested by Councillor Davies. Mr Bridges outlined the background to his business arrangement with Councillor Dennison, confirming that a loan had been provided during the COVID-19 period, which had since been repaid in full. He stated that Councillor Dennison had not been a shareholder or employee of the business and had not received any financial remuneration, and that any directorship had been non-executive in nature and related to the loan arrangement. In response to questions from the representative of the Ombudsman, Mr Gardner, who asked whether Councillor Dennison had been a director of his business during the relevant period, whether a loan had been provided to the business, and whether they had travelled together and whether Mr Bridges had set out the financial impact of the planning matter, Mr Bridges confirmed that Councillor Dennison had been recorded as a director for a period, accepted that a loan had been provided and subsequently repaid, confirmed that they had travelled together on a holiday in January 2023, and accepted that he had sent correspondence outlining the potential financial consequences of the planning matter on his business. Mr Gardner asked about the duration and nature of their relationship to which Mr Bridges responded that he had not known Councillor Dennison prior to taking on the premises and that their association arose through Councillor Dennison’s role with the Masonic Hall Company. He stated that the loan had been provided in support of the building and business rather than as part of a pre-existing personal relationship. In response to a question from Councillor Carter as to how he had become aware of the Planning Delegation Panel referral process, Mr Bridges stated that he had been advised by professional advisers, including his architect and planning consultants, and confirmed that he had followed that advice in seeking assistance from the Local Member. Councillor Carter asked whether Councillor Dennison had provided any further financial assistance. Mr Bridges responded that no additional financial support had been provided and confirmed that he had personally secured further funding to address the financial position of the business. In response to a question from Ms Hughes as to why Councillor Dennison had been appointed as a director of the company, Mr Bridges explained that the position had been offered as a form of security in relation to the loan provided and as a gesture of good faith, and confirmed that Councillor Dennison had no operational involvement in the running of the business. Ms Hughes further asked how such an arrangement may be perceived by a member of the public, given the Companies House record. Mr Bridges acknowledged that Councillor Dennison had been recorded as a director during the relevant period but reiterated that the role had been non-operational and temporary in nature. Councillor Carter asked whether Mr Bridges considered Councillor Dennison to be a close personal friend. Mr Bridges responded that he regarded Councillor Dennison positively in light of the assistance provided but could not speak to how Councillor Dennison would characterise the relationship. Following the witness evidence, Councillor Dennison sought to clarify that steps had been taken to remove his directorship from Companies House records at the relevant time, but that administrative delays had occurred. The Committee then considered excluding the public from their deliberations on findings of fact in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). Moved by Ms Moira Saunders; Seconded by Mr Nadeem Ahmad. The Motion, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). . The webcast was then paused at 12:19. The Committee then retired to deliberate on findings of fact. The webcast was then resumed at 13:26. Following deliberations, the Committee resumed in open session. The Chair confirmed that, at the conclusion of Stage 2 of the Hearing, the Committee was required to determine its findings in respect of the disputed facts. A summary of its reasoning would be provided, with full written reasons to be included in a subsequent formal report. In respect of the first disputed issue, namely whether Councillor Dennison had a personal interest in the planning matter, the Committee determined that a personal interest did exist. This finding was based on Councillor Dennison’s close personal association with Mr Bridges, the potential impact of the matter on Mr Bridges’ well-being and financial position, and Councillor Dennison’s membership of the Masonic Lodge, which had an interest in the premises concerned. The Committee then considered whether Councillor Dennison had a prejudicial interest in the matter. Having carefully reviewed the evidence, including the Ombudsman’s report and the representations made at the hearing, and applying the balance of probabilities and the public perception test, the Committee determined that a prejudicial interest had arisen. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee had particular regard to Councillor Dennison’s previous directorship of Imperial Hall Limited and his awareness of the planning application history; his previous role as Secretary of the Masonic Hall Company and involvement in enforcement matters; his ongoing membership of the Masonic Lodge and shareholding in the Masonic Hall Company; and his personal relationship with the planning applicant, including shared social activities. The Committee further considered the circumstances in which Councillor Dennison had completed and submitted the referral request on a “pp” basis on behalf of another Member. It concluded that a reasonable member of the public, having knowledge of the relevant facts, would consider that Councillor Dennison had acted as an advocate for and in support of the planning application. The Committee confirmed that these constituted their findings of fact. The meeting was then adjourned for lunch at 13:30. The meeting resumed at 14:15. The Committee proceeded to Stage 3 of the Hearing to determine whether the Member had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. The Chair invited the representative of the Investigating Officer, Mr Gardner, to make representations. Mr Gardner referred the Committee to the Ombudsman’s report and, in particular, to the summary of findings relating to breaches of the Code. He advised that, in light of the Committee’s findings that a personal and prejudicial interest existed, the Ombudsman maintained that four breaches of the Code were established. He submitted that a breach of paragraph 11(2)(a) had occurred, in that the Member had a personal interest and had made written representations without declaring that interest. Mr Gardner further submitted that a breach of paragraph 14(1)(a) had occurred, as the Member had a prejudicial interest and had failed to withdraw from the place where the meeting was being held, noting that remaining in the public gallery did not satisfy the requirement to withdraw. In addition, he submitted that there had been a breach of paragraph 14(1)(c), as the Member had sought to influence a decision in which he had a prejudicial interest. Finally, he submitted that there had been a breach of paragraph 14(1)(d), in that the Member had made written representations in relation to the matter despite having a prejudicial interest. Mr Gardner advised that these findings arose from the undisputed facts together with the Committee’s findings of fact and invited the Committee to adopt the Ombudsman’s conclusions. The Chair then invited Councillor Dennison to make any representations in response. Councillor Dennison confirmed that he had no additional representations to make. The Committee then considered excluding the public from their deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act(as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). Moved by Ms Moira Saunders; Seconded by Mr David Parsons. The Motion, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). . The webcast was then paused at 14:24 The Committee then retired to consider whether there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct. The webcast was then resumed at 15:02. Following deliberations, the Committee resumed in open session and the Chair advised thathaving considered all of the evidence, the Committee determined that breaches of the Code had occurred. In respect of Paragraph 11(2)(a), the Committee determined that Councillor Dennison had a personal interest and had made a written communication without declaring that interest, and therefore a breach of the Code had occurred. In respect of Paragraph 14(1)(a), the Committee determined that Councillor Dennison had a prejudicial interest and had failed to withdraw from the place where the meeting was being held, noting that his presence in the public gallery did not meet the requirement of the Code. The Committee further noted that it had considered the applicability of Paragraph 14(2), as referenced during the hearing, but determined that it did not apply in this instance as members of the public were not entitled to make representations at the Planning Delegation Panel meeting. In respect of Paragraph 14(1)(c), the Committee determined that Councillor Dennison had sought to influence a decision in which he had a prejudicial interest, by completing and submitting the referral request and by his presence during the meeting. In respect of Paragraph 14(1)(d), the Committee determined that Councillor Dennison had made written representations in relation to the matter despite having a prejudicial interest and without having obtained dispensation, and that a further breach of the Code had therefore occurred. The Committee then proceeded to Stage 4 of the Hearing to consider the issue of sanction. The Chair invited Mr Gardner to make representations as to whether a sanction should be applied. Mr Gardner referred the Committee to the relevant guidance on sanctions and outlined the recommended approach to determining an appropriate sanction, including consideration of the seriousness of the breach, the type of sanction available, and any mitigating and aggravating factors. He submitted that, having regard to those factors, the matter was likely to fall within the range of a mid-level suspension, noting in particular the number of breaches and the relevance of advice provided to the Member. The Chair then invited Councillor Dennison to make representations in respect of sanction. Councillor Dennison addressed the Committee and submitted that the matter arose from a specific and unusual set of circumstances, including his role in assisting another Member. He referred to advice he stated had been provided to him by the Monitoring Officer in a previous and unrelated matter concerning the role of a director of a company, which he considered to be inconsistent with advice given in the current case, and suggested that this had contributed to uncertainty in his understanding of the application of the Code. He expressed concern regarding the process and the length of time taken to reach the hearing and advised that the matter had had a personal impact upon him. He also raised concerns regarding his ability to access representation. Councillor Dennison invited the Committee to consider that the matter was distinct in nature and suggested that it would be appropriate for no formal sanction to be imposed, with lessons instead being learned for future practice. In response to questions from Members, including a question from Mr Parsons seeking information regarding his length of service, role as a Councillor, and contribution to Council and community activities, Councillor Dennison advised that he had been elected in 2022 and outlined his involvement in Council business and community work. He stated that he regularly attended meetings, served on several committees, and undertook additional responsibilities, including attending meetings at short notice and supporting matters beyond his ward where required. Councillor Murphy provided supporting evidence in this regard, stating that Councillor Dennison was an active Member who regularly attended meetings and undertook substitute duties at short notice to support Council business. Ms Hughes asked Councillor Dennison to identify which mitigating factors, if any, applied to his circumstances in accordance with the relevant guidance. Councillor Dennison acknowledged that the matter was an isolated incident, stated that he had acted in good faith and indicated a willingness to undertake further training and to seek appropriate advice in the future. The Committee then considered excluding the public from their deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). . Moved by Ms Maggie Hughes; Seconded by Councillor Mark Carter. The Motion, undertaken by way of a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the deliberations in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended by the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions, Documents and Meetings) and the Standards Committees (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/951). . The webcast was then paused at 15:42 The Committee then retired to consider possible sanctions. The webcast was then resumed at 16:37. Following deliberations, the Committee resumed in open session and the Chair confirmed that the Committee had carefully considered the sanctions guidance issued by the Adjudication Panel for Wales, including the five-stage process. The Committee determined that the seriousness and consequences of the breaches were significant, noting in particular the disregard of advice provided by the Monitoring Officer and the potential reputational impact on the Council. It was therefore concluded that the breaches were to be regarded as very serious. The Committee confirmed that, in line with the principles of fairness and proportionality, consideration had commenced with the least severe options. However, it was determined that the options of taking no action or issuing a censure were not appropriate in this case. The Committee therefore determined that the appropriate starting point was a mid-level sanction of suspension, with an initial reference point of three months. The Committee then considered mitigating and aggravating factors. It was determined that the mitigating factors included Councillor Dennison’s relatively short length of service, his previous record of good service, his willingness to undertake further training in respect of the Code of Conduct and his commitment to seek advice on the Code in future. The Committee further determined that the aggravating factors included attempts to attribute responsibility to others, deliberate conduct which had the effect of benefiting another individual, a lack of full acceptance of the misconduct and its consequences and a refusal to accept findings of fact despite clear evidence. The Committee noted that the overarching purpose of the sanctions regime was to uphold standards of conduct in public life and to maintain public confidence in local democracy. Accordingly, having balanced all relevant factors, the Committee determined that a suspension for a period of four months was an appropriate and proportionate sanction. It was further noted that the Committee’s full decision and reasons would be issued in writing to the Member, the complainant, and the Ombudsman in due course. RESOLVED The Committee carefully considered all the evidence and submissions in this matter and determined that: 1. Councillor Dennison (“the Member”) had a personal interest in the matter for the following reasons: (a) Mr Lee Bridges was a close personal associate, whose well-being or financial position might reasonably be regarded as affected by the application to the Planning Delegation Panel (paragraph 10(2)(c)(i) of the Code of Conduct); (b) the application to the Planning Delegation Panel might reasonably be regarded as affecting the business of Imperial Hall Limited carried on by Mr Lee Bridges, a close personal associate (paragraph 10(2)(c)(ii) of the Code of Conduct); and (c) the application to the Planning Delegation Panel related to or was likely to affect the Masonic Hall Company, a private club in which the Member had membership (paragraph 10(2)(a)(ix)(ee) of the Code of Conduct). 2. Given the established personal interests, a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, specifically: (a) the Member’s awareness of and inextricable link to the planning application history through both being a previous director of Imperial Hall Limited and Secretary of the Masonic Hall Company, including attendance at planning enforcement meetings as a representative of the Masonic Hall Company; (b) the Member’s ongoing membership of the Masonic Hall Company; and (c) the Member’s close personal association with Mr Lee Bridges, would reasonably regard the interests as so significant they were likely to prejudice judgment of the public interest (paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct). 3. The Member had breached the following paragraphs of the Code for the reasons set out below: 11(2)(a) – where you have a personal interest in any business of your authority and you make written representations to a member or officer of your authority regarding that business; you should include details of that interest in the written communication. Reason(s) - The Member made written representations within the submitted referral request, including setting out the reasons he considered the criteria for referral were met and additional information in support of the referral to Planning Committee request, but failed to include details of his personal interests; 14(1)(a) – subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (2A), (3) and (4), where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority you must, unless you have obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, withdraw from the room, chamber or place where a meeting considering the business is being held whenever it becomes apparent that business is being considered at that meeting. Reason(s) - The Member had no dispensation from the Standards Committee but attended the meeting of the Planning Delegation Panel when the referral request was being considered. Upon it becoming apparent planning application 24/0470/PA was being considered, the Member failed to declare his interest and withdraw from the meeting place. It was accepted that the Member sat in the public gallery and not the main Chamber, however, in reaching its conclusion, the Committee gave particular consideration to paragraphs 3.45 and 3.46 [324] of the published Guidance from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales on the Code, which highlighted as a key point that where a Member has a prejudicial interest in a matter being discussed at a meeting, the Member must, having declared their personal interest, leave the room, chamber or place where the meeting is being held, and that the Member was not permitted to remain in the public gallery to observe the discussion as their very presence could influence the decision, or be perceived by a reasonable member of the public as doing so. The Committee did not consider sub-paragraph (2) applied as members of the public were considered not to have the right to speak at Planning Delegation Panel meetings and sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) were not relevant; 14(1)(c) –– subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (2A), (3) and (4), where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority you must, unless you have obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, not seek to influence a decision about that business. Reason(s) - Given the Member’s prejudicial interest and not having obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, by completing and submitting the referral request and attending the meeting of the Planning Delegation Panel the Member was considered to be seeking to influence the decision as to referral; and 14(1)(d) – subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (2A), (3) and (4), where you have a prejudicial interest in any business of your authority you must, unless you have obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, not make any written representation in relation to that business. Reason(s) - Given the Member’s prejudicial interest and not having obtained dispensation from the Standards Committee, the written representations contained in the referral request form were considered to be a breach of paragraph 14(1)(d). 4. A sanction of four month’s suspension was appropriate in this case. 1.FIELD_TITLE FIELD_SUMMARY 2.FIELD_TITLE FIELD_TITLE FIELD_TITLE FIELD_SUMMARY FIELD_SUMMARY
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.