COMMENTING here yesterday, we suggested that if Environment member Deputy Jack Honeybill, also the paid head of the Town Centre Partnership, played a part in the discussions resulting in a reduction of the Co-op’s Leale’s Yard development application, that would have been an error of judgement.

Now it has been confirmed that he did take an active part in the debate – but refrained from voting – it appears that he may be in breach of the States own rules designed to manage any such potential conflicts.

He emphatically denies that – anybody with a ‘special interest’ whether financial or not should declare it and withdraw from committee debate – saying that his interest is not special.

On the basis that ‘special’, in this context, means different from usual, it is hard to see how he can argue that being head of St Peter Port’s promotional wing means his level of interest in the well-being of Town – which could be affected by Leale’s Yard – is the same as that of the man in the street.

His colleague Jenny Tasker, senior St Peter Port constable and a director of the Co-op, declared an interest and withdrew, as was right and proper.

That he chose to stay gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, that he was determined, against what common sense alone would indicate was a ‘leave now’ situation, to have his say.

If it was to argue the case passionately in favour of the Co-op scheme in its entirety, that might be one thing.

As it is, Deputy Honeybill’s assertion that he had no special interest can only really be tested by Environment releasing the minutes of his involvement.

It may come to that, of course, if the society decides to appeal.

The real point of argument, however, is that it should never have come to this. So why did the chair of the board, the minister, allow even a suggestion of a breach of the rules on conflicts to occur?

In the circumstances, that also looks like an error of judgement and will further add to the Co-op’s sense of injustice.