By the end of today, the constables and douzaine of St Sampson’s should have complied with a Royal Court instruction to provide the developer of a 16-acre data park with the reasons why they refused to issue a permit for work to proceed within nine metres of the road.

That it took a court instruction to wring the information out of the douzaine is telling. Unless it has reason to doubt the validity of the decision it took, why try to keep hidden the basis on which the outcome was reached?

That question is all the more valid since Long Port, which is behind the multi-million-pound Guernsey Data Park Ltd scheme, already has all the permissions it needs from Environment to go ahead and the final obstacle is the parish withholding a 1930s bornement, which pre-dates the island’s planning legislation.

At the heart of this action is whether the douzaine acted reasonably and reached an evidence-based decision or whether members wanted to scupper a development for other reasons.

And the significance of the application by Guernsey Data Park to the Royal Court is potentially greater than that.

Although the douzaine theoretically has the power to block a development that has been through the proper government channels, it is also arguing that the Royal Court has no power to set aside the refusal to grant a bornement.

That would be an interesting situation: a parish council that can take secret decisions affecting a property owner’s rights with no immediate right of appeal or challenge…

There are, of course, others who have an interest in this matter. St Sampson’s douzaine is not being represented in court by HM Procureur, suggesting this is not a matter affecting the Crown or a public sector body.

In turn, this implies that St Sampson’s ratepayers are being called on to defend a decision that they know nothing about and that has the potential to set them back at a rate of £350 per hour plus costs.

Unsurprisingly, the Deputy Bailiff urged the parties to resolve matters before they appear in front of him again on Friday.

And that, like the Policy Council and the covered-up cost of the fish dispute, is the only way St Sampson’s can keep the reasons for its refusal secret.