‘I hope we can work together’ - DPA president

Deputy Taylor said he was resigning on the morning of the Leale’s Yard open planning meeting in November, at which the DPA granted outline planning permission to the Co-op for 338 homes, as well as car parking, retail and commercial floorspace, and it was expected that he would blow the whistle on, and the lid off, the DPA in a resignation statement in the States on Wednesday.

But at the last minute, without telling colleagues, he changed his mind and decided to stay on the authority, and made his claims in writing instead.

‘As Deputy Taylor has now withdrawn his resignation, as a professional person, I hope these matters can be put behind us and that we can continue to work constructively together in delivering the often challenging mandate of the DPA,’ said Deputy Oliver, who strongly denied any wrongdoing.

• Listen: Simon De La Rue and Chloe Presland round up the second day of this week's States meeting

In a letter issued to the media this week, Deputy Taylor made accusations about Deputy Oliver’s handling of the Leale’s Yard application, stating that she met with the applicant privately. He also said that she knew he was being evicted from his coffee shop in the Market Buildings a month before he was informed.

Deputy Taylor faced his own accusations of an undeclared conflict of interest over the Briarwood housing application, as it emerged his mother worked next door.

In his letter, he referred to ‘frivolous allegations of misconduct’, and said it was this that led to him deciding to stay on the committee to scrutinise it.

Deputy Oliver responded yesterday, rejecting any suggestion that she had conflicts of interest over Leale’s Yard. She said the person who proposed her had been involved with the applicant in the past, but that person had no connection with the application.

‘I also took legal advice from St James Chambers which confirmed on the facts that I had no conflict of interest that would have prevented me from participating in the open planning meeting for Leale’s Yard,’ she said.

‘Regarding meetings with the applicant, I met them once at their request at Sir Charles Frossard House when I confirmed to them that an open planning meeting for the application was required. I was accompanied by a senior officer and notes of the meeting were made in the normal way.

‘There was no reason to specifically appraise Deputy Taylor of this meeting which was routine to the work of the president for the DPA.

‘I also attended a meeting where the applicant was also present, along with numerous other deputies and senior officers. The Leale’s Yard application was not the subject of that meeting.’

She added that she had become aware of the potential legal threat to Deputy Taylor’s business, and a conversation exchange was overheard by a colleague, who told Deputy Taylor. She apologised to him in committee, she said.

Overall, she added, she was disappointed and saddened that Deputy Taylor had raised his issues in the way he had.