The Standards Board for England has ruled that Coun Clark – one of the lead developers in the Eco-town bid – broke council rules by failing to declare his prejudicial interest in the project.

But at last month's meeting, Coun Clark angered fellow councillors by refusing to say sorry for his behaviour, saying he did not think it warranted an apology.

The breach happened at the Rossington Parish Council meeting of January 8, 2008 – at which pandemonium ensued, after the Newsletter publicly revealed Coun Clark's status as a director of Rossington Hall Investments Ltd... one of the four lead developers of the original Eco-town bid.

Labour Party member Coun Clark spoke on the Eco-town issue at the January meeting despite the fact that Rossington Hall Investments owned
77 acres of the land earmarked for the development.

Parish clerk Steve Merriman submitted a complaint to the Standards Board – which has judged that because Coun Clark stood to benefit from the outcome of the bid he should have left the room when the matter was discussed and not tried to improperly influence decisions about it.

The Standards Board not only criticised Coun Clark for failing to declare a prejudicial interest in the Eco-town bid, but also said his involvement with bodies which form part of the Eco-town partnership – he chairs Rossington Development Trust and sits on Rossington Forward – also constituted a prejudicial interest.

But the board did not recommend that any action be taken against Coun Clark because it said that, at the meeting complained of, "the matters discussed were limited and the council resolved only to reiterate its existing housing policy".

The Standards Board published its judgement in November – but at the December meeting, other parish council members expressed their disgust both at Coun Clark's behaviour and at the Standards Board's lack of action.

Coun Diane Field said: "This makes me feel that if I break the rules I'll be OK, because they won't do anything."

Chairman Terry Wilde and others then asked Coun Clark for a public apology. But Coun Clark replied: "The matter I spoke on was a point of order or a point of information and was not relevant, and after a long discussion with the Standards Board they accepted that.

"I don't think asking on a point of order needs an apology."

Coun Bill Pagin said: "Mr Clark should give an apology because he knew what he was doing at the time. He knew he was in breach of his moral duty."

* Coun Clark has previously been found guilty of breaching the rules, when he failed to complete a register of interests by the required deadline during an earlier spell on the council in 2002 and 2003. But again, no sanction was taken because he had left the council in the meantime.