My own experience shows that, whilst the councillors could have pulled the process and added in a heights and views policy after the Reg 18 consultation, they would probably have had to go back through the loop and consult again on Reg 18, meaning that none of the other Development Management policies would have been ready for adoption before these local elections. The dye was, in all probability, cast by Cllr Harwood.

Further to this, though, I had taken note of the revisions to the council’s Executive and the LDS identification of the roles in the preparation of the Development Management Plan sets out that the management of that process sits with: “the Corporate Management Team, [and] the lead councillor for Planning, [and] the Local Plan Panel will consider draft documents prior to consultations”.

It is not immediately clear from the outside who was on the Local Plan Panel, but it has been described as comprising: “cross-party representation of members and is designed to act as a sounding board in the development of the Local Plan.”

Meetings with the Local Plan Panel have facilitated discussion between officers and members regarding the scope of the document and the wording of policies within the draft plan.”

What is clear from Cllr Hunt’s nudge and further analysis, is that a heights policy was not blocked by Cllr Hunt, and that plenty of councillors from across the chamber were disinclined at first to adopt a heights and views policy but have since changed their minds.

I have seen heights and views policies that work well and that can be policed using the Vu.City tool that planning officers in Guildford have available to them.

There does not appear to be an express culpability in any individual party or group – and maybe not even with any individual councillor once the die was cast after the Reg 18 Consultation.

This broadly means that all councillors should have borne the responsibility for the suite of policies, adopted and emerging, that informed the North Street application.  In fact, it is most likely the over-allocation of the site in the Strategic Sites Local Plan (adopted just before the last election) that led to the 750-unit scheme, before it was negotiated down.

The upshot of this matter is that I am even clearer than I had been before that there is more to do to make processes more transparent and that the consequences of the mud-slinging we have seen are (1) it will almost certainly affect the way some people vote and may affect the result in this election; and (2) the aggressive use of social media in an election campaign demands almost instant responses which make it difficult to deliver fully-considered replies, and which is deeply unfair to and disrespectful of the electorate and other candidates.

Once again, therefore, I apologise to Cllr Hunt for any distortion of the facts in this matter and trust that my comments will not have been taken in bad faith and that my unreserved apology is accepted in the spirit it is intended.