The Council has published its final draft Local Plan (Regulation 19). It would add about 90% more homes to the town. Here is what changed since the spring, where the plan contradicts itself, when building would happen, and what you can still do before 19 November 2026.
Each of these is taken from the Council's own published documents — not from us, and not from any campaign group.
The 2021 Census counted 3,189 households in Radlett. The final draft plans 2,907 more homes — almost unchanged from the spring's 2,900. Aldenham Parish Council reached the same figure: "over 90%". (ONS Census 2021, TS041; Reg 19 Table 13.1, p. 336.)
The old SA3 and SA7 have been merged with new land into one site, HRA6 — 411 more homes than in the spring. It contains a Local Wildlife Site and protected trees. (Reg 19 pp. 599–600.)
The combined traffic impact of the Radlett sites has not been modelled. The Council's transport study says this will be done before the plan is submitted. (Transport and Movement Assessment, para 6.1.1.)
Switch between the spring draft (Regulation 18) and the final draft (Regulation 19) to see the new names, the removals and the new land.
Sources: Reg 18 site sheets, pp. 285–298; Reg 19 site sheets, pp. 583–603; Reg 19 Habitats Regulations Assessment, pp. 33–34 (HRA6 parcels); Council FAQ (SA4 removal).
The Council's own words, set against its own numbers. These gaps are the strongest material for a Regulation 19 representation, because the Inspector has to test whether the plan is justified and effective.
The plan says
Radlett "will accommodate a more modest and incremental growth than the Borough's larger settlements."
What it does
About 90% more homes. Radlett, with about 8,300 residents, gets 2,635 homes on allocated sites; Bushey, with about 27,500, gets 2,793. Borehamwood's allocations were cut by more than half; Radlett's by under a tenth.
Reg 19 para 17.9; IDP Table 3-1; Transport and Movement Assessment paras 3.3.14, 3.3.28; Reg 18 Table 12.1.
The plan says
Growth in Radlett will come "primarily through the sensitive redevelopment of previously developed land, infill development, small-site opportunities."
What it does
About 91% of Radlett's 2,907 homes are on five extensions onto farmland. Both town-centre brownfield sites from the spring draft have been dropped.
Reg 19 para 17.9; site sheets pp. 583–603; IDP Table 3-1.
The Council says
"After listening to local feedback, we've removed the plan for 450 new homes at Battlers Green Farm."
What it does
It added 628 homes elsewhere in Radlett: two new sites (217 homes) and a north-west site enlarged by 411. Radlett's allocations fell by only 269 overall.
Council FAQ; Reg 19 site sheets; Reg 19 Habitats Regulations Assessment, pp. 33–34.
The spring evidence said
"If Site 4 were to be removed then there would also be a case for removing the western part of Site 3", as it "would not relate well to the settlement edge."
What it does
Site 4 has been removed. The western part of Site 3 has been kept, at the same 972 homes, inside a larger 1,573-home site.
Reg 18 Sustainability Appraisal para 5.4.62; Reg 19 p. 600.
The Council says
"Every potential site has been tested against the evidence we've been collecting – flood risk, transport, infrastructure…"
What it does
Its transport study says "transport mitigation requirements for sites have not been considered at this stage". The combined traffic impact is to be modelled later, before submission.
Council FAQ; Transport and Movement Assessment paras 5.1.11, 6.1.1.
Its infrastructure plan says
Radlett's growth needs new primary schools at the north-west site and at Home Farm, a new secondary school, and more GP space.
What it does
The site policies reserve no land for any of them. Developers "will work collaboratively with the education authority … to determine the requirements".
IDP (Reg 19), Education and Primary healthcare; Reg 19 paras 17.79, 17.97.
The plan stages are the Council's own target dates. The homes are the Council's own housing trajectory, site by site.
Sources: Reg 18 Consultation Statement, p. 3 and Figure 5 (p. 125); Council Regulation 19 page.
Homes the Council expects on each allocated site, in each period of the plan. Sites are listed in the order they are expected to start.
| Site and where it stands now | 2026–31plan years 1–5 | 2031–36plan years 6–10 | 2036–43plan years 11–17 |
|---|---|---|---|
| HRA4 Land south of Shenley HillOutline permission granted on appeal, March 2026. Next: detailed design ("reserved matters") applications. | |||
| HRA2 Land south of Theobald StreetPre-application talks already held (26/0216/PA1). Next: a full planning application. | |||
| HRA6 Northwest RadlettNo application yet. All landowners must work to one site-wide masterplan. The Crown Estate and Cemex told the Council they could build early. | |||
| HRA3 Land west of Watling StreetNo application yet. Must be planned together with Home Farm. | |||
| HRA5 Home FarmEnvironmental impact scoping request pending (26/0962/EI2), normally the step before a major application. The promoters say an outline application is being prepared. | |||
| All allocated sites | 441441 by 2031 | 1,2441,685 by 2036 | 9502,635 by 2043 |
Sources: Reg 19 Appendix 5 (housing trajectory), p. 669; Reg 19 site sheets, pp. 583–603; Reg 18 Consultation Statement paras 6.11.5, 6.13.26, 6.13.28. Plan years run April to March; year 1 is 2026/27. Bars share one scale. A further 272 homes are expected from small sites, windfall and existing permissions, not broken down by year (IDP Table 3-1).
Applications do not have to wait for the plan. Developers can apply at any time. Before adoption, the Council can give weight to the draft plan, and more weight the fewer unresolved objections there are (NPPF para 49). That is one reason Regulation 19 representations matter.
The Shenley Hill homes were allowed on appeal in March 2026, before any new plan. The Council itself warns that without an up-to-date plan, development is "more likely to be managed through appeal-led decisions" (Reg 19 para 1.4).
The spring draft identified seven candidate sites (SA1–SA7). This is the position this site took at the time. The final draft has renamed and reshaped them — the Regulation 19 update compares the two.
These are the least controversial allocations: Regency House (extant permission), Railway Cottages car park (brownfield, but in Flood Zones 2 and 3), and the Shenley Hill site whose appeal was allowed in March 2026 with 50% affordable plus school and medical-centre land safeguarded.
Now: SA5 is kept as HRA4 (195 homes). SA1 and SA2 are no longer allocated.
The four large sites between Watford Road, Watling Street and the surrounding countryside. SA3 (972 homes) contains a Local Wildlife Site and TPO trees. SA6 (1,040 homes) sits on Grade 2 agricultural land with listed-building settings and the Hertfordshire Way running through. SA4 (450 homes) is HCC land that could deliver Radlett's missing secondary school. SA7 (190 homes) is safeguarded land already.
Now: SA4 has been removed and Home Farm cut to 650. SA3 and SA7 have been merged with new land and enlarged to 1,573.
The Council's own Infrastructure Delivery Plan records existing AM-peak congestion "stretching as far back as Colney Street," with knock-on effects on Harper Lane (the M25 route from Radlett). Three of the largest sites would all empty onto the same approximately 1.5km of Watford Road — engaging the "severe residual cumulative impacts" test in NPPF para 116. No Transport & Movement Assessment had been published at that stage.
Now: a Transport and Movement Assessment has been published, but the combined traffic modelling has not.
The Council has published the plan it intends to submit for examination. Comments now go to an independent Planning Inspector, and should be about whether the plan is legally compliant and sound. Against what this site asked for in the spring:
The spring (Reg 18) consultation was the moment when residents could shape which sites were allocated and at what scale. Regulation 19 is narrower: it tests whether the plan is sound. It is still the main chance to put points in front of the Inspector before the plan is adopted.
During the spring consultation a campaign — save-hertsmere.com — circulated a "one-click" template that supported building out SA3 and SA7 while refusing SA4 and SA6. We thought that trade was the wrong one. It rested on a "community consensus" claim that no-one documented and that Radlett residents publicly disputed.
In the spring, the Council's own Sustainability Appraisal, Infrastructure Delivery Plan, and Green Belt Assessment supported a more honest reading:
This site lays out the planning evidence in one place, so you can decide for yourself.