radlett.info

Regulation 19 · published October 2026

The final draft plan still puts 2,907 homes in Radlett.

Hertsmere has published the version of its Local Plan that it intends to send to an independent Planning Inspector. This page sets out what changed since the spring consultation, how close it comes to what this site asked for, where the plan looks weakest, and what residents can still do.

Representations close 11:59pm, Thursday 19 November 2026

What you can do → Was the response listened to?

At a glance

All four figures come from the Council's own Regulation 19 documents.

2,907

Homes planned for Radlett

The spring draft said 2,900. The final draft says 2,907, of which 2,635 are on five allocated sites at the edge of the town. (Reg 19 Table 13.1, p. 336; IDP Table 3-1.)

1,573

The new north-west site

The old SA3 and SA7 (1,162 homes) are merged with two new parcels into one site, HRA6. That is 411 more homes than before. (Reg 19 p. 600; Reg 19 HRA pp. 33–34.)

650

Home Farm, down from 1,040

And SA4 (450 homes south of Watford Road, at Battlers Green Farm) has been removed. (Reg 19 p. 595; Council FAQ.)

0

Traffic models published

The Council's transport study says modelling of the combined traffic impact will be done “prior to the submission” of the plan. None is on the evidence page. (Transport and Movement Assessment, paras 1.2.6, 6.1.1.)

What Regulation 19 is

The spring consultation (Regulation 18) asked for views on options and candidate sites. Regulation 19 is different.

  • This is the plan the Council wants adopted. It is published “in anticipation of Submission” to the Secretary of State. (Reg 19 para 1.13, p. 4.)
  • Comments now go to an independent Planning Inspector. They should say whether the plan is legally compliant and “sound”, and what change would make it sound. (Council Regulation 19 page.)
  • “Sound” has a legal meaning. NPPF para 36 sets four tests. The plan must be positively prepared (meets housing need), justified (a reasonable strategy based on proportionate evidence, having looked at alternatives), effective (deliverable over the plan period) and consistent with national policy. The plan will be examined against the December 2024 NPPF. (Reg 19 para 1.22 and footnote 2, p. 6.)
  • The overall housing number is not really up for debate. It now comes from the Government's standard method: 975 homes a year, at least 16,575 over 2026/27 to 2042/43. (Reg 19 Policy H1, p. 92.) The live questions are where the homes go, and whether the evidence supports that.

What happens next

  1. Representations close at 11:59pm on Thursday 19 November 2026.
  2. The plan goes back to Full Council for consideration.
  3. It is submitted to the Secretary of State with every representation and the evidence base.
  4. An Inspector examines it. The Inspector may ask representors for more information or invite them to public hearing sessions.
  5. The Inspector reports, with any “main modifications” needed to make the plan sound. The Council can then adopt it.

Sources: Council Regulation 19 page; Reg 19 para 1.32, pp. 9–10.

Was the response listened to?

In short: partly. Two of this site's asks moved our way. The biggest one moved the other way. The Radlett total did not change. See the changes on the map.

The spring consultation drew 4,566 individual responses and 3,904 template responses. Four of the five most-commented sites in the whole borough were in Radlett: Home Farm, SA4, SA3 and SA7. (Reg 18 Consultation Statement, p. 3 and para 5.1.4.)

The Council does not reply to each letter. It summarises the points made and gives a response to each theme. (Consultation Statement, Table 1 and Appendix D.) So the fairest test is to compare what was asked for with what the final draft says.

Radlett sites: spring draft, this site's ask, final draft
Site Spring draft (Reg 18) This site asked for Final draft (Reg 19) Verdict
SA3 — north of Watford Road, east of Kemprow (now part of HRA6) 972 About 150 (live letter) or 350 (balanced draft), on the eastern Crown Estate parcel only. Western parcel back to Green Belt. 972 Not taken up
SA7 — Starveacres (now part of HRA6) 190 Support 190, with a joint access plan for Watford Road. 350 Increased
Land off Oakridge Avenue (new, part of HRA6) — — 101 New
Land between SA7 and Hill Farm (new, part of HRA6) — — 150 New
North-west Radlett (HRA6) in total 1,162 About 340 to 540 1,573+ Moved the other way
SA4 — south of Watford Road, Battlers Green Farm 450 About 150, led by the County Council, with land kept for a Radlett secondary school. 0 Partly: homes removed, no school site
SA6 — Home Farm (now HRA5) 1,040 Up to 600, with the primary school, GP, country park and the Hertfordshire Way written into policy. 650+ Close on numbers Not on conditions
SA5 — south of Shenley Hill (now HRA4) 195 Support. Already permitted at appeal. 195 As expected
SA1 — Regency House, Watling Street 20 Support (town-centre brownfield). — Not allocated
SA2 — car park, Railway Cottages 37 Support, subject to flood-risk and station-parking conditions. — Not allocated
HRA2 — land south of Theobald Street (new) — — 95 New
HRA3 — land west of Watling Street (new, beside Home Farm) — — 122 New
Radlett allocations 2,904 About 1,350 to 1,540 2,635 Down 9%

Sources: Reg 18 site sheets, pp. 285–298; Reg 19 site sheets, pp. 583–603; Reg 19 Habitats Regulations Assessment screening table, pp. 33–34 (which breaks HRA6 into its four parcels); Council FAQ. “+” means the plan says “at least”. Radlett's headline figure of 2,907 also counts small sites, windfall and existing permissions (IDP Table 3-1).

Other things this site asked for
The ask What the final draft does Verdict
Publish the missing flood, water and transport evidence before Reg 19 A Transport and Movement Assessment (July 2026) and an updated Infrastructure Delivery Plan are published. The Level 2 flood study (June 2026) and a Water Cycle Study (September 2026) are cited, but neither is on the evidence page. The combined traffic modelling has not been done. Partly
Bring forward more homes at Bowmans Cross Up from 500 to 2,500 within the plan period. But this replaced cuts in Borehamwood and Potters Bar. It did not relieve Radlett. Yes, but not for Radlett
Secure a secondary school site for Radlett The Infrastructure Delivery Plan says a new 6–8 form-entry secondary school is needed, “to be located in Radlett/Bushey/Rural West”. No site is allocated. SA4, the County Council land the spring evidence linked to public benefits, has gone. Not resolved
Write primary schools and health into the big-site policies The Infrastructure Delivery Plan names a new primary school at both the north-west site and Home Farm, and asks for a health-facility option at both. The site policies only say developers “will work collaboratively” to “determine the requirements”. Partly
A buffer around the SA3 Local Wildlife Site, and protected-species surveys before allocation HRA6 requires the Local Wildlife Site to be retained and “integrated”. A general 10m buffer (15m for woodland) applies to retained priority habitats. Surveys are left to the planning-application stage. Partly
Protect the heritage settings and the Hertfordshire Way at Home Farm Heritage assets are now named, including the grade II* building at Battlers Green Farm. The Hertfordshire Way is not mentioned. Partly

Sources: IDP (Reg 19, October 2026), Education and Health sections; Reg 19 paras 17.77, 17.79, 17.92–17.93, 17.97 and Policy GI4; Reg 19 Appendix 5; Transport and Movement Assessment; Reg 19 HRA paras 5.5.7, 6.1.2; Reg 19 para 11.54.

Why Radlett's number did not fall

The Council has not explained the Radlett figure on its own. What the documents show is this. The housing need fell slightly, to 975 a year, but the plan now runs for 17 years, not 15. At the same time the Council removed large sites elsewhere after objections, including 3,750 homes at Well End near Borehamwood. (Reg 19 Policy H1; Council FAQ.)

Homes on allocated sites, by area
Area Spring draft Final draft Change
Borehamwood8,0003,413−57%
Potters Bar5,0003,049−39%
Bushey3,0002,793−7%
Radlett2,9002,635−9%
Bowmans Cross (in plan period)5002,500+400%

Sources: Reg 18 Table 12.1, p. 129 (described there as illustrative); IDP (Reg 19) Table 3-1.

Radlett's share of allocated homes rose from about 15% to about 18%. Radlett is a Category III “small town” in the plan's own hierarchy, with about 8,300 residents. Bushey, a Tier 2 town of about 27,500, gets 2,793 allocated homes. Radlett gets 2,635. (Reg 19 para 17.1; IDP settlement hierarchy and Table 3-1; Transport and Movement Assessment paras 3.3.14, 3.3.28.)

What this means for the argument

In the spring, this site argued Radlett could be cut because the plan had about 5,240 homes to spare. That cushion has gone. The final draft has about 317 homes more than it needs over 17 years (supply 16,892 against a requirement of 16,575). (Reg 19 Appendix 5, p. 669.)

An Inspector will not simply delete homes from Radlett. A case for fewer homes here now has to do one of two things: show that the Radlett sites cannot be delivered as planned, or show where else the homes could go.

The Radlett sites in the final draft

The sites have new names: HRA2 to HRA6. HRA1 is a policy for Radlett town centre and allocates no specific number of homes.

Regulation 19 site allocations in Radlett
Site Homes When (plan years; year 1 is 2026/27) Main constraints recorded by the Council
HRA2 Land south of Theobald Street
3.16 ha, open farmland. New.		 95 All in years 1–5 Protected trees; some flood risk in the south-west corner; near listed buildings and Radlett South Conservation Area. Pre-application enquiry 26/0216/PA1.
HRA3 Land west of Watling Street
11.85 ha, arable. New.		 122 All in years 6–10 Protected trees; next to Cobdenhill Dell Local Wildlife Site; surface-water flood risk. To be planned with Home Farm, with shared access from Watling Street and Cobden Hill.
HRA4 Land south of Shenley Hill
8.7 ha, arable. Was SA5.		 195 All in years 1–5 Outline permission allowed on appeal in March 2026: 50% affordable, land for Newberries Primary School to expand, and a medical centre. The wood along Theobald Street is a Local Wildlife Site.
HRA5 Home Farm
45.2 ha, farmland. Was SA6.		 650+ 300 in years 6–10; 350 in years 11–17 Protected trees; land mapped as important for nature in the county's Local Nature Recovery Strategy; listed buildings at Battlers Green Farm (including grade II*) and Kendal House Farm. A new environmental impact scoping request, 26/0962/EI2, is pending.
HRA6 Northwest Radlett
68.81 ha, farmland and woodland. Was SA3 and SA7, plus new land.		 1,573+ 151 in years 1–5; 822 in years 6–10; 600 in years 11–17 A Local Wildlife Site inside the boundary; protected trees; land mapped as important for nature; “medium/high landscape sensitivity”; the northern part within 400m of Blackbirds Farm sewage works.

Sources: Reg 19 site sheets, pp. 583–603; Reg 19 Appendix 5 (housing trajectory), p. 669.

The numbers are minimums. The plan says site capacities “should not generally be treated as absolute maxima”, and proposals for more homes “will be supported” if they meet other policies. The Home Farm and north-west policies ask masterplans to consider how capacity “can be optimised to deliver … higher density homes”. (Reg 19 para 13.22, p. 335; paras 17.71 and 17.89.)

Where the plan is likely wrong, or needs more evidence

Each point below names the soundness test it engages and a change an Inspector could make. These are the points most likely to matter at examination.

1. The traffic impact of the Radlett sites together has not been tested

The Council's own infrastructure plan records “severe congestion on Watling Street A5183 southbound north of Radlett – stretching as far back as Colney Street”, affecting Harper Lane, plus congestion on Park Road, Theobald Street and Hartspring Lane. It calls Radlett “the only major settlement with no direct strategic road link”. (IDP, Reg 19, Highways.)

The transport study was based on the March 2026 site list, which “has now been superseded”. It says “transport mitigation requirements for sites have not been considered at this stage”, and leaves the combined modelling until “prior to the submission”. (Transport and Movement Assessment, paras 1.2.5, 5.1.11, 6.1.1.) So the 1,573-home north-west site, and the two new sites, have not been assessed at all.

For the old SA3 alone (972 homes), the study expected about 530 vehicle trips in the morning peak hour. It found “strong relative connectivity by driving and poor relative connectivity by walking”. Using the study's own rate (0.545 trips per home), the 1,573-home site would generate about 860 vehicle trips in the morning peak hour, from this one site. (TMA proforma, Land on Watford Road (north).)

The site policies leave developers to “gain an understanding of the cumulative traffic impacts” at the masterplanning stage, after the land is allocated. (Reg 19 paras 17.78, 17.95.)

Tests
Justified and effective (NPPF 36(b), (c)); consistent with NPPF 109, 115(d), 116 and 148.
Change to ask for
Publish the modelling for the actual Regulation 19 sites and consult on it before submission. Make later phases of HRA5 and HRA6 depend on named road and junction improvements being delivered first. Treat the Radlett capacities as maximums.

2. The plan's strategy for Radlett contradicts its own allocations

The plan says Radlett will take “more modest and incremental growth than the Borough's larger settlements”, “primarily through the sensitive redevelopment of previously developed land, infill development, small-site opportunities”. It aims for “careful evolution rather than major transformation”. (Reg 19 paras 17.9–17.10, p. 572; Key Spatial Objectives 1–2, p. 576.)

In practice about 91% of Radlett's 2,907 homes are on five urban extensions onto farmland. Both town-centre brownfield sites from the spring draft have gone. The Council's own engagement for Radlett found that “growth should be incremental and controlled”. (IDP Table 3-1; Radlett Key Themes and Priorities Report, October 2026.)

Radlett, with about 8,300 residents, is given 2,635 allocated homes; Bushey, with about 27,500, is given 2,793. The 2021 Census counted 3,189 households in Radlett, so 2,907 new homes is growth of about 90%. Aldenham Parish Council told the Council the same: “over 90%”. (TMA paras 3.3.14, 3.3.28; IDP Table 3-1; ONS Census 2021 TS041, area E02004900; Consultation Statement para 6.7.2.)

Tests
Justified (NPPF 36(b)) — the strategy and the allocations do not match. Policy HBF1(c) itself asks for an “appropriate and proportionate scale” in Radlett.
Change to ask for
Reduce HRA6 so that Radlett's growth matches the plan's own description of it, and name where the difference goes (see the box below).

3. The north-west site grew by 411 homes with no published reason

The spring Sustainability Appraisal said: “If Site 4 were to be removed then there would also be a case for removing the western part of Site 3”, because it “would not relate well to the settlement edge”. (Reg 18 SA para 5.4.62.) Site 4 has now been removed. The western part of Site 3 has not. Instead SA7 rose from 190 to 350 homes and two new parcels were added.

The HRA6 policy even describes the site as “located to the south of Radlett”, a sentence copied from the Home Farm policy. (Reg 19 para 17.87, p. 601.)

The plan says a Sustainability Appraisal has been published for this stage. On 8 October 2026 the appraisal on the Council's evidence page was the same file as the spring version. (Reg 19 para 1.18; evidence page.)

Tests
Justified (NPPF 36(b)) — reasonable alternatives, including the smaller 2021 footprint, are not shown to have been tested. Legal compliance — plans must be informed by a sustainability appraisal (NPPF 33).
Change to ask for
Remove the western (Cemex) part of the old SA3 and the two new parcels, or publish an appraisal that justifies them against the alternatives.

4. Schools and GP capacity are identified but not secured

The infrastructure plan says Radlett's growth needs 4 forms of entry of primary places and 3 of secondary. The County Council has identified a new 2-form-entry primary school at the north-west site, a 2–3 form-entry primary school at Home Farm, and a new 6–8 form-entry secondary school “to be located in Radlett/Bushey/Rural West”. (IDP, Reg 19, Education.)

Radlett and Shenley GP practices already lack capacity for around 6,770 patients. The local NHS integrated care board says the Red House Surgery's position “will become unsustainable without significant investment and expansion”, and wants an option for an on-site health facility at both large sites. (IDP, Reg 19, Primary healthcare.)

Yet the Home Farm and north-west policies reserve no land for schools or health. They say only that developers “will work collaboratively with the education authority … to determine the requirements”. No secondary school site is identified anywhere. (Reg 19 paras 17.79, 17.97.)

For balance: the forecast spare primary capacity in Radlett has improved since the spring, to 1.3 forms of entry by 2030-31. That is still well short of what the plan's own figures say the new homes need.

Tests
Effective (NPPF 36(c)); NPPF 20(c) and 35 require plans to make provision for education and health.
Change to ask for
Allocate land for the named primary schools and a health facility within HRA5 and HRA6. Identify and safeguard a secondary school site before confirming Radlett's allocations. Tie occupation of later phases to delivery.

5. Key evidence is cited but not published

On 8 October 2026 the Council's evidence page did not include:

  • a Regulation 19 Sustainability Appraisal (the link opens the spring version);
  • the Water Cycle Study (September 2026), which the Council said “will be published with the Regulation 19 draft Local Plan” (Consultation Statement, Appendix D, p. 210);
  • the Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (June 2026), described in the plan as “prepared and published” (Reg 19 para 11.54);
  • any combined traffic modelling.

At the spring stage Natural England urged the Council to gather outstanding evidence and update its appraisals, warning that failure to do so “may risk the Plan being found unsound at examination”. (Consultation Statement para 6.10.1.)

Tests
Legal compliance; justified (NPPF 32, 33, 36(b)).
Change to ask for
Publish the documents now. If they appear part-way through the six weeks, extend the period so residents can comment on them.

6. Water supply is already stretched

According to the Council's Habitats Regulations Assessment, the Water Cycle Study finds Hertsmere is “within an area of serious water stress”. It finds the plan's growth exceeds the water company's planning assumptions by “approximately 11,000 dwellings”. Affinity Water says it has measures to cope. (Reg 19 HRA paras 5.5.7, 6.1.2.) Sewer capacity is left to planning applications. The plan accepts it is “not possible to identify all the infrastructure required over the Plan period”. (Reg 19 para 11.59.)

Tests
Effective (NPPF 36(c)).
Change to ask for
Publish the Water Cycle Study. Phase HRA5 and HRA6 to confirmed water and wastewater capacity.

7. Heritage at the north-west site is not named

The Council's Green Belt study places the old SA3 within the setting of five grade II listed buildings. It says this “potentially provides a strong reason for refusing or restricting development”, though mitigation may be possible. The HRA6 policy names none of them. The Home Farm and Watling Street policies do name their heritage assets. (Green Belt Assessment Stage 2, October 2026; Reg 19 paras 17.48, 17.77, 17.90.)

Tests
Consistent with national policy (NPPF 203, 208, 212–213).
Change to ask for
Name the listed buildings in HRA6 and set specific requirements for their settings.

8. The numbers and the monitoring do not line up

  • The plan's total is 16,575 in Policy H1, 16,893 in Table 13.1, 16,892 in Appendix 5, and “at least 17,460” in monitoring indicator LPI 28, which leaves the Radlett figure blank. (pp. 92, 336, 669, 631.)
  • The indicator for strategic transport schemes points to “Table 11.1”, which is a table of carbon offset payments, and to an “Appendix X” of the infrastructure plan. (LPI 25, p. 631; p. 271.)
  • HRA5 and HRA6 are called “strategic urban extensions” but are labelled non-strategic policies. Non-strategic policies are tested “in a proportionate way”. (Reg 19 pp. 595, 600, Appendix 3; NPPF 37.)
Tests
Effective (NPPF 36(c)).
Change to ask for
Correct the figures. Add a Radlett indicator that tracks homes delivered against roads, schools and GP capacity delivered.

Two points that cut both ways

There is little spare supply. Any homes taken out of Radlett have to be found elsewhere. The plan itself names two large brownfield sites it has not counted: the Tesco store in Borehamwood and Sainsbury's in Potters Bar, which “remain as opportunities that could come forward”. Bowmans Cross has capacity for 5,000 homes, with 2,500 counted in the plan period. (Reg 19 para 3.10, p. 29; Appendix 5.)

The first five years are already short. The plan's own trajectory shows 4,524 homes in years 1–5 against a requirement of 5,850. That is a genuine weakness, but arguing it could push an Inspector towards more early sites, not fewer. Radlett has 441 homes in years 1–5 (HRA2, HRA4 and the first phase of HRA6). (Reg 19 Appendix 5, p. 669; NPPF 72, 78.)

Wildlife and the natural environment

The final draft strengthens some borough-wide wildlife policies. It still leaves the hardest questions about Radlett's sites to the planning-application stage.

What is better

  • 20% biodiversity net gain, double the legal minimum of 10%. (Policy GI4(I), p. 237.)
  • The county's Local Nature Recovery Strategy is written into each allocation, with site-level actions. (Policy GI3; para 10.20.)
  • Buffers for retained priority habitats: at least 10m, or 15m for woodland, where protected species are likely. (Policy GI4(B).)
  • Home Farm and land west of Watling Street list specific habitat work: grassland and heathland to the west, linking ponds in the south-east, new broadleaved woodland around Moses Dell. (paras 17.52, 17.75.)
  • The north-west site's Local Wildlife Site must be retained and “integrated”, with protected trees. (paras 17.92–17.93.)

What is still missing

  • No specific buffer for the Local Wildlife Site inside HRA6. In September the Council said it “will consider” buffer zones for allocations containing or next to Local Wildlife Sites. HRA6 has none beyond the general rule. This site asked for 50m. (Consultation Statement, Appendix D, p. 155.)
  • Protected species, including great crested newts, are left to applications. Survey information is required “at the time the application is submitted”. The newt is recorded in the wider Kemprow and Aldenham area. (Reg 19 para 10.26; newt records: see Sources.)
  • The Habitats Regulations Assessment covers only European protected sites. It screens out every Radlett site because none is near one. It does not consider species on the sites themselves. (Reg 19 HRA, pp. 33–34.)
  • Land mapped as important for nature is allocated for housing. Home Farm and the north-west site include areas the Local Nature Recovery Strategy marks as of particular importance for biodiversity. Policy GI3 asks development to avoid harm to such areas. (Site sheets pp. 594, 599; Policy GI3(B)(i).)
  • Good farmland. The spring appraisal called Home Farm “likely an area of better quality agricultural land”. One representation states the old SA3 is 58% grade 2 and 32% grade 3a. No site-level soil survey is on the evidence page. (Reg 18 SA para 5.4.59; Consultation Statement para 6.3.3; NPPF 187(b), footnote 65.)
  • The Hertfordshire Way, the long-distance path through Home Farm, is not mentioned in the Home Farm policy. (Reg 18 SA para 5.4.59; Reg 19 pp. 594–598.)
  • Landscape. The north-west site has “medium/high landscape sensitivity to most development types”. (Site sheet, p. 600.)

Changes to ask for

  • A defined buffer around the Local Wildlife Site in HRA6, and areas mapped as of particular importance for biodiversity kept out of the built area.
  • Site-wide protected-species surveys, including for great crested newts, required before any masterplan is approved, and published.
  • The Hertfordshire Way named in the Home Farm policy and kept on a green corridor.
  • Published agricultural land evidence for HRA5 and HRA6 (NPPF 187(b) and footnote 65 prefer poorer-quality land).

Policy references are to the Reg 19 plan. NPPF 188 asks plans to “allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value”; NPPF 192 asks them to safeguard local wildlife sites and the corridors between them.

What you can do

Regulation 19 is narrower than the spring consultation, but it is the main chance for residents to put points directly in front of the Inspector. (There may be a later consultation on any main modifications.)

Deadline: 11:59pm, Thursday 19 November 2026

  1. Make a representation

    Respond online on the Council's Commonplace page, or on the Council's representation form by email or post. The Council says the details are in its publication documents and guidance notes. Every representation goes to the Inspector.

  2. Write it as a soundness point

    For each point, say:

    • which policy or paragraph (for example, HRA6, para 17.95);
    • which test it fails: positively prepared, justified, effective, or consistent with national policy, or that it is not legally compliant;
    • the evidence, with a page or paragraph reference;
    • the change that would make it sound.

    One issue per point is clearer than one long letter. A specific point with a proposed change is more useful to an Inspector than a general objection.

    An example of the format (please write your own):

    Policy HRA6, paras 17.85 and 17.95. Not justified or effective (NPPF 36(b), (c)). The Transport and Movement Assessment (July 2026) used the March 2026 site list. It says mitigation “has not been considered at this stage” (para 5.1.11) and leaves cumulative modelling until before submission (para 6.1.1). HRA6 at 1,573 homes has not been tested. Change sought: publish modelling for the Regulation 19 sites and consult on it; make phases of HRA6 beyond the first 151 homes conditional on named improvements to Watford Road and Watling Street.

  3. Use your own words and your own experience

    Your morning queue on Watling Street or Theobald Street, waiting times at your GP, the wildlife you see on the fields: these are useful when tied to a planning point such as traffic (NPPF 116), health and school capacity (NPPF 20, 35) or biodiversity (NPPF 192). Each representation is a separate representation in law, so personal detail is worth including. Effects on house prices are not a planning matter, so leave them out.

  4. Say if you want to take part in the hearings

    The Inspector may invite representors to the public hearing sessions. If you are asking for a change, say whether you would like to take part.

  5. Talk to your borough councillors before the Full Council vote

    After 19 November the plan goes back to Full Council before it is submitted. Councillors can be asked to press for the missing evidence, and for the school, GP and road conditions, before they vote.

  6. Ask for the missing evidence now

    Write to the planning policy team asking when the Water Cycle Study, the Level 2 flood assessment, the Regulation 19 Sustainability Appraisal and the traffic modelling will be published. If they appear late, ask for more time to comment.

  7. Work with others who made detailed points

    Organisations that made detailed Radlett submissions in the spring include Aldenham Parish Council (including a transport technical note) and the Radlett Society and Green Belt Association. (Consultation Statement paras 6.4.11, 6.7.2.) Points that are well evidenced are worth repeating at this stage.

  8. Watch for planning applications

    An allocation is not a planning permission. Each site will still need one, and residents can comment on every application. Two are already moving: a new environmental impact scoping request for Home Farm (26/0962/EI2) and a pre-application enquiry for land south of Theobald Street (26/0216/PA1).

What this site asked for in the spring

Kept for the record. The spring consultation closed on 29 May 2026.

This site's Regulation 18 position
SiteAskMain reason
SA1 Regency House (20)SupportTown-centre brownfield.
SA2 Railway Cottages car park (37)Support with conditionsBrownfield, but partly in Flood Zones 2 and 3; station parking to be replaced.
SA3 north of Watford Road (972)About 150 (live letter) or 350 (balanced draft), eastern parcel onlyThe appraisal said the western parcel “would not relate very well to the settlement edge”; Local Wildlife Site and protected trees on site; Watford Road traffic.
SA4 south of Watford Road (450)About 150, with secondary-school landBattlers Green heritage setting; archaeology; County Council land suited to public benefits.
SA5 south of Shenley Hill (195)SupportPermitted at appeal in March 2026.
SA6 Home Farm (1,040)Up to 600, with infrastructure in policyThe promoter's own scheme was for 600; single access; better-quality farmland; Hertfordshire Way; listed buildings.
SA7 Starveacres (190)Support, with a joint access planSafeguarded for housing since 2013.
Radlett total (2,904)About 1,350 to 1,540Use the borough's then spare supply and bring forward Bowmans Cross.

The full spring letter is kept as an archive. It should not be sent now: Regulation 19 representations need to be framed around soundness, as above.

Sources

All checked on 8 October 2026. Page numbers are the printed page numbers in each document.

“About 860 vehicle trips in the morning peak hour” is this site's calculation: the Transport and Movement Assessment's own rate of 0.545 vehicle trips per home in the morning peak hour, applied to 1,573 homes. The assessment itself did not test HRA6.