Hertsmere Local Plan opens after key sites removed

The Hertsmere Local Plan has reached formal publication after councillors agreed to release the proposed submission document for representations, while removing several previously considered development sites. The Regulation 19 period began on 8th October 2026 and closes on 19th November.

The decision followed an extraordinary Full Council meeting on 7th October, with the authority saying more than 6,000 responses had been received at the earlier Regulation 18 stage. Locations affected by the removal of candidate sites include Borehamwood, Potters Bar, Bushey and Radlett. The council has not said that all potential development in those places has been removed.

For residents, promoters and planning consultants, the important shift is from arguing about an emerging list of options to scrutinising the plan that Hertsmere intends to submit for independent examination. The council’s 8th October announcement confirms that representations at this stage should address legal compliance and soundness.

Hertsmere Local Plan: what changed before Regulation 19?

The new document follows an extensive Regulation 18 consultation earlier in 2026. Hertsmere sought views about the spatial strategy, development policies and a long list of potential housing and employment sites. That earlier exercise was about possible options, rather than a completed plan ready to be examined.

According to the council, the responses were considered before the latest document was agreed. Several sites in the four named settlements were removed. However, that high-level description does not identify every deleted site or establish the planning status of land elsewhere in the borough. An exact comparison requires the previous consultation schedules, the proposed submission policies map and individual allocation policies.

The council’s political position is that town-centre regeneration and making better use of brownfield land should be prioritised, while protecting Green Belt sites regarded as most valuable. Whether the chosen strategy adequately meets development needs and properly assesses reasonable alternatives is a matter for the evidence and, ultimately, independent examination.

Council leader Jeremy Newmark says a current plan is intended to secure homes and supporting infrastructure while giving the borough greater control over growth. Portfolio holder Nik Oakley emphasises making use of town-centre sites and directing attention to legal compliance and soundness during this consultation.

What can people say during the six-week consultation?

The Hertsmere Local Plan Regulation 19 stage is not a second unrestricted vote on every site suggested at Regulation 18. The published document is the version the authority proposes to submit. Representations can support or object to its legal compliance and whether the policies and overall strategy are sound. The evidence supporting those objections is often more influential than the number of identical submissions.

For example, a landowner seeking an allocation may wish to demonstrate that the proposed spatial strategy has not adequately assessed a reasonable alternative, or that an allocated site is unlikely to deliver the scale or timing of growth claimed. The relevant supporting material might include developable area, access, viability, infrastructure commitments and environmental constraints.

Residents commenting on the Hertsmere Local Plan should distinguish planning impacts capable of being evidenced from general opposition to development. Transport modelling, school capacity, flood-risk information, ecological impacts and infrastructure phasing may be relevant, but their significance depends on the particular evidence and policy requirements. A concise, substantiated representation is usually clearer than a generic complaint.

It is also possible to support the plan in part while seeking a specific modification. The question is not simply whether development should happen; it is whether the submitted plan provides a positively prepared, justified, effective and nationally consistent framework for deciding how development should come forward.

The deadline creates a tight examination route

The publication window closes on Thursday 19th November. The authority then intends to return to Full Council to consider the representations before deciding whether to submit the plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination. Submission is not automatic merely because the consultation has closed.

Hertsmere’s earlier draft plan information explains that submission by 31st December 2026 is necessary if the authority wants the plan considered under the older local plan-making arrangements. That leaves only a short interval between the representation deadline, committee reporting and any intended submission.

The government’s plan-making transition guidance explains the move towards the new system. Hertsmere is trying to progress an existing plan through the legacy route; it should not be confused with authorities beginning the newer 30-month process.

The eventual examining Inspector can recommend modifications, subject to the applicable legal and procedural requirements. The present announcement should not be described as plan adoption or approval of individual development applications. Current adopted policies continue to matter, alongside the weight properly attributable to emerging policies.

Housing needs versus the Green Belt

The underlying challenge remains how to accommodate the borough’s housing requirement while reconciling Green Belt policy, environmental constraints and the capacity of existing settlements. The council explains that nationally determined housing requirements have increased since earlier consultation exercises. Identifying fewer candidate sites does not, by itself, reduce that requirement.

A defensible strategy needs to show both why preferred locations are suitable and why alternatives were rejected. Brownfield intensification can help, but capacity estimates must take account of market demand, delivery rates, land assembly, existing uses and infrastructure. Similarly, a Green Belt site cannot be judged solely by its label without considering the applicable policy tests and the plan’s evidence base.

For development promoters, the proposed allocations and supporting trajectories deserve close reading. An attractive site on a map may prove incapable of delivering homes at the assumed rate. Conversely, a previously excluded site may still be relevant as an alternative if the evidence shows a material weakness in the published strategy.

What should planning teams check now?

First, obtain the proposed submission plan, current policies map, sustainability appraisal and any site assessment or infrastructure evidence published for this stage. These documents should be read together rather than relying on the press release or isolated allocation tables.

Second, identify which parts of the proposal have actually changed since Regulation 18. This includes housing numbers, phasing, boundaries, density assumptions, transport mitigations and policy wording. A published decision to remove several sites is useful news, but it does not provide a reliable substitute for a version-by-version comparison.

Third, prepare any representations against the relevant soundness or legal compliance issues, with clearly identified policies and evidence. Landowners and communities alike should check the council’s official submission procedure and make their responses by 19th November 2026, rather than assuming comments lodged earlier will automatically constitute Regulation 19 representations.

For wider context, see Planning Geek’s England planning coverage. Primary sources: Hertsmere Borough Council announcement, 8th October 2026; Hertsmere draft Local Plan background and timetable; and government transition guidance.