North Herts Local Plan proposes 45dph town centre floor

The North Herts Local Plan is proposing a minimum density of 45 dwellings per hectare for larger housing schemes in Baldock, Hitchin, Letchworth Garden City and Royston town centres. The proposal appears in a detailed October 2026 consultation document, with formal public representations invited from 13th October.

North Hertfordshire Council also proposes 40 dwellings per hectare across wider town areas and urban extensions, and 30 in larger villages. These are consultation-stage thresholds, not adopted requirements. They would normally apply to residential schemes of more than ten homes, calculated against the net developable area.

The council’s 163-page evidence document puts density alongside the future of grey belt land, a housing requirement of about 1,036 homes a year, and difficult choices over affordable housing. The consultation closes on 24th November 2026, making it relevant now to landowners, promoters, developers and residents.

North Herts Local Plan density proposals in detail

The council’s October Content and Evidence Document sets out three proposed minimum densities: 45 dwellings per hectare within the town centres of Baldock, Hitchin, Letchworth Garden City and Royston; 40 across the wider town boundaries and urban extension areas; and 30 in larger villages, subject to a review of the settlement hierarchy.

The figures are expressed as dwellings per hectare of net developable land, rather than as a requirement to fit a fixed number of homes onto every gross site area. They would be minimum expectations on residential proposals exceeding ten homes, not rigid maxima or guarantees of permission. The document acknowledges that local character and prevailing density may justify a different outcome.

The proposal sits alongside national density expectations for accessible railway locations. The council identifies a national 35-dwelling-per-hectare benchmark within 800 metres of well-connected stations, increasing to 45 in circumstances involving sufficiently frequent services. It says its railway stations fall within the relevant travel-to-work areas. Applicants will need to distinguish those national provisions from the further local thresholds still under consultation.

Housing targets and a large existing pipeline

The council’s working figure under the Government’s standard method is about 1,036 additional homes annually. Over the illustrative 11-year period used in the evidence paper that equates to approximately 11,396 homes. The October document records 12,102 homes in existing allocations and planning commitments at 31st March 2026.

That figure is not the same as 12,102 finished or guaranteed homes. It combines sites under construction, permissions and substantial allocations that have not yet secured permission. The council notes that some adopted allocations have progressed more slowly than expected and that it has not consistently demonstrated a five-year housing land supply.

Of current allocated or permitted but undelivered land, the authority identifies roughly 9,844 homes potentially capable of being carried forward. It also identifies a possible 20% buffer, illustrated as a further 2,279 homes, if the circumstances requiring that buffer apply. The figures demonstrate why raw pipeline totals should not be treated as a settled proof of deliverability.

Which growth locations are being considered?

The consultation evidence explores intensification of existing settlements, planned extensions to towns, growth distributed among villages and the potential of entirely new settlements. Its provisional preference is to combine the first three approaches rather than rely on one method of delivering all the homes required.

Urban intensification would prioritise already-developed land near shops and transport. Expansion might take place around settlements including Hitchin, Baldock, Letchworth and Royston, subject to services, infrastructure and environmental constraints. Village growth would depend on the council’s review of local facilities, travel options and settlement hierarchy.

A new freestanding settlement is also discussed, but the council considers that proposition better suited to wider strategic planning and unlikely to deliver within this Local Plan period. The paper does not allocate or approve a new settlement. Its discussion of options should not be presented as a final choice of land or an adopted spatial strategy.

Grey belt assessments and Green Belt policy

The council says its current Local Plan expanded Green Belt coverage by around 4,000 hectares, bringing the designated total to approximately 17,590 hectares. The new work includes an assessment of land potentially fitting the grey belt definition introduced into national planning policy.

A plan-making assessment identifying an area as potentially grey belt does not by itself grant permission. The site must still be examined against the applicable national rules, sustainability, environmental constraints and any necessary public-benefit requirements. The council proposes relying mainly on national Green Belt provisions rather than creating overlapping locally bespoke policies.

This is a significant point for promoters of edge-of-settlement sites. Evidence about the actual contribution of land to Green Belt purposes matters, but so do transport access, viability, housing mix, infrastructure, landscape and biodiversity. A grey belt label is not a substitute for a proper planning case.

Affordable housing: more homes or more social rent?

The council’s adopted plan presently uses a stepped affordable housing approach: 25% for developments of 11 to 14 dwellings, 35% for 15 to 24 and 40% for schemes of 25 or more. Those are existing policy figures set out for context, not newly agreed percentages for the replacement plan.

A new Strategic Housing Market Assessment identifies an annual shortfall of 277 social or affordable rented homes and potential demand for 526 affordable home ownership homes. Together they make up an estimated 803 affordable homes annually. A further viability assessment is planned before revised obligations are finalised.

The consultation explicitly tests a difficult trade-off: whether requiring a smaller overall affordable proportion could allow more of the homes actually delivered to be available at social rent. That matters to residential appraisals, section 106 negotiations and the mix of tenures that genuinely serves households in acute need. Neither an altered percentage nor a social-rent target has yet been adopted.

Small sites, brownfield and the call for sites

A separate concern is the balance of site sizes. The council reports comparatively few submitted sites under one hectare or between one and 2.5 hectares, while larger greenfield opportunities dominate the current pool. It is therefore seeking further small and brownfield sites as part of the process.

The official call-for-sites page invites comments on submitted land and previously allocated sites, as well as additional small or brownfield proposals, until 5pm on 24th November. This is useful for smaller builders and landowners who may otherwise miss an early opportunity to present a deliverable site.

The council cautions that a submitted site is only a candidate. Publication on the consultation map is not a site allocation, proof of suitability or a planning permission. Its housing and economic land availability assessment must still examine suitability, availability, achievability and sustainability.

What developers and objectors should submit

This is the content-and-evidence stage, so representations should address the reasoning and evidence rather than simply support or oppose growth in general terms. A density objection, for example, is more useful where it explains site layout, heritage setting, transport, drainage or infrastructure capacity and why a particular threshold cannot produce good design.

Land promoters should distinguish net site area from gross landownership and show how a proposal could satisfy the suggested minimum without eroding amenity. Where grey belt or village growth is relevant, statements should address the strategic evidence and delivery realistically, not rely on speculative assertions.

Residents and community groups can challenge the settlement hierarchy, the relative merits of brownfield and urban expansion, affordability trade-offs and the adequacy of evidence. The document accompanies sustainability, equality and health impact assessment scoping reports, which offer additional ways to test the effects of growth.

Consultation timetable and next stages

The council’s consultation page, last updated on 8th October, confirms that online responses open on Tuesday 13th October and close on Tuesday 24th November 2026. The local planning authority is hosting events in several settlements, including Kimpton on 12th October, Cockernhoe on 13th October and further sessions in Knebworth, Royston, Baldock, Hitchin and Letchworth.

Its published Local Plan timetable sets out Gateway 1 self-assessment for 9th October, a later proposed-plan consultation from October 2027, submission for examination in February 2028 and an indicative adoption date of 5th January 2029. These dates are programmed milestones, not proof that a gateway has been passed or a future stage completed.

A Gateway 1 explanation and the council’s 2026 evidence programme help show how this sits within England’s newer plan-making procedure. For wider context, Planning Geek has also reported on Basingstoke’s new Local Plan call for sites and Bolton’s consultation plans. Those are separate local-authority exercises, not parts of the North Hertfordshire consultation.

Why this consultation matters now

This is not a marginal change to one planning application. If later carried through into adopted policy, the density thresholds could affect land values, layouts, small-builder opportunities, infrastructure assumptions and the prospects of development on settlement edges. It will also influence how the council justifies future site allocations and responds to applications that depart from the plan.

The document is candid about the need to test several competing goals. Higher densities may support accessibility and reduce pressure on countryside, but they can also raise difficult issues of townscape, design and local services. Affordable housing need is substantial, while viability and the timing of major allocations remain live questions.

The current task for practitioners is to engage with the evidence before the preferred strategy is fixed. The consultation is England-only and covers North Hertfordshire Council’s present district boundary. No proposed figure in this document should be mistaken for an immediate change to a live planning permission or an already adopted Local Plan policy.