Selling Land in Three Rivers

• Fields on the edges of Rickmansworth, Chorleywood, Croxley Green, Abbots Langley or South Oxhey that are enclosed by housing, roads or the railway.
• Land within walking distance of a Metropolitan line, Chiltern or West Coast Main Line station.
• Former yards, depots, equestrian centres and other previously developed land in the Green Belt.
• Sites outside the flood zones of the three rivers, or with enough higher ground for homes.
• Holdings that could help close the gap between the plan and the full housing need.

Land deep in the Chess valley or in the open gaps between the district and Watford faces the highest bar, and our review will say so honestly.

• An outright sale. You sell the land as it stands today, privately or at auction. The price is what a buyer will pay for it without planning permission, and the buyer takes on everything that follows.
• A conditional contract. You agree a sale now, but it only completes if planning permission is granted. Until then you keep the land, and the agreement sets out who applies for permission and who pays.
• An option agreement, the route we use. We agree your price at the start, in writing, set above what your land is worth today. We then pay for and run all of the planning work, at our own cost and risk. If permission is granted, we complete the purchase and you receive the agreed price on completion. If it is not, you keep your land and owe nothing.

For land that needs planning permission before it is worth more, an option means you know your price before any work starts and never spend a penny on planning. The ways to sell land for development, compared sets out each route in full.

The new Local Plan has been through more twists than most. The sequence is worth setting out, because it explains why sites the council did not want are now in the plan and why the plan still falls short of the full need.

1. Late 2023. The council consulted on a lower housing growth option between 27 October and 10 December 2023.
2. January 2026. Full Council agreed a plan for 7,017 homes, ready for its final consultation.
3. 5 February 2026. The minister issued a holding direction stopping the council from taking any step towards adopting the plan.
4. 18 March 2026. An intervention letter followed with nine directions. The letter found the draft did not allocate all the appropriate sites available, noted that the 2023 Housing Delivery Test score of 30% was the fifth lowest in the country, and required the council to add named sites: Kings Langley Estate south, Land at Rousebarn Lane, East Green Street, South of Little Oxhey Lane, Land East of Oxhey Lane, Land to East of Watford Road and, if lease issues are resolved, Batchworth Golf Course.
5. 31 July to 25 September 2026. The revised plan was published for its final round of comments.
6. By 30 November 2026. The directions require the plan to be submitted for examination. The council estimates adoption at the end of 2027 if the plan is found sound.

The published plan now provides for at least 9,253 homes in the years 2026 to 2042, about 578 a year. By the plan's own reckoning that is roughly 77% of the standard method need of 12,032 homes, leaving a gap of 2,779. The council's leader said publicly that he was extremely disappointed by the direction.

Why the Published Figures Do Not All Agree

Anyone reading the documents side by side will find three differences. First, the council's consultation page speaks of six additional sites, while the council's own press release and the letter list seven. Both are right: the letter names six sites outright and adds Batchworth Golf Course only if its lease issues are resolved. Second, the council's website gives the government's figure as 832 homes a year, while the plan's need of 12,032 over sixteen years works out at 752. The likely reason is that the web page carries an earlier calculation, since the standard method is recalculated as the government's affordability and housing data are updated; the plan's figure is the one the inspector will test. Third, and most important, the letter said the revised plan should meet approximately 85% of need, yet the plan says it meets about 77%. The plan does not reconcile the two, and site capacities and the conditional golf course are the obvious candidates. For a landowner, the difference points one way: an inspector comparing the plan with the minister's expectation is likely to ask whether more land is needed, and sites with evidence ready are the ones that can answer that question.

The three rivers are both the district's identity and one of its constraints. The council describes the part of the district inside the Chilterns as the area around Sarratt in the Chess valley. The plan also names the Colne Valley Regional Park and the Grand Union Canal as strategic assets, and records five Sites of Special Scientific Interest, nine Local Nature Reserves and 144 Local Wildlife Sites.

• Flood risk. Land along the three river valleys is checked against the Environment Agency flood maps. Homes are usually kept to the higher ground, with the rest of the site used for open space and drainage.
• Drainage and water quality. Run-off into the rivers is a common concern at application stage, so drainage design gets close attention.
• The Chilterns. Major development inside the National Landscape needs exceptional circumstances, and land near its edge is judged on its effect on the Chess valley.
• Heritage. The plan records 352 listed buildings and 22 conservation areas, so layout and design near them are shaped by their setting.

The sequential test that governs building near rivers is explained in our flood risk guide. None of these usually rules a whole holding out. They decide which part of it is best for homes, which is what our early flood, drainage and landscape work, all paid for by us, is designed to show.