The district council faces having to go back to the drawing board with its draft local plan after government inspectors said it failed to properly engage with neighbouring authorities.

St Albans District Council has been working on a new local plan to cover aspects such as housing and infrastructure for the period from 2020 to 2036. It was submitted for examination in March 2019.

In a letter dated April 14, examining inspectors Louise Crosby and Elaine Worthington said they found "serious concerns in terms of legal compliance and soundness" of the draft plan.

They held back from deeming the plan ‘unsound’, saying they will reach a conclusion after the council responds to their letter. But inspectors said there is a “very strong likelihood” that the plan will have to be withdrawn or that they recommend against the plan being adopted.

In their letter, the inspectors said their major issue was that the council did not engage properly with neighbouring councils on housing allocation for a Radlett site - that already had planning permission for a rail freight terminal.

In 2014, the then Secretary of State gave outline planning permission for a strategic rail freight terminal at a site near Park Street. But in the draft plan, the site has been identified for housing, not a rail freight terminal.

Inspectors said the council has not cooperated with other bodies on deciding whether the site should be a rail freight terminal or be allocated new homes. They added the council did not work with other councils to see if the homes can be built elsewhere outside of the green belt.

Another concern is whether there are "exceptional circumstances" to alter the boundaries of the green belt. The inspectors questioned whether there is enough evidence to support the claims of "exceptional circumstances".

In response, the district council said it received warnings in 2017 and 2018 that it would face government intervention if it failed to deliver its local plan in a “timely manner”. Its last three main green belt studies were completed swiftly as a result.

The inspectors also set out concerns that the draft plan has not been prepared in accordance with the council’s Statement of Community Involvement; that it fails to meet objectively assessed needs; and that key pieces of supporting evidence are absent.

Cllr Jamie Day, who is responsible for planning, said the council will respond to the concerns in the letter and that the council has already engaged the Local Government Association to review the way the council's planning department works.

Cllr Day also said the council has made "improved efforts" to work with its neighbouring councils and the Hertfordshire County Council over the recent years.

Cllr Richard Curthoys, Conservative Group spokesperson on the planning policy committee, said: "We are disappointed at the planning inspectors’ letter. It’s clear that the many iterations of the duty to cooperate (DtC) meetings between 2017 and 2019 have not been recognised."

Cllr Malachy Pakenham, a Labour Group spokesperson, said the rail freight terminal was always going to be difficult to incorporate into the local plan as the Park Street Garden Village.

She added: "The inspectors also criticised the green belt review, the exclusion of other potential sites for housing and the non-inclusion of previously developed land, as well as other concerns."

"But the key issue for me is their comments about the duty to cooperate, as this is a statutory requirement. If found unsound by the inspectors, it would make the local plan null and void."