Hertsmere Borough Council has been accused of forcing a business to go bust and putting jobs at risk with its desire to "boost revenue".

Lincolnsfield (Bushey 4) Ltd, previously known as Heronslea (Bushey 4) Ltd, argued it was only liable for a £1.1 million Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for its 55-home development in Bushey Hall Drive.

However, a commencement notice must be submitted to the local authority before work begins, but in 2019 Hertsmere Borough Council officers noticed buildings were demolished and trenches were dug — but no commencement notice had been received.

Local authorities are entitled to withdraw relief if they have not been properly notified.

This meant the business had to pay another £732,000 over what its spokesperson had called “a difference of opinion as to what constituted commencement”.

The spokesperson accused the council of being motivated “solely by a need to boost its revenue” and highlighted that the law has since been changed so that the maximum penalty would now be just £2,500.

Get a Watford Observer digital subscription for just £1 | Watford Observer

Lincolnsfield (Bushey 4) Ltd and Heronslea Group Ltd director Jason Rishover says he was shocked by the council's refusal to negotiate.

He said: “We tried to strike a deal and they’ve already received the £1.1 million that was due. We have been left with no option as there isn’t the money in that company to pay.

“To be so hard-nosed as to force a small business into liquidation is ridiculous.”

The Watford Observer understands job losses may be discussed and customers currently dealing with Lincolnsfield (Bushey 4) Ltd will be looked after by Heronslea Ltd instead.

Lincolnsfield sought permission to contest the bill at the Court of Appeal but was told its case had “no prospect of success”.

Hertsmere councillor Harvey Cohen had said he hoped the case “served an example to others” showing Hertsmere "will defend its duty to demand CIL payments through the courts if necessary”.

“We expect all developers working in Hertsmere to meet CIL regulations to the letter,” he added.

The council reiterated that it had “followed regulations that were applicable at the time”.