'Build homes in areas that don't vote for us' - Hertsmere councillor

In messages sent in July last year, Cllr Chris Myers, cabinet member for leisure and representative of Potters Bar Furzefield ward, said that a green belt site on the southern outskirts of Potters Bar known as PB3 should be “off the table” for housing development because of “political sensibilities”.

“PB3 in any plan loses us the council,” he said, suggesting that the council should instead allocate sites for development in “areas that don’t vote for us”, such as Shenley, Radlett and Elstree.

Hertsmere Borough Council offices. Credit: Will Durrant/LDRS.

A spokesperson for the council’s Labour group said that it was “entirely normal and reasonable” for councillors to have conversations about the “local implications of new government housing targets”, and insisted that all decisions about PB3 had been “taken on planning grounds alone”.

An application to build 900 homes on the PB3 site was rejected at a planning committee meeting last week by nine votes to three. The nine votes included three of the four Labour committee members, as well as Conservative, Hertsmere First and Reform UK councillors. Cllr Myers spoke against the application at that meeting as a ward representative.

Cllr Myers’ messages, which have been seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, were sent on July 31 last year in a group chat for all of Labour’s borough councillors in Hertsmere.

Earlier that day, the Labour government had announced its plans to increase housing targets in areas including Hertsmere.

It meant that the council’s draft Local Plan – the blueprint for development in the area – would have to be adjusted to account for the increased numbers.

A few months earlier, the council had removed PB3 from a draft Local Plan drawn up by the previous Conservative administration.

In the Labour group chat, one councillor initiated a conversation about the targets, stating: “I welcome the national targets and hope we can work proactively to deliver as many homes as possible during our term whilst protecting as much green belt as we can.”

The cabinet member for planning, Cllr Nik Oakley, replied: “Not a chance. First thing to go will be PB3.”

• Watford HMO to become vulnerable children's home after plan approved
• New McDonald's: first look inside High Street branch opened this week

Cllr Myers responded: “Absolutely not. The first thing to go will be the sites originally discounted from Shenley, Radlett and Elstree. Areas that don’t vote for us.”

When Cllr Oakley told him “it doesn’t work like that”, Cllr Myers said: “It absolutely does, and must.

“We stand a fairly good chance of retaining and doubling seats in PB [Potters Bar].

“If we lose anything in PB we lose the council as it’s going to be near on impossible to retain [Borehamwood] Hillside. PB3 in any plan, loses us the council. It’s that simple. So … start planning sites where we can’t win seats.

“[PB3] is off the table. There’s plenty of Greenbelt sites across the Borough that can be used before the site that is going to lose us this council.

“Due to the political sensibilities around PB3, it cannot be on the table. 

“You know this. It’s only at risk if we put it at risk. We put it at risk, we lose the council.

“It’s a very simple conclusion we must draw. We take the political decision not to go near PB3.”

The discussion within the Labour group chat brought an intervention from the council’s leader, Cllr Jeremy Newmark, who wrote that there would need to be statements on the issue from both the council and the Labour group. 

He said: “Both of those statements WILL be broadly supportive of government policy and recognise why this has happened – the need to address the housing crisis.

“That now trumps greenbelt, Nimbyism and everything else (with all the usual caveats). That is the new reality.”

A spokesperson for Hertsmere Borough Council’s Labour group said: “These historic messages were a small extract from a political discussion in a party-political group about the local implications of new government housing targets.

“It is entirely normal and reasonable for local politicians to have such conversations.

“That kind of conversation has no bearing or impact upon the statutory, regulated and evidence driven planning process.

“All decisions on the PB3 site have been taken on planning grounds alone.

“It was removed from the Local Plan for planning reasons and was rejected by the planning committee for planning reasons that were publicly set out by members.

“It remains the clear policy of our administration to address the reality of the local housing crisis we inherited from the Conservatives by working to build as many decent affordable homes as possible whilst protecting as much of our precious green belt as possible.”

The current PB3 planning application, submitted by Bloor Homes and Griggs Homes, was rejected on the grounds that it would amount to inappropriate development in the green belt.

Council planning officers had recommended that it should be classed as grey belt, and that permission should be granted for development.

Cllr Chris Myers is a Labour councillor for Potters Bar Furzefield, and cabinet member for leisure and culture at Hertsmere Borough Council.

It is understood that an appeal against the planning committee’s decision to refuse permission is likely to be lodged.

The leader of the council’s Conservative opposition group, Cllr Lynette Sullivan, said that discussions about “protecting the green belt only in Labour-voting areas” would represent “nothing short of political gerrymandering”.

She said: “The green belt is not a political bargaining chip – it is a precious asset that shapes the character and future of our communities.

“If councillors have been talking about shielding their own areas … while pushing development into non-Labour wards, that is a clear breach of trust.

“It may also explain why all members have been shut out of the site selection process from the start.

“Residents deserve absolute confidence that their elected representatives will fight for them because it’s right, not because it’s politically convenient.”