Forest City: West Suffolk
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gregor Poynton.)
I draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also declare that my family and I are local residents affected by the development proposal we are about to discuss. I am grateful for this debate about the proposed Forest City, and I am especially grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing me to lead it, given my shadow Cabinet responsibilities.
I sought this debate because Forest City is such a danger to our way of life in West Suffolk. For those who are unfamiliar with this monstrous proposal, this is it: a city of 1 million people—the size of Birmingham—between Newmarket and Haverhill in Suffolk, and over the border into Cambridgeshire. It would be a city of 1 million people, supposedly to service the needs of Cambridge—a city that is seven times smaller, with only 145,000 residents. It would be a city of the same population density as London, where on average 58 people live in each hectare. That would all be where today stand ancient villages, communities built on trust and reciprocity, beautiful countryside, family businesses, new tech firms, the international headquarters of horseracing and breeding, and the best arable farmland in the country.
The most important thing to say about the plan is that its premise is absolute junk. The Forest City developers make specific claims regarding land assembly, compulsory purchase, affordability mechanisms, infrastructure funding, tax treatment and the scale of state involvement, none of which stands up to scrutiny. First, the resale model removes residential land value and caps resale at inflation indexed build cost, excluding land.
I am grateful to the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for allowing an intervention. I regard this as quite a bold idea, like the NHS; that was a bold idea just after the war. Let us try and use our imaginations: perhaps we will create a shining city—a city not on a hill but in the flatlands of Suffolk—and, just perhaps, a solution to the housing crisis we have in our land.
I think we have just had it—the people of West Suffolk will know that local Labour representatives are in favour of Forest City, which I think is shameful.
As I was saying, the resale model removes residential land value and caps resale at inflation indexed build cost, excluding land. Where homes cost £350,000, as promised by the developers, this creates a permanent capital gap of £275,000 per unit. At the scale proposed—approximately 400,000 homes—that implies up to £110 billion of housing capital subsidy paid by the Government.
Secondly, the plan relies on a development corporation with powers of compulsory purchase, while denying itself increases in land value uplift. For a city of 1 million people, non housing infrastructure will cost anywhere up to £60 billion in capital expenditure. The developers suggest selling a limited number of commercial plots to cross subsidise investment, but this falls far too short. Without capturing the wider increase in land value, this is another massive black hole.
Thirdly, the plan implies water self sufficiency at scale. The east of England is a water stressed region, and a city of 1 million people would require around 170 megalitres per day of additional supply. That is equivalent to one south Lincolnshire reservoir or two fens reservoirs in deployable output terms, at a capital cost of up to £4 billion, excluding network reinforcements and financing. There is no plan and no funding for that work, and when I wrote to Anglian Water, it said that the developers had not even been in touch.
Fourthly, even assuming compulsory purchase at existing use value with hope value removed—which I believe is not what the developers have said to local landowners—land acquisition would require around £1 billion of up front public expenditure. Removing hope value reduces up front costs, but capping resale prices through a so called permanent affordability model means that there is no mechanism to pay back the capital. In other words, this is yet another black hole.
Taken together, these funding gaps suggest up to £175 billion of Government funding, with no way for the state to recover the costs. When I put these problems and detailed questions to the developers in a letter sent in March, the reply I received one day later did not even seek to provide answers. When their report, “We Can Build A City”, was published and sent to Ministers in April, it failed to address a single one of these very serious challenges. That is no wonder, because building a city is far more complicated than these cowboys pretend.
Let us take the Government’s new towns programme as an example. Those are only towns, not cities, and only seven of the original 12 schemes are going ahead. Where whole cities have been built from scratch elsewhere in the world, many have failed. Those that have worked—to an extent—are often artificial new capital cities where the functions of government create jobs, such as Brasilia and Islamabad. Often they are in countries where there is still a great migration of people from rural areas to cities, such as in China. Even in China, though, people have simply chosen not to move to many of the new cities, and they stand partially empty. There are similar stories in Songdo in South Korea, Ciudad de la Paz in Equatorial Guinea, and Masdar City in the United Arab Emirates.
The reasons for that failure are all too familiar to those of us who have studied the Forest City proposal. These cities are built speculatively, without real demand; there are massive infrastructure costs without feasible revenue generation; and they are elite driven projects, disconnected from the needs of real people.
Although there are no proposals the size of a city in my constituency, there is a proposal to build thousands of new homes on the green belt in Hayes. Does my hon. Friend agree that this indiscriminate building on the green belt threatens communities and is swamping public services as well?
It is undoubtedly the case that we need to build more houses in this country, but schemes such as the one described by my hon. Friend must be proportionate for the areas in which they are proposed, and must come with infrastructure, services and amenities.
On that point about speculative building, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably not a fan of big, bold projects of this kind, but does he agree that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge? The recent sale of Cambridge City airport to Homes England is an exciting initiative that will genuinely provide the homes and businesses we need.
I completely agree, and I will come to the needs of Cambridge and the surrounding area.
You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that none of the examples that I have just given is in a western country. That is because advanced economies do not build artificial communities from scratch in the hope that economic growth will follow. That is the logic of the autocrat and the socialist planner, and there is enough evidence from history to inform us of its chances of success. In truth, the Government know that.
In the small print of the new towns programme, officials were dismissive of Forest City, saying that it had no local support, no landowner backing, no broader development interest, and no route to delivery. They said that Haverhill did not meet their economic tests, and that the area near Exning and Newmarket had too little water. Simon Dudley, the former chairman of Homes England, called Forest City “a recipe for disaster, paid for by the taxpayer and dressed up as progress.”
Simon Lovegrove, an expert in new towns and cities around the world, has said that there is “no need for such a city”, that the proposal has “major flaws”, and that—for the reasons that I have already given—it is “unaffordable”. As Mr Lovegrove says, according to the employment population ratio and the labour force participation rate, a city of 1 million people would have a working population of nearly 400,000, but the city of Cambridge has a working population of less than 70,000. The developers talk about the Oxford Cambridge corridor, but I wonder whether they have even looked at a map, because we are on the wrong side of Cambridge for that.
My constituency is in the path of the Oxford Cambridge arc. I welcome the proposed development at Cambourne; there is also a proposal for a new town just south of the constituency, in Tempsford. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Forest City could just be a huge distraction from the new towns programme, which is a credible way of getting on with delivering the housing for which we certainly see the need in my constituency?
I do agree, but it is not just a distraction from the need to build in the way that that is needed in the broader region around Cambridge. Only today I received an email from one of my constituents who said, “I see that you have a debate. Please will you emphasise the damage that this is doing to people’s mental health, and the anxiety that it is causing local residents?”
Why, if this proposal is so flawed, has it not already been killed off? The developers behind Forest City have won fawning media coverage in The Guardian, the Financial Times and the BBC, and to date the Government have refused to say no. In March, the Housing Minister said in answer to a question from me: “Officials will review this proposal in the usual way, including through a meeting with the promoters.”
In April, he confirmed that the meeting had in fact been held in February. When the developers claimed to be in talks with the Treasury, I asked Ministers there, in April, whether they, their advisers or their officials had met the Forest City team, but they refused to answer. When I asked whether the advisers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had met the Forest City team, I was directed to a publication about meetings held last year—not this year—with senior media figures, not developers. To date, everyone has been completely evasive about the whole thing.
During a debate in the other place two weeks ago, Baroness Taylor, a Housing Minister, told my noble Friend Lord Herbert: “We are aware of the Forest City proposals and will be following how they progress through the appropriate local consultations and approvals”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 June 2026; Vol. 856, c. 1423.] But this is the point: Forest City will not go through local consultations and approvals. Its proposers are asking the Government to circumvent local democracy and create a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. The Government could just say no, but so far they have refused.
In the meantime, it is local people who are suffering. I have had emails from people who have told me that they would like to sell their house, but cannot. I have had emails from people who have found their dream home in Suffolk, but cannot commit to buying it as long as this development remains on the table. People in the Bradleys have been told that their village will have to be flooded to make way for a reservoir. People in Great Wratting and the Thurlows have been told that village life will be gone forever. People in Exning, Newmarket and Haverhill have been told that their communities will become suburbs. People in Wickhambrook and Withersfield and Hundon and Kedington and Denston and Stradishall and Ousden and Dalham and Lidgate and Cowlinge—which, like Haverhill, the developers cannot even spell—have been told that they do not matter. Their lives will be ruined, and they have been told that they will have to live amid a building site for decades, often for the remainder of their lives. They have been not only disrespected, but insulted.
The Forest City developers, Shiv Malik and Joe Reeve, bussed in supporters from outside the area to a supposedly local meeting in Haverhill. They cancelled a public meeting in Thurlow because too many locals wanted to come—it was apparently a secret public meeting. Behind our backs, they and their supporters have disparaged local people as too old to have a stake in the future, too white to be interesting, and too rural to understand the obvious joys of city life. In the Financial Times, Mr Malik was photographed next what was called a “deserted field”, seemingly unaware that the farmland in our corner of Suffolk is the best in the country.
The poor behaviour does not end there. Malik and Reeve present their plan as an act of altruism for the country and the next generation, but they want to keep 160 acres of the city for themselves. Based on Cambridge land values, that would be worth hundreds of millions of pounds. The chairman of their company, Dame Patricia Hewitt, is opening doors for them and promoting the proposition as being in the national interest. She is less open about the fact that Mr Malik will soon be her son in law, and her family therefore have a direct financial stake in what she promotes.
On different occasions, Mr Malik has claimed the support of local landowners, when only one is believed to support Forest City and the rest oppose it. He has claimed the support of the British Horseracing Authority, which has had to write to him to tell him to stop. He has also claimed the support of the Jockey Club, which has also sent him a legal letter. He threatened to sue me for revealing these things, but when I held my ground, he backed down.
In truth, Forest City has attracted almost universal opposition among the people of West Suffolk—those living in villages and those in the towns; those who were born and bred in the area and those who chose to move there; those who are young and those who are old; the landowners, homeowners and renters; and the businesses and residents. There is value in the rural way of life, even if the Forest City developers disparage it. Local people do not want to see their homes and communities destroyed.
This is not about knee jerk opposition to new homes, because we have had thousands of new homes built in the last five years. The new local plan proposes 5,000 new homes, on top of the 8,700 already marked for planning permission. Although Government housing targets have been cut for the cities, they have gone up by 57% for us. To put things into context, Haverhill has doubled in size in only 30 years. Given our proximity to Cambridge, this is understandable. As I said in my maiden speech, we should “embrace the opportunities, not just fear the risks”,—[Official Report, 22 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 445.] of housing demand connected to Cambridge. That is why I have never been an anti housing campaigner, but the solution to the demand created by the innovation and enterprise of Cambridge is not Forest City.
The solution is the densification of Cambridge itself, the development of land adjacent to the city, and the construction of transport connections to the towns and villages within a commutable distance. Haverhill, for example, provides Cambridge with workers, including many at Addenbrooke’s hospital. It needs a rail link and not just the often single lane A1307. The line between Newmarket and Cambridge should be dualled, and there need to be more services through Newmarket and Brandon.
My concern is that this Government, who have been setting and missing ambitious house building targets, will see Forest City not for the impracticability of the plan but as a big idea that they can seize to show that they still have radicalism. The developers are already talking about their pitch to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), and some local Labour politicians—we have heard from one today—have already hinted at, or even given, their own support.
I do not wish to declare my support for Forest City, but I wish to declare that there has to be some imagination here. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, has not grasped the imagination behind this project. We are not talking about simply expanding a number of existing towns; this is a completely new idea. What does he think about that?
To be honest, I am at a complete loss as to how that does not express support for the scheme, and if the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not support it after his earlier intervention, that may be a record U turn even for this Labour party.
This debate presents us with an opportunity to kill off this disastrous idea and all the anxiety and blight it is causing, so I want to ask the Minister the following questions. I gave him advance notice to ensure that we get clear answers, and on behalf of everybody in West Suffolk, I really do ask for clarity. First, do the Government recognise, despite prior ministerial statements, that the Forest City developers do not seek to go through “the appropriate local consultations and approvals”, and plan to rely instead on the legal, financial and political support of central Government?
Secondly, for all the reasons I have given, will the Government take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good? Thirdly, in particular, will the Government rule out the establishment of a development corporation and the use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City? Fourthly, do the Government share some or all of my concerns about the financial modelling and affordability gap in the Forest City proposal, as presented, and if so, where do they agree or disagree? Fifthly, will the Government publish details of all meetings and conversations held between all Ministers, officials and advisers in different Departments and the representatives of Forest City, including the chairman and members of its advisory board?
Madam Deputy Speaker, please accept my sincere apologies for being slightly late to the Chamber.
Order. Minister, if you were late, you would not be able to respond, so you got here just in time.
Excellent. I am very glad to hear it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this debate. I assure him that I have heard loud and clear his concerns about the high level Forest City 1 proposals, and that I will reflect carefully on them. I also thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions to the debate.
Setting aside the detailed criticism made of the proposals in question, the core argument the hon. Gentleman has advanced is that the Government have to date refused to “say no” to it, which I think were his words. I want to respond to this charge head on at the outset, because as he knows full well, it is not the role of the Government to opine on every development proposal that materialises across the country. For good or ill, depending on one’s viewpoint, we have a discretionary planning system in which schemes of various sizes are judged on their site specific merits by individual local planning authorities.
The Secretary of State has powers to call in or recover planning applications where they involve matters of more than local importance, and they are exercised where necessary. The Department can also take forward specific initiatives and programmes involving the delivery of large scale new communities. The recent consultation and decision to establish a Greater Cambridge development corporation and the ongoing work taking place to progress a new towns programme are two good examples, but in each instance the Government clearly set out the parameters of their support and consult where appropriate. What we do not do—indeed, we are obliged not to do it, given the quasi judicial role of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system—is to publicly pass judgment on every unsolicited proposal that the Department receives. The hon. Gentleman looks somewhat confused by that notion, but that is how the planning system operates.
The hon. Gentleman kindly provided me with advance notice of the questions he asked, so in response to each of them, let me give him as much clarity as I can. He asked whether the Government recognised that the Forest City promoters do not seek to go through “the appropriate local consultations and approvals”, and plan to rely instead on the legal, financial and political support of central Government. In response, I say to the hon. Gentleman that, while the size and nature of the proposed development would suggest as much, it is not entirely clear from the high level material published by the promoters. Their website states, for example, that subsidy is not sought. A clear preference is expressed, however, for a development corporation as the delivery model, but it is not made explicit whether they are seeking Government backing for a centrally led urban development corporation or are interested in a future mayoral or locally led approach. In short, we simply do not have enough detail about this proposal to be able to say with any certainty precisely how its promoters believe it should be delivered.
When it comes to the east of England, however, the Government’s focus is firmly on the establishment of the Greater Cambridge development corporation and using it to deliver nationally significant growth in Cambridge and its surrounding areas, in partnership with local leaders and communities.
The hon. Gentleman pressed me on whether the Government will take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good. For the reasons I have just set out, it is not for the Government to rule in or out any proposed scheme in general terms. He is aware that when the promoters of Forest City 1 applied to be part of the new towns programme, officials reviewed the application and concluded that it did not meet the programme’s objectives, specifically the deliverability objective. However, as per the remarks made by Baroness Taylor in the other place on 10 June, which he cited, it is open to the promoters of the scheme to engage with the relevant local planning authorities and communities about their proposals.
I thank the Minister for his considered answers to my questions. The point is that the Forest City developers are not seeking a process where Ministers consider an application using their quasi judicial role; it is that they are seeking a policy decision to support the creation of a development corporation with compulsory purchase powers. I think that is a different question, which I would like to press him on. Will he rule that out, or can he not?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which pre empts the next of his questions that I was going to come on to. He asked me specifically to rule out the establishment of a development corporation and the use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City. I believe I have already confirmed to him, in answer to a written answer on 9 February, that the Government have no current plans to consult on the establishment of a centrally led urban development corporation to deliver the Forest City 1 proposals. I do not think we can be clearer than that. The Government are not exploring creating a development corporation to take forward this speculative proposal.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to provide an assessment of the financial modelling and subsidy gap in respect of the Forest City 1 proposal. It would not be appropriate for me to do so, even if the evidence base on which to make a rigorous assessment existed, which to the best of my knowledge it does not given that a business case has not yet even been put together by the promoters.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me to publish details of all meetings and conversations held between Ministers, officials and advisers and the promoters of the scheme. I can confirm that neither I nor the Secretary of State have met the promoters. I have met some of the board members in the past, but not in relation to the Forest City 1 proposals. The promoters met my officials earlier this year and proposals were reviewed by officials when the promoters formally applied to be part of the new towns programme. As we have discussed, special advisers in our Department have had a single meeting with the promoters with the aim of learning more about the proposals. As he will know, details of meetings that special advisers have with external organisations are published on gov.uk, in line with requirements set out in the relevant guidance.
To conclude, I appreciate fully the hon. Gentleman’s desire to have the Government express an opinion on the high level scheme proposed, but I am afraid there is not much more to add to what I have set out already. As I have made clear, when it comes to the east of England, the Government’s focus is firmly on delivering high quality, sustainable growth for Cambridge and its environs. We announced the establishment of the greater Cambridge development corporation on 2 June, and the required statutory instrument was laid two days later. Subject to forthcoming parliamentary scrutiny and approval, the development corporation will be established as an entity. A powers and functions statutory instrument will be laid later in the year, which will grant the development corporation both plan making and development management powers. The development corporation will be expected to work closely with neighbouring local planning authorities, including West Suffolk, engaging collaboratively to ensure that growth delivers positive outcomes across the wider area. On that note, I welcome the support he has expressed for the Government’s focus on Cambridge.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.