A message from Nick Timothy MP:
The ‘Forest City’ developers submitted a nearly 300-page report to the Government today. It does nothing at all to address the serious questions (see here) that I have put to the developers. To sign my petition to help stop this plan, please click HERE.
Their report is full of contradictions. They claim the infrastructure plan is ready – yet nobody has contacted Anglian Water. They want powers to seize your home before raising a single pound. And their personal reward? They have quietly doubled their land grab — from 80 to 160 acres of prime Suffolk land worth hundreds of millions.
This is not altruism. It is the pursuit of personal profit - won at the expense of the taxpayer and our local way of life.
The developers pushing this plan fail to even acknowledge the full damage. Haverhill, Newmarket, and all the local villages — all would be devastated. Many villages would be erased.
Please share my petition, and join thousands of other residents in helping to stop this. To do so click here:
The proposal and its real purpose
On 15 April 2026, the London-based developers behind ‘Forest City’ submitted a nearly 300-page document to ministers. The proposal calls for a city of 370,000 homes – the size of Birmingham – to be built on 45,000 acres of agricultural land between Newmarket and Haverhill.
The report makes clear that local politicians from other areas may welcome the proposal because concentrating development here would allow them to escape central government housing targets elsewhere. In other words, West Suffolk’s communities would be sacrificed so that other areas could avoid building homes. This is entirely unacceptable.
The financial incentive at the heart of the scheme is explicit. The developers’ company, Albion City Development Corporation (ACDC), now seeks to retain 160 acres of freehold land at the heart of the city – up from their initial request of 80 acres – which they expect to be worth hundreds of millions of pounds. This is dressed up as public-spirited city-building, but it is a private profit venture of enormous scale. They say it is in return for their own investment. But they have only spent a few thousand pounds of their own money.
What the Executive Summary reveals
Behind the grandiose language of ‘national renewal’ and ‘repairing the social contract’, the executive summary reveals a scheme riddled with contradictions and unanswered questions:
· The report claims the development model is inspired by Islington and Edinburgh – yet earlier materials cited Milton Keynes and the Stratford Olympic village. The developers appear to say whatever suits the moment.
· It proposes a 1,600-acre lake to supply 50 per cent of the city’s water needs – yet the developers have never contacted Anglian Water. The Chief Executive of Anglian Water has confirmed in writing that no one from the ‘Forest City’ campaign has approached them about water infrastructure in this already water-stressed region.
· The report admits that building on Grade 2 arable land ‘is no meagre thing’ and acknowledges the loss of productive farmland – yet presses ahead regardless.
· It wants a development corporation with planning powers for 25 or more years and the ability to compulsorily purchase residents’ homes – all before the developers have raised a single pound of finance.
· It simultaneously describes ‘Forest City’ as ‘potentially complementary’ to Cambridge’s expansion and as an alternative to it. There is no coherent strategic vision, only shifting justifications.
· The report attacks the Government for lacking ‘the stomach or ambition to get really big things done’ – while seeking a taxpayer-backed development corporation to absorb all the risk for them.
· Those proposing this development do not even know where Suffolk is on the map. They say the 'Forest City' will be built in the Cambridge-Oxford corridor, when anyone with a sense of direction knows Suffolk is on the other side of Cambridge.
The costs and risks
The report estimates hard and soft infrastructure costs at £28-43 billion, with the bulk to be recouped from leasing 8,000 acres of commercial land independently valued at over £60 billion. The overall bill to the public could reach £160 billion. Specific financial gaps include:
· A £110 billion black hole: capping house prices permanently requires the state to subsidise most construction costs, with no credible explanation of how this is funded.
· A £60 billion infrastructure gap: the scheme eliminates the land value uplift that conventionally funds roads, schools and hospitals.
· A £4 billion reservoir with no funding plan and no engagement with water authorities.
· Compulsory purchase costs of around £1 billion upfront which, under their model, cannot be recovered.
Governance, transparency and the conduct of those proposing the ‘Forest City’
The report’s board is chaired by Dame Patricia Hewitt, who is shortly to become the mother-in-law of Shiv Malik, co-owner of the private company behind the scheme. This relationship has not been formally disclosed. The ‘Forest City’ campaign has misrepresented the positions of local organisations, which have publicly contradicted their claims. When challenged, those behind the scheme have resorted to threatening legal action against critics, including a sitting MP. The summary’s authors have admitted they cancelled a public meeting in Thurlow when too many members of the public threatened to come and voice their concerns. A proposal that cannot face its own community does not deserve government support.
Conclusion
The ‘Forest City’ executive summary is a pitch for government subsidy and compulsory purchase powers, dressed in the language of national renewal. It is financially uncosted, infrastructurally unplanned, and built on a foundation of undisclosed conflicts of interest. Civil servants have already delivered a damning verdict on the scheme. West Suffolk Council has rejected it. Thousands of residents have signed a petition opposing it, and momentum for the campaign against it is growing rapidly. They fail to touch on how other communities such as Haverhill, Newmarket and countless other settlements would be negatively affected, from the detrimental effect on the home of modern British racing, on stud farms and other agricultural holdings, to the fact that the entire surrounding area will be turned into a suburb of a dystopian urban sprawl. Ministers should decline to meet further with the developers and close the door on ‘Forest City’ for good.
