16/04/2026
More information and a review of their recent report from Joe Mason
A New Forest City Report.
A new report has been brought to my attention. Which I have spent some time this morning reading. (Link is at the end)
Let me say first that I understand the wider issue it is trying to respond to. We do need more genuinely affordable homes in this country. We do need economic growth. We do need proper investment in infrastructure, public services and opportunities for the next generation.
So my objection is not to growth itself. I of course support sensible growth. I support the right investmnt in the right place. I support better roads, better public transport, better access to healthcare, stronger town centres and the infrastructure communities need before, not after, development takes place. Not development that essentially terraforms and massively over populates the landscape.
I simply do not believe the Forest City proposal is the right answer for Haverhill, Withersfield and the surrounding villages.
The report is certainly ambitious and to some extent the ambition itself is commendable. It talks about a 16 minute rail journey to Cambridge, a one hour connection to London Liverpool Street via Stansted, 12,000 acres of new nature reserve, a 1,600 acre reservoir, 8,000 acres of commercial land, and even four bedroom homes at around £350,000 through a community land trust model. It is presented as a grand vision for large scale growth to the east of Cambridge.
But ambition on paper is not the same as a sound and deliverable plan that is suitable for the area it is planned for.
Even on the Forest City website, the promoters say that key issues such as water supply, environmental impact, labour capacity and transport connectivity still need to be addressed as part of building the business case. They also say that a Development Corporation with compulsory purchase and planning powers would be needed later in the process. At the same time, the Government has already confirmed that it has no current plans to establish such a development corporation for Forest City.
That matters, because when a proposal is on this sort of scale, affecting a huge area between Newmarket and Haverhill, people are right to ask serious questions.
How would this affect our existing towns and villages?
What would it mean for local roads that are already under pressure?
What would it mean for GP access, hospital provision and school places?
What would it mean for water in an area where that is already a real concern?
What would it mean for farmland, countryside and the character of the communities people already call home?
Those are not anti-growth questions. They are reasonable questions, and they deserve proper answers.
For me, this is where the proposal falls short. It makes very big promise, but many of the most important issues still appear to sit in the category of future work, future detail, future powers and future funding. That is not good enough when the possible impact on West Suffolk could be enormous and could prove devastating if the risks are not fully understood.
I also think it is important to say this. Haverhill and the surrounding area should not be expected to carry the burden of a vast new settlement simply because others want a solution to wider regional growth pressures. Our communities are not a blank space on a map. They are real places, with history, identity and people whose views matter. As I have said before, this proposal would in effect create a conurbation linking Cambridge, Newmarket and Haverhill, not dissimilar in scale to a city like Birmingham.
That does not mean saying no to progress. It means insisting that progress must be realistic, justified and fair, both supporting and protecting the needs of existing communities. Small communities matter just as much as the big ones.
I want investment in Haverhill and I do a lot to seek the investment that it needs. I want improvements to our roads, pedestrian routes and public transport. I want better access to health services. I want support for our High Street. I want the infrastructure and public services our growing community actually needs. I say this in response to the many discussions I have had with residents over the last 8 years. I have even taken action delivering on a number of these in Haverhill.
But investment must be done in a way that strengthens our area, not risks overwhelming it.
So having read the report, my view remains that this proposal raises more concerns. There are too many unanswered questions, too many assumptions, and too much potential impact on existing communities for anyone to simply wave it through because the language sounds bold and impressive. The concept is flawed due to the location selected and an assumption that local communities can be won over with the promise of investment that should be delivered regardless.
I will always support growth that is sensible, planned properly and rooted in the needs of local people.
I cannot/will not support a proposal of this scale without the impacts properly and honestly communicated and addressed. The people who live in West Suffolk need confidence that their communities, countryside and quality of life are not being put at risk.
That is not being anti growth. That is standing up for our area, saying no, politely and firmly, and asking central government for the investment our area needs.
https://www.forestcity.uk/report
Muck Off Acorn
Haverhill Echo
East Anglian Daily Times
