Forest City 1 has suffered a significant setback after the Government confirmed that the proposal failed a key deliverability test and is not being taken forward through the national new towns programme.
The statements were made by Housing and Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook during a House of Commons debate on 23 June 2026, secured by West Suffolk MP Nick Timothy.
During the debate, the Minister also confirmed that the Government is not exploring the creation of a development corporation for Forest City and that, to his knowledge, the promoters have not yet produced a full business case.
Forest City failed the new towns programme test
Forest City’s promoters had formally applied for the proposal to be included in the Government’s new towns programme.
The Housing Minister confirmed that officials reviewed the application but concluded that it did not meet the programme’s objectives, specifically its deliverability requirement.
This means Forest City has not been selected as one of the Government-backed new towns and is not currently being progressed through that programme.
The finding is particularly important because Forest City is not a conventional housing development. Its promoters have proposed a city of approximately one million people and 400,000 homes across around 45,000 acres of countryside between Newmarket and Haverhill.
Delivering a project of that scale would require an established route for land acquisition, planning, infrastructure, water supply, transport, public services and funding. The Government’s assessment indicates that the proposal has not demonstrated a credible route through those challenges.
Government not exploring a Forest City development corporation
Nick Timothy pressed the Minister to rule out the creation of a centrally led development corporation with compulsory purchase and planning powers.
In response, Matthew Pennycook stated:
“The Government are not exploring creating a development corporation to take forward this speculative proposal.”
This is one of the clearest Government statements about Forest City so far.
The development corporation model appears central to the promoters’ intended route. Their published plans describe the need for special powers and legislation to assemble land, control planning and deliver the proposed city.
Without central Government support for such a body, it is unclear how Forest City could be delivered in the form currently being promoted.
The Government has not legally prohibited the promoters from approaching local councils or pursuing an ordinary planning process. However, attempting to obtain permission for a city of this size through conventional local planning routes would present major practical and political difficulties.
No completed business case
The Minister was also asked to comment on the financial model behind Forest City.
Nick Timothy argued that the proposal could leave funding gaps of up to £175 billion when housing subsidies, infrastructure, water supply and land acquisition were considered.
The Government did not verify or endorse that estimate. Instead, the Minister said there was not yet an adequate evidence base on which to conduct a rigorous assessment because, to the best of his knowledge, the promoters had not produced a business case.
This raises serious questions about claims already being made regarding:
- homes offered substantially below market prices;
- the funding of roads, railways, schools and hospitals;
- new reservoirs and water infrastructure;
- land acquisition and compulsory purchase;
- and the ability to fund the city without public subsidy.
The absence of a completed business case is especially notable given that the promoters submitted their report, We Can Build A City, to the Government in April.
What meetings have taken place?
The Minister confirmed that neither he nor the Secretary of State had met the Forest City promoters.
Departmental officials met the promoters earlier in 2026, and officials reviewed the proposal when it was submitted to the new towns programme. Government special advisers also held one meeting with the promoters to learn more about the plans.
This does not indicate that Forest City is being developed in partnership with senior ministers or that it has received Government approval.
The Government instead said that its focus in the region is the separate Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, which is intended to support growth in Cambridge and its surrounding areas.
The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation is a Government initiative. It is not connected to Forest City 1.
Concerns raised in Parliament
During the debate, Nick Timothy raised concerns about the potential financial cost of the proposal, its demand for water and infrastructure, the absence of demonstrated employment demand and its effects on existing communities.
He also described the uncertainty and anxiety being experienced by residents across West Suffolk and neighbouring areas.
Forest City’s indicative area could affect numerous villages and settlements between Newmarket and Haverhill. Residents have been left facing uncertainty about the future of their homes, businesses, farmland and communities despite there being no formal planning application or confirmed development boundary.
MPs from other parties also participated in the debate. Some called for ambitious thinking about housing, while others argued that Forest City could distract from more credible housing and transport projects already being developed around Cambridge.
Is Forest City now defeated?
The Government has not ruled out Forest City permanently.
The promoters remain free to engage with local planning authorities, revise their plans or seek another route through the planning system.
However, the Commons debate established several important facts:
- Forest City failed the new towns programme’s deliverability test.
- The Government is not exploring a development corporation for the proposal.
- A full business case has not yet been produced.
- Neither the Housing Minister nor the Secretary of State has met the promoters.
- Government-backed growth in the region is being pursued through the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation instead.
These statements substantially weaken any suggestion that Forest City has Government backing or is currently on a clear path towards delivery.
They also reinforce the need for continued scrutiny. A proposal affecting tens of thousands of acres of countryside and the future of established communities should not progress through vague promises, speculative maps and unevidenced financial claims.
Add your voice
Forest City may have failed this stage of Government assessment, but the proposal has not disappeared.
Local residents and supporters of the countryside must continue to demonstrate the strength of opposition and demand clear answers about the proposal’s scale, funding, water requirements and impact on existing communities.
Sign the Stop Forest City petition and add your voice to the growing number of people calling for this proposal to be rejected.
You can also read our detailed analysis of the proposed Forest City development corporation, explore the Forest City timeline, or view the estimated area on our Forest City map.
Source: House of Commons Hansard: Forest City, West Suffolk, 23 June 2026
Stop Forest City