Lord Herbert of South Downs has spoken against the proposed Forest City development in the House of Lords, warning that the scheme would place an enormous new city across the countryside of west Suffolk and east Cambridgeshire.
His comments were made on 10 June 2026 during a House of Lords debate on the future of the Government’s new towns programme.
Lord Herbert, who lives near Newmarket and is chairman of the Countryside Alliance, recognised the need for new housing and the role that properly planned new settlements can play. However, he argued that Forest City was fundamentally different in its proposed scale, location and demands on public infrastructure.
A city of unprecedented scale
Lord Herbert drew attention to the extraordinary size of the proposal.
Forest City’s promoters have suggested building approximately 400,000 homes for a population of around one million people across 45,000 acres of countryside between Newmarket and Haverhill.
Lord Herbert told the House that the proposed population would be comparable with Birmingham and larger than Manchester.
He also compared Forest City with previous British new towns, noting that it would be:
- more than three times the size of Milton Keynes;
- five times the size of Telford;
- ten times the size of Stevenage;
- and twenty times the size of Welwyn Garden City.
This would not be a conventional new town or a modest extension to an existing settlement. It would be one of the largest urban developments in modern British history.
Countryside and agricultural land at risk
Lord Herbert argued that the proposed development would be located entirely on countryside within and around the Stour Valley.
He highlighted that much of the affected area includes Grade 2 agricultural land, which falls within the category of England’s best and most versatile agricultural land.
He referred to national policy intended to reduce the loss of high-quality farmland and questioned why a development of this scale should be directed towards productive countryside.
The Forest City proposal would also sit close to major planned growth around Cambridge, including tens of thousands of homes being considered or delivered elsewhere in the region.
Lord Herbert questioned the logic of building an additional city of one million people east of Cambridge when substantial development is already planned closer to the city and within the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.
Water and transport concerns
The speech also focused on the practical infrastructure required to support a city of this size.
Cambridgeshire and the surrounding region already face serious water constraints. Lord Herbert questioned where sufficient water for one million additional residents would come from and referred to the promoters’ own estimate of several billion pounds for water infrastructure.
He also raised the absence of a proper railway connection and the cost of constructing the roads, railways and other transport systems needed to serve the development.
The promoters have referred to many billions of pounds of transport expenditure, while West Suffolk MP Nick Timothy has estimated that the wider infrastructure required could cost substantially more.
Lord Herbert questioned how those costs would be funded, particularly when the proposal also promises homes at significantly reduced prices and limits the land-value increases normally used to help finance infrastructure.
“Pie in the sky”
Lord Herbert criticised the contrast between the proposal’s promotional material and the practical consequences for the countryside and existing communities.
He described the proposal as “pie in the sky” and a “utopian delusion”.
He argued that language about nature, mobility and the integration of villages could not disguise the physical outcome of building a city across existing countryside.
In practical terms, that would mean new roads where there are currently hedgerows, urban development where there are fields, and large housing areas surrounding or replacing existing villages and hamlets.
Anxiety and property blight
Although Forest City remains an early-stage proposal, Lord Herbert warned that it is already having real effects on local people.
Residents across the proposed area are facing uncertainty about whether their homes, businesses, farms and villages could eventually fall within the development.
That uncertainty can affect decisions about buying and selling property, investing in businesses and making long-term family plans.
Lord Herbert told the House that the proposal was creating anxiety and property blight despite there being no formal planning application, confirmed development boundary or established delivery route.
He called on the Government to rule out the proposal as soon as possible and end the uncertainty facing local communities.
Government confirms Forest City is outside its new towns programme
Responding to the debate, housing minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage confirmed that Forest City was not included within the Government’s national new towns programme.
She said:
“We are aware of the Forest City proposals and will be following how they progress through the appropriate local consultations and approvals, but this is not part of our new towns programme or proposal.”
The statement was an important early confirmation that Forest City had not received Government backing through the new towns programme.
Further clarity followed during a House of Commons debate on 23 June, when Housing and Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook confirmed that Forest City had failed the programme’s deliverability test and that the Government was not exploring the creation of a development corporation for the proposal.
Read our report on the Government’s response in the House of Commons.
A significant voice of opposition
Lord Herbert’s speech adds an important national and parliamentary voice to the growing opposition to Forest City.
As a local resident, former government minister, member of the House of Lords and chairman of the Countryside Alliance, he brings extensive political and countryside experience to the debate.
His intervention also demonstrates that concerns about Forest City are not simply opposition to new housing.
The central questions are whether a city of this scale is suitable for this location, whether its financial and infrastructure claims are credible, and whether existing communities and productive countryside should be exposed to years of uncertainty without a proven route to delivery.
Sign the petition
Forest City is not part of the Government’s new towns programme, but its promoters continue to campaign for political and legislative support.
It remains important for residents and supporters of the countryside to demonstrate the strength of public opposition.
Sign the Stop Forest City petition and add your name to the campaign calling for the proposal to be rejected.
You can also explore the proposed area on our Forest City map, read about the potential impact on farmland, or review the latest developments on our Forest City timeline.
Source: House of Lords Hansard: New Towns, Laying the Foundations, 10 June 2026
Stop Forest City