How ambitious ‘forest city’ plan for England could become a reality

In the next few years, spades could be in the ground for a city made of wood, in the middle of the largest new nature reserve created in England in decades, with four-bedroom homes on sale for £350,000. It sounds too good to be true, but a cross-party coalition of campaigners is trying to make a “forest city” to house a million people a reality, with construction commencing by the end of this parliament. It would be the first such project in England since the purpose-built new town of Milton Keynes in the 1960s. Shiv Malik, author, investor and former Guardian journalist, came up with the audacious scheme. He spent recent years writing about the rough deal millennials have in terms of housing and debt, and the fact it is incredibly difficult to build a life as previous generations did. Now he is trying to turn his ideas into reality. “No one’s done this before – building in this way which would create a huge net gain for nature. We are trying to build in natural infrastructure,” he said. He is in discussions with the housing department, and shortly after the proposal for the forest city was made public, the government announced its ambitions to build a network of “forest towns” in a similar area. The Labour government has been accused of pitting nature against housebuilding in its attempt to construct 1.5m homes across the country and address the housing crisis. Ministers are in the process of passing controversial legislation, which environment groups say puts 5,000 nature sites at risk. Malik’s almost 800 supporters span the political spectrum, including Green party campaigners and leaders of rightwing thinktanks. He’s also enlisted Paul Powlesland, a nature campaigner and barrister, to join the board of the Albion City Development Corporation, which is overseeing the proposal. The city would be east of Cambridge, with new rail links, schools and hospitals. It would be under a community land trust – run by a community-led non-profit organisation for the benefit of those who live there rather than for corporate profits. This would help to keep the houses affordable. The homes would be built to eco-friendly standards, out of modular wooden designs, in communities which are “pedestrianised, human-scale environments where children can run free because the world was designed with them in mind; safe, walkable neighbourhoods”. Rather than being car-dependent, they hope to build trams throughout the town so people can use high-quality public transport instead. It would have 12,000 acres of native forest, which would be mostly new planting to link up existing pockets of woodland. Giving the builders development corporation powers – such as those granted to build Milton Keynes, Canary Wharf and the Olympics infrastructure – would help make the houses cheaper because they would be built at scale, and the special legislation would save the costs associated with going through the usual planning system. There are many other issues to surmount, not least that East Anglia is one of the most water-depleted areas in the country. Malik says alongside building the city, the developers would “replenish the chalk streams” and “build water infrastructure”, such as much-needed reservoirs. “There’s enough money in this scheme to resolve these water issues for East Anglia and for the people around the city, not just in it,” he said. They also plan to build on farmland. Malik said: “[Guardian columnist] George Monbiot converted me to this ages ago – it’s just green industrial land, it’s terrible for nature.” The proposal is to build on mostly industrial agricultural land, which, Malik says, is often sterile, after being routinely sprayed with fertiliser and pesticides, and bereft of nature. These fields could instead be replaced by desperately needed homes, as well as habitat for wildlife, allowing people to live closer to nature. Numerous studies have found that many people in urban areas are in “nature deserts”, with green spaces inaccessible, while the physical and mental health benefits of time spent in parks, woods or the beach are well known. Powlesland said: “I think the question is, can we build what is necessary for humans to have a healthy, happy society while either not degrading nature or ideally restoring nature? That is the question of the 21st century, and it feels like nobody is answering that question.” There are areas on the proposed site that have already been designated as places for rare wildlife or habitats – sites of special scientific interest – but Malik’s idea is to build around them, and keep the existing ancient woodland as “corridors” within the city, while planting more trees to link it all up. “People assume we want to cut down all those trees but no, it’s a forest city … Rather than having parks, we will just say we would rather have woods,” Malik said. “You can’t call yourself a forest city just because it sounds cute.” Powlesland also wants to see if building can be done differently, for example by going around rivers and keeping existing trees: “If it is going to be a kind of normal volume development of plonking down a concrete city surrounded by nature reserve, I wouldn’t support it.” Another way is possible, he said: “I do think there is a capacity to do things differently and using technology and imagination and clever design to actually have a city that is where there is more nature and there’s humans, and therefore there’s also not only more nature, but more beauty as well. I think it could be amazing … Imagine a city that is, in effect, a nature reserve, where people are living in a nature reserve.” Some farmers would have to sell their land to build this city, but Malik said the value uplift would mean they were all well compensated. Some nature campaigners have questioned why a nature advocate such as Powlesland is involved. He said it is important for someone to represent nature on such a scheme: “My job is to effectively speak for nature’s interests as best as I can. There is a great need to have nature’s voice represented in the planning system. Because at the moment, nature isn’t represented, and the only ones doing it, usually, are people categorised as nimbys. And sometimes they’re really caring for nature, and sometimes they’re using concerns about nature to avoid any kind of change.” It may be the case that once costs come into play, some of these ambitious nature plans could be dropped. If that happens, the barrister will turn from advocate to opponent: “I believe there is a way to build a city that enriches nature. And it’s going to be difficult. It will take imagination and courage and some difficulty I imagine, but it is possible, and if they don’t do it, then I will speak out against it.” The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been contacted for comment.