South Macclesfield Development Area

History of the site

The South Macclesfield Development Area (SMDA) is located at the southern edge of Macclesfield.

The site was first earmarked for development by Macclesfield Borough Council in 1997 and is allocated for housing and a range of supporting commercial and community uses in the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (PDF, 2MB), which was adopted in July 2017.

The SMDA was granted outline planning permission in 2019 for up to 950 houses, a new link road through the site, a primary school and a local retail centre.

Just over half of the site is owned by the council and the remaining part is owned by national housebuilder, Barratt.

Part of the allocated SMDA site is already being developed by a national house builder. The 4.39 ha site was granted planning permission in 2017 for 150 housing units – now known as ‘Silk Water Green’.

In June 2025, our economy and growth committee considered a report on the future direction of the SMDA and how any proposed new plans can match up with our environmental policies and aspirations.

The committee agreed to withdraw its planning applications for the site and explore alternative options that balance the delivery of new homes with a need to protect the broader environment.

We currently expect that a report outlining alternative options for the site will be presented back to the economy and growth committee later in early 2026.

Next steps

In the years since the SMDA was adopted in the Local Plan Strategy and plans were subsequently approved, there has been a growing recognition within the council of the importance of carbon and the value of peat, and this is reflected in more recent changes to our policies.

We also recognise the concerns of those who have voiced their opposition to the current scheme.

It is now clear that delivering the existing plans for this site cannot match up with our policies and aspirations around nature, sustainability, and carbon.

We are now exploring alternative options for the site that balance the delivery of new homes and the council’s financial position with a need to protect the broader environment.

In doing this, we will be engaging with statutory organisations such as Homes England and Natural England, as well as other stakeholders, including Cheshire Wildlife Trust and the Save Danes Moss Trust.

We’ll add updates to this page as options are explored further.

Options for the site

While there are four main options for the SMDA going forward, we must consider a new strategy for the site that can reconcile competing council objectives and national policy – such as increased housing targets set by the Government and our adopted Local Plan Strategy – with our environmental policies and aspirations.

Option 1: Development on a smaller scale

The site could be redeveloped with a reduced number of residential units that are built on the least environmentally sensitive parts of the site. This option would also see positive actions made to enhance and improve the remainder of the site and would support meeting our housing land supply levels.

Reducing the scale of development and funding environmental improvements would impact on the financial benefits of the scheme but it does have the potential to unlock resources for peat restoration and nature conservation.

Without development of any kind, this might not happen, and the peat would continue to degrade.

Option 2: Do nothing with the site

We could choose to do nothing with the site, but this also means that work and investment to stop the land from degrading further would not happen, nor would the environmental benefits be achieved.

Abandoning the project would also have serious impacts on the council’s budget – at a time when we are already facing serious financial challenges due to rising cost pressures and demand for services.

The council has already made an investment of more than £3.28m to date and not developing the site in any way would mean these costs would have to be written off.

We must also consider the impact on the council’s housing land supply, especially given increased housing targets set by the Government and the fact the SMDA is allocated for housing and a range of supporting commercial and community uses in the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (PDF, 2MB).

If we don’t develop the site, it could result in planning applications being submitted for sites not allocated in our Local Plan and for sites that are less suitable for development.

Option 3: Sell off our land

While we would receive money for selling of the parcels of land we own at the SMDA site, the value of the land depends on what can be built there and how much it will cost to make it happen.

Until a new plan is agreed, there’s uncertainty about what kind of development might be allowed and how much it would cost. This includes things like the type of buildings and the environmental improvements needed to get planning approval. Because of this uncertainty, the land might be valued lower, even though there are contracts that could help reduce the risk.

Another concern is that once the land is sold, we would have less say in what happens to it. While we would still have some control through planning and highways rules, those decisions could be challenged, especially with national pressure to build more housing.

Also, the peat on the site is in poor condition and getting worse. Without investment to restore it, the damage will continue.

One alternative could be to sell only parts of the site that are less sensitive. This would help avoid some of the issues, but without a full plan for the whole site, it might not be the best option for development or the environment.

All the financial costs, potential income, and environmental impacts will be looked at as part of the decision-making process.

As with option 2, if the site isn’t developed, it could reduce the amount of land available for housing, which might lead to pressure to build in less suitable areas.

Option 4: Rewilding and rewetting the existing site

This option would involve rewilding and rewetting the existing site and ensuring external funding is in place to manage and maintain it for the longer-term.

The rewilding and rewetting would be for either the whole site or part of it, which would align with the smaller-scale development option.

As landowner, we would need to assess the cost implications of this solution and seek reassurance from stakeholders regarding their ability to fundraise and manage the project effectively.

This would help establish a long-term stewardship or custodianship plan.

As with options 2 and 3, not developing the site or only a smaller part of it would reduce the amount of land available for housing, which might lead to pressure to build in less suitable areas. It would also add further pressure to the council’s budget position.

This option would also not be quick to deliver, particularly to secure the funding needed.