Macclesfield MP’s opposition to major Chelford Road developments


Ahead of a Strategic Planning Board meeting on Tuesday 4th September, MP for Macclesfield David Rutley has reiterated his opposition to planning applications that would lead to the development of up to four hundred homes on either side of Chelford Road in South West Macclesfield.

(Read more, here)

Along with the Save Macclesfield Green Belt Group, Henbury Parish Council, the Henbury Society and many local residents, David has consistently campaigned against the proposed developments.

In particular, David says he shares the concerns of locals that longstanding air quality issues in the Broken Cross area – which is recognised as an Air Quality Management Area – would be significantly exacerbated by the proposed developments, if they are approved.

David has again called on Cheshire East Council to bring forward detailed action plans, setting out how these serious air quality concerns would be mitigated, before any applications for development are approved in such a sensitive area.

Mr Rutley also believes that further work needs to be undertaken by Cheshire East Council on the cumulative impact of these, and other planned developments nearby, on traffic flows.

He says this should particularly be reviewed in regard to the proposed replacement of the Broken Cross roundabout with traffic lights, which is part of the development plans.

Along with the air quality issues, David’s concerns include: wider infrastructure needs; the number of additional school places that would be required as a result of the developments; the loss of biodiversity on important wildlife sites; and the extraction of peat.

David said: “It is clear that there is strongly-held opposition from across the community in and around Henbury and Broken Cross to these applications.

“I am pleased to be able to add my voice to those, including Save Macclesfield Green Belt Group and Henbury Parish Council, who are calling on the Strategic Planning Board to give the most serious consideration to the important points raised by many concerned local residents, and reject these applications until further work has been undertaken on vital air quality issues at these sensitive and strategic locations.”