FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) and Frequently Made Assumptions

Here we try to answer your most commonly asked questions on Danes Moss questions on Danes Moss. 

We also deal with a lot of the nonsense that Cheshire East Council have put into the public domain in their attempts to justify their horrendous plans – to their eternal shame.

 

How big is the site? 

Who owns the site?

 

Don’t we need more houses in Macclesfield? 

The development will not affect the Danes Moss SSSI conservation site

          False.

                                  (Natural England comments dated 26 January 2022 on application 19/1796M)  

It’s too late. Outline planning permission was granted in 2019 so we cannot back out of this now. 

False!

There are a few ways in which the Council could stop this project. 

We’ve only recently realised how important climate change is. 

We’ve only recently realised how important peat is. We didn’t know when outline permission was granted. 

False.

So, which council officers attended this 2018 meeting and must certainly have read the report? Amongst others: Mr Adrian Crowther (as Major Applications-Team Leader) and Mr David Malcolm (as Head of Planning). 

Mr Crowther is the case officer for the planning applications on to develop Danes Moss (which the Council call ‘the South Macclesfield Development Area’). Mr Malcolm is still the Head of Planning and made the decision to grant permission for the development of Danes Moss.

FAQs Council Attendees
FAQs Council Carbon Knowledge

 
 

The peat on site is dead. It is emitting more CO2 than it absorbs. 

Misleading / Cynical 

CWT Peat Report Extract

There is no peat on site anymore. 

 Wrong.

The development will seal the carbon emissions in the ground and stop them leaking out.

Peat is a carbon store because it has a low rate of decomposition due to its high acidity (pH 3 to 4). In contrast, concrete has a very high pH (>11) and will neutralise the peat acidity and speed up decomposition, releasing carbon dioxide.’ 

If we rewet and restore the site we will have to destroy the wet woodland habitat used by willow tits. 

False and totally misleading.

‘Any plan for maintaining and improving the existing green space for both nature and carbon will, I expect, want to develop a mosaic of habitats, from restoring Sphagnum peatlands in some areas to grasslands in others and wet woodland – the habitat of willow tits – where it is already exists.’

The site is not suitable for rewetting. 

False.

‘The UK has a wealth of experience and an enviable International reputation for restoring peatland habitats in a highly cost-effective manner (Andersen et al, 2016). 

In this region are many ongoing restoration projects in both uplands and lowlands where drained and damaged peatlands are being restored. The nearest is the Danes Moss SSSI where restoration work started in the 1970s, Lindow Moss where work commenced recently, while a little further away are Holcroft Moss, Delamere Forest, Chat Moss, Risley Moss, Bowland Fells, Peak District moorlands, Shropshire Meres and Mosses etc. 

These and many others are listed in the IUCN UK Peatland Programme Projects Map.

Each site is different and poses challenges, but there is no reason to suspect that the Danes Moss wider peatland cannot be restored.’

‘New technology’ will allow us to build on the peat without massive carbon emissions.

 

False.

Peat Report Page Grab
Peat Report Page Grab

 

 

Large areas of wet woodland will be retained and willow tit boxes will be installed as mitigation for habitat loss. 

 
 

Totally inadequate excuse.

 


The landfill site acts as a barrier between the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the development

 

False.

 
 

Haven’t the Council said that they don’t own the majority of the land on site?

 
 
 

 

‘Phase 2 Site Investigation Report’ ROC (2017) 

 

 

 

If the council tries to stop the project they will be sued by their private developer partner.