10 one-bedroom apartments at The Cave, 91 - 95 Mill Street, Macclesfield

The site and surroundings

The former cinema lies between Mill Street and Duke Street, with the front part permitted for retail units and flats but unchanged by this proposal.

“The application property is a former cinema building which lies between Mill Street and Duke Street, within the town centre of Macclesfield.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A similar 10-apartment scheme was refused and dismissed at appeal because of inadequate outlook, light, internal space, noise and disturbance.

“This application was refused on that basis that the accommodation proposed was not considered to result in a good quality of accommodation for future occupiers because of a poor outlook and natural light. Furthermore, insufficient information had been submitted which adequately assesses the impact on future residents of existing development.”

“The Planning Inspectorate considered that the proposal would not provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outlook, light, internal space and noise and disturbance.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered that poor outlook and light, noise impacts and unsuitable dormers outweighed the benefits of reusing the vacant building and providing housing.

“However, the accommodation proposed is not considered to result in a good quality of accommodation for future occupiers as a result of a poor outlook and natural light. Furthermore, insufficient information has been submitted which adequately assesses the impact on future residents from existing commercial development in the locality in terms of noise and disturbance, and any subsequent impacts upon the existing businesses. These matters attract substantial weight.”

“Overall, it is considered that the proposal would still not provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outlook, light, internal space and noise and disturbance.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The town council considered the scheme overdevelopment, while environmental protection recommended refusal over noise information and businesses objected to impacts on the night-time economy.

“Environmental Protection: Amenity - Recommend refusal due to insufficient information to assess impact of development in relation to noise Air Quality – Recommend conditions regarding boilers Contaminated land – Recommend conditions relating to contamination.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Liz Braithwaite spoke as ward councillor and the agent spoke about the application.

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to refuse the application for the officer-recommended reasons, with the decision recording the three stated reasons for refusal.

“That the application be REFUSED as detailed in the Officer recommendation for the following reasons;”

“In order to give proper effect to the Committee`s intent and without changing the substance of its decision, authority is delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice Chair) to correct any technical slip or omission in the resolution, before issue of the decision notice.”

Minutes