A second attempt to get flats in a former Macclesfield movie theatre has been shot down.

The ex-Majestic cinema building, of Mill Street and backing onto Duke Street, recently had proposals for ten flats submitted.

The plans for the split level brick building, was criticised by a member of the public for "unacceptable destruction of valuable and historic amenity."

There were attempts to get the building Listed status, but it was turned down by English Heritage, and then partially demolished. (Image - Macclesfield Nub News)

And now planning officers have also expressed negativity about the plans, refusing permission to grant the latest planning application for apartments there.

A planning officer wrote: "The proposals are not considered to result in a good standard of internal amenity as a result of the lack of outlook and natural light to habitable rooms contrary to Policies SD1, SD2, and SE1 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy, policy HOU 12 of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document advice within the Cheshire East Design Guide and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework."

The quality of the application - which Macclesfield Nub News previously pointed out contained errors - was also derided in the Notice of Decision document for having 'insufficient information', particularly regarding the noise impact on the surrounding area.

A white facade from the original cinema is still visible today on Mill Street. (Image - Macclefsield Nub News)

Nearby Dukes Court Bar Group also expressed opposition to the plans, as did a ward councillor who questioned 'Location is immediately adjacent to nightclubs licensed until 3am, is this a suitable location for housing?'.

Concerns were also raised about an already perceived 'excessive level of residential development in retail/food area'.

It is not yet known if the applicant will try to get flats here a third time round.

Macclesfield: The site as viewed from the rear on Duke Street. (Image - Macclesfield Nub News)

The latest application saw the proposed flats reduced from 12, to ten. Could a third submission with less flats proposed be on the cards?