Topic: HARMAN Mobberley site redevlopment status

[Sal Santamaura]

As a staunch Ilford film and paper user way over in the southwestern US, I've followed the process as closely as I could while HARMAN's landlord, LPC Living, tried and failed to have Cheshire East Council approve a redevelopment plan for its Mobberley site.  The proposed approach would have moved HARMAN into much smaller facilities more appropriate for its current production volume, thereby minimizing overhead costs.

When the rejection happened last November, reports said LPC had 12 weeks (now expired) to file an appeal.  I can turn up nothing since that indicates such an appeal was filed, whether LPC intends to submit revised plans or if it will just drop the whole idea.  In the latter case, HARMAN would have 10 years remaining on its site lease during which, presumably, it will continue operating in oversized facilities.  At the end of that time there's no clue what might happen.

This thread is to request that all you folks whose physical proximity to Mobberley makes doing so possible dig up whatever information on the project's status might not be readily available on line and then post it here.  Thanks very much in advance for whatever detective work you can perform!

[LT]

Hi Sal.

This was an issue that the team there raised when we visited the site for a tour a few years ago. I don't think we can find anything more than you have managed so far and I suspect that Harman won't be advertising any future plans widely.

There is one issue that really worries me about this and that is their main coating machine - their 2nd machine being much smaller and only used for R and D. They discussed it with us with pride with respect to its bespoke nature and uniqueness. It was certainly mentioned at least once that it would not be moveable, without drastic changes to that nature and quality of the products they produce on it, and would result in undoing many years of consistency and reliability from their products.

So, whilst the Mobberly site is HUGE, and  clearly underused, a move to smaller and cheaper premises might not be as positive as it sounds.

It is a big concern.

[Sal Santamaura]

Hi Sal...

Hi Leon 

...I suspect that Harman won't be advertising any future plans widely. ...

Simon Galley has answered my questions to a considerably greater extent, both on APUG and in private communications, than one might expect.  Certainly more than any other corporation ever has.  Nonetheless, he remains mute about the specific planning application appeal / revised plans inquiry this thread addresses.

...There is one issue that really worries me about this and that is their main coating machine - their 2nd machine being much smaller and only used for R and D. They discussed it with us with pride with respect to its bespoke nature and uniqueness. It was certainly mentioned at least once that it would not be moveable, without drastic changes to that nature and quality of the products they produce on it, and would result in undoing many years of consistency and reliability from their products....

I understand that, and worried about it from the start as well.  However, looking at the now-rejected plan's three phases here

http://doc.cheshireeast.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/07567816.pdf
http://doc.cheshireeast.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/07567817.pdf
http://doc.cheshireeast.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/07567818.pdf

reveals that HARMAN was indeed going to move its main coating line, a process that would have been paid for by the developer.

...So, whilst the Mobberly site is HUGE, and  clearly underused, a move to smaller and cheaper premises might not be as positive as it sounds...

My main concern was not a lack of output consistency if the coating line were moved, since I'm confident that HARMAN could work out the bugs after a transition period.  Rather, I worried that existing products' characteristics would change in undesirable ways, much as Kodak's films did in the 1990s when it relocated manufacture of them to Bldg. 38 in Rochester.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  Should the status quo become entrenched, i.e. no development permitted, I'll definitely be filling a freezer with Ilford film as the end of HARMAN's site lease approaches a decade from now.

[Bryan]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  Should the status quo become entrenched, i.e. no development permitted, I'll definitely be filling a freezer with Ilford film as the end of HARMAN's site lease approaches a decade from now.

A lot can happen in a decade.  We need to keep a close watch on film companies these days so we can stock up on our favorite film before it's discontinued.  I did that with Ektachrome and FP-3000b.

[Sal Santamaura]

I'd not checked lately whether the owner of HARMAN's Mobberley site had appealed Cheshire East Council's rejection of its redevelopment plan, so did so yesterday. Some searching revealed that an appeal was filed in late June. Although the Secretary of State, to whom the appeal was made, will not hold a public hearing on the matter until early next year, and a decision must follow that activity, I consider this positive news.

There could be nothing better for the long-term future of HARMAN than a "right-sized" facility. Also, with the development plan apparently calling for HARMAN's landlord (LPC Living, the developer) to underwrite the cost involved with relocating equipment, odds of a HARMAN site lease extension beyond its current expiration -- approximately ten years from now -- would be greatly improved. Here's wishing LPC Living great success with the appeal!

[Sal Santamaura]

...There could be nothing better for the long-term future of HARMAN than a "right-sized" facility. Also, with the development plan apparently calling for HARMAN's landlord (LPC Living, the developer) to underwrite the cost involved with relocating equipment, odds of a HARMAN site lease extension beyond its current expiration -- approximately ten years from now -- would be greatly improved. Here's wishing LPC Living great success with the appeal!

I've been digging around the Internet again and discovered that the appeal is moving along

http://planning.cheshireeast.gov.uk/applicationdetails.aspx?pr=15/5407M&query=96b7bdca-89c2-46d3-91e8-3cff712a9117

with a decision by Cheshire East Council targeted for the 26th of this month.  My best wishes to HARMAN's landlord for getting approval of the revised plan!

[Sal Santamaura]

Today the Planning Inspectorate denied HARMAN's landlord's appeal:

    https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?CaseID=3027388&CoID=0

Reading the linked decision document, it's apparent everything turned on aircraft noise.  I get the sense that, except for noise, Cheshire East Council's rejection would have been overturned.  Stock up on Ilford materials in around eight years.  Unless other factors surface that warrant doing so sooner than that, which is shortly before HARMAN's site lease expires.