**Document:** Planning Inspector Cross-Examination
**Application:** 05/02025/R — Retrospective application for the erection of a marquee
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2005-12-29
**Parish:** Lonan
**Document Type:** report / planning_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/79566-lonan-barroose-house-marquee/documents/1456651

---

# Planning Inspector Cross-Examination

## Questions

In terms of visual impact do you accept that the marquee is visible in quite a wide area around the application site due to its elevated position?

- Isn't this something that was recognised in the previous planning inspector's site description for the appeal for previous planning application 03/257.

At paragraph 17 of your statement you make comparisons to horse riding and golf. Do you accept that we are looking at this specific application and that each planning application has to be considered on its individual merits?

- Isn't it difficult to draw direct comparisons with general or hypothetical uses?

Paragraphs 22 & 23 of your statement refer to the film studios in Lezayre.

- (As you already agreed each planning application has to be considered on its individual merit but notwithstanding that) do you accept that the erection of a film studio is significantly different to the development that is the subject of this planning application?
- With regard to the film studios would you accept that issues such as national need and economic benefit may have justified setting aside the presumption against new development in the countryside?
- This is not the case for the marquee is it?

The penultimate point of paragraph 24 of your statement states that during the course of previous planning application 03/257 it was intimated that a smaller building would probably be acceptable. With reference to the appeal decision for that previous application can you highlight were this view is put forward?

At paragraph 25 you state that there are no planning policies which seek to protect this area for its own sake. In your professional opinion does a combination of the zoning of the site and policy L/OSNC/PR/1 in the local plan not apply the application site and proposal?

- Whilst there isn't any agricultural need for the marquee do you accept that even if there were the local plan has a policy that only permits agricultural buildings where they are essential for agricultural purposes?

Do you agreed that the conclusions of previous planning application 03/257 is material to the assessment of this current planning application?

- Looking at that decision, and specifically the conclusions of the appointed planning inspector at paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 of their appeal report, can you explain how in your professional opinion these relate in terms of the assessment of the current planning application?

STATEMENT

It is considered that the key considerations are visual impact and whether there is sufficient need to justify the proposal.

In terms of visual impact the structure is large, would significantly add the existing buildings and would occupy an elevated position on the hillside. This results in an unacceptable impact on visual amenity and the rural character of the area. Painting the structure would not overcome these concerns.

In terms of need it is clear from the previous planning application that the intended use is not sufficient justification to set aside the presumption against development in the countryside. The proposal is contrary to local plan policy and is in conflict with long established policies that seek to protect the countryside from inappropriate development.

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/79566-lonan-barroose-house-marquee/documents/1456651*