the building. In the context of non-physical or indirect harm, the yardstick was effectively the same. One was looking for an impact which would have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether or very much reduced. 26 …I have considered whether the formulation "something approaching demolition or destruction" is putting the matter too high in any event. "Substantial" and "serious" may be regarded as interchangeable adjectives in this context, but does the phrase "something approaching demolition or destruction" add a further layer of seriousness as it were? The answer in my judgment is that it may do, but it does not necessarily. All would depend on how the inspector interpreted and applied the adjectival phrase "something approaching". It is somewhat flexible in its import. I am not persuaded that the inspector erred in this respect.” 52. It is plain that Jay J saw the Inspector’s approach as essentially the same as the approach that he (Jay J) endorsed in [25] as a correct basis for addressing the question, i.e. a decision maker would properly both interpret and apply the concept of substantial harm in the NPPF, if s/he assessed whether the impact of the proposed development was sufficiently serious in its effect that the significance of the designated heritage asset, including the ability to appreciate that asset in its setting, was (if not vitiated altogether) at least very much reduced. Jay J considered the reference to significance being “very much …drained away” as no more than an alternative, metaphorical means of expressing the concept of substantial harm. In considering that “substantial’ and ‘serious’ may be regarded as interchangeable adjectives in this context” [26], his judgment is consistent with the advice in the Planning Policy Guidance that, when considering whether or not any harm is “substantial”, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of special architectural or historic interest 53. Accordingly, read as a whole and in context, Jay J’s judgment does not import a test of ‘draining away’ to the test of substantial harm. He was not seeking to impose a gloss on the term. The judgment in Bedford accords with the approach stated by the Senior President of Tribunals at [74] in Bramshill. It is clear from cases like Tesco v Dundee [2012] UKSC 13; R(Samuel Smith) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3; Bramshill and others, that a word like ‘substantial’ in the NPPF means what it says and any attempt to impose a gloss on the meaning of the term has no justification in the context of the NPPF. The policy framework and guidance provide a steer that relevant factors include the degree of impact, the significance of the heritage asset under scrutiny and its setting. It is not appropriate to treat comments made by a Judge assessing the reasoning of an individual decision maker, when applying the test of ‘substantial harm’ to the circumstances before him/her, as creating a gloss or additional meaning to the test. 54. Accordingly, Ground 1 fails. 19