be the position. It also seems to me desirable that we should express an opinion upon the point because, if we do not do so, it will leave an area of uncertainty in relation to planning matters of this nature which would be undesirable, because there are likely to be other appeals where the same point will arise.” 127. For the reasons set out above, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I consider it proper, as a matter of my discretion, to allow the point to be raised. 128. Accordingly, in conclusion on Ground 3, in my judgment, Section 8(1) of the 1900 Act imposes an enduring obligation to retain the new garden land as a public garden and integral part of the existing Victoria Tower Gardens. The potential impediment to delivery of the scheme is a material consideration which was not considered at the inquiry. 129. Ground 3 succeeds. Ground 4: error of law in relation to alternative sites The Inspector erred in law in considering that in order to attract significant weight, the merits of any alternatives must be underpinned by a good measure of evidence demonstrating their viability and credibility as such an alternative. The relevant legal principles 130. The principles on whether alternative sites are an obviously material consideration which must be taken into account are well established. Where there are clear planning objections to development then it may well be relevant and indeed necessary to consider whether there is a more appropriate alternative site elsewhere. This is particularly so when the development is bound to have significant adverse effects and where the major argument advanced in support of the application is that the need for the development outweighs the planning disadvantages inherent in it (Trusthouse Forte v Secretary of State for the Environment (1987) 53 P & CR 293 at 299-300). 131. These principles are of obvious application in the present case. As was common ground, locating the Memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens will give rise to harm to the setting of the Buxton Memorial and, as a consequence, the Registered Park and Garden. The potential of the Imperial War Museum to deliver the acknowledged benefit of the Memorial at a location that will arguably avoid that harm or at least lessen it to a material degree is a material consideration. The Inspector acknowledged the point at IR15.164: 46