considered on a rolled-up basis at the substantive hearing into Grounds 1 and 4. In his application to renew, Mr Drabble focussed on section 8(1) of the 1900 Act rather than section 8(8) which had been the focus of submissions before the Permission Judge. As refined by Mr Drabble, the ground is arguable, and I grant permission. Given the refinements to the Trust’s case as developed during oral submissions at the hearing, including the production of the Local Law (Greater London Council and Inner London Borough) Order 1965, I considered it appropriate (and of assistance to the Court) to allow the parties the opportunity to make short written submissions after the hearing. The Court’s jurisdiction under s288 Town and Country Planning Act 30. The correct approach to statutory reviews pursuant to s. 288 TCPA 1990 was summarised by Lindblom LJ in St Modwen Developments Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 1643, [2018] PTSR 746 at [6]. In summary; the relevant principles of focus in submissions by the parties are that: 1) Decisions of the Secretary of State and his Inspectors are to be construed in a reasonably flexible way. Decision letters are written principally for parties who know what the issues between them are and what evidence and argument has been deployed on those issues. 2) The reasons for the decision must be intelligible and adequate enabling one to understand why the appeal was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the principal important controversial issues. 3) The weight to be attached to any material consideration and all matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the decision maker. They are not for the Court. An application under section 288 of the 1990 Act does not afford an opportunity for a review of the planning merits of an Inspector’s decision. 4) The proper interpretation of planning policy is ultimately a matter of law for the court. The application of relevant policy is for the decision maker. Statements of policy are to be interpreted objectively by the court in accordance with the language used and in its proper context. Ground 1: Harm to heritage assets The Planning Inspector and Minister applied the wrong legal test to the issue of whether there will be ‘substantial harm’ to the heritage assets within the Gardens. The correct application of the test would have led inevitably to the conclusion that the harm to the significance of the Buxton Memorial was substantial and which would have led in turn to a very different test for the acceptability of the proposal. Legal framework 9