38. Mr Drabble went onto submit that whatever view of matters the Inspector expressed in IR 15.12 - 13, the approach he actually adopted in his task of assessing harm was to apply a test of significance draining away. In this regard Mr Drabble pointed the Court to several passages in the Report (IR15.88; 15.117; and 15.187). 39. I am not however persuaded that the Inspector fell into the error suggested by Mr Drabble. 40. The Inspector assesses the harm to the setting of the Buxton Memorial at IR15.65 – 15.69 as follows: “The Setting of the Buxton Memorial (BM), a Grade II* Listed Building 15.65 There is no purpose in repeating the assessments of the BM’s special architectural and historic interest and significance previously set out in evidence. It is listed at Grade II*, reflecting not only the conspicuous idiosyncratic flair of its designer, but also the nationally and internationally important events it memorialises. Despite its relocation from its intended place in Parliament Square, its present location in VTG, commemorating the courageous actions of lawmakers serving in the Palace of Westminster just to the north, remains an element of its special interest and significance. 15.66 Beyond these primary attributes, it is clear that the open spatial context to the memorial is a constituent of its significance. One element of this significance is the formal, though opportunistic perspective of Dean Stanley Street, where the monument may be viewed and appreciated in framed long perspective. But a more relevant contributor is the sense of space around the structure, allowing the viewer to at first perceive its distant presence, then be drawn by its ‘fanciful’ play of forms, detail and colour and then, when close, appreciate its memorial purpose and importance. 15.67 As set out above, the safeguarding of the setting of the BM would be most successfully mediated in views looking north along the Embankment path, and along the Embankment itself. Here, the monument would retain its pre-eminence within its wider context. However, from other points, most particularly when viewing the older monument from within the UKHMLC courtyard, or from other points in close proximity to it, its setting would visually become quickly congested. More specifically at this point the radically differing aesthetic moods of existing and proposed structures would collide in uneasy and discordant juxtaposition. And so here, decisively, the visual dominance of the UKHMLC would unsettle and crowd the BM, significantly infringing the viewer’s opportunity to settle and contemplate its purpose and architecture, and thus fully 13