the range of positive factors that would enhance the character of VTG as an RPG, I conclude that the measure of harm overall would be moderate. Nevertheless, accounting for the expectations of paragraph 193 of the NPPF that great weight be afforded to the conservation of DHAs, I afford this harm considerable weight in the heritage balance.” 42. The Inspector draws his conclusions together on the effect on designated heritage assets as follows: “…In respect of each key DHA, the BM, the RPG and the WAPSCA, the modest degree of harm to trees has been added to the final sum of harm in each…in no case, does this aggregated degree of harm to each asset individually approach anything near the substantial threshold established by either Bedford or the PPG. Furthermore, even when the individual harms to DHAs are considered cumulatively, as required, they again still fall well below the substantial threshold established by Bedford and the PPG. Having fully considered such harms, I now turn to the public benefits.” (IR15. 117) (emphasis added) 43. In support of his case, Mr Drabble placed emphasis on the reference to Bedford in the extract quoted above. He also referred to the section of the Report in which the Inspector conducted the heritage balancing exercise required by the NPPF (then paragraph 196 now paragraph 200) and the Inspector’s reference to: “15.187 Let us remember, for comparison, that substantial harm requires, in the case of Bedford, that the harm be assessed as ‘serious’ with significance needing to be very much, if not all, ‘drained away’. Alternatively, paragraph 018 of the PPG indicates that an important consideration is whether the adverse impact would ‘seriously’ affect a key element of special interest. My reasoned judgement is that this bar has not been reached here and, contrary to the views of objecting parties, the harm, calibrated cumulatively at no greater than a medium degree above moderate, (still accounting for the great importance apportioned to the harm to the setting of the BM) would not come close to substantial for any asset, by either measure.” (emphasis added) 44. Finally, he pointed the Court to IR 15.88 in the context of the wider analysis of harm to the Registered Park and Garden) and to the Inspector’s observation that “claims that such effects…would in fact vitiate or substantially drain away the significance of the RPG, even justifying deregistration, are in my view considerably overstated…” as further evidence in this regard. 16