b) Other material considerations, including any public benefits the proposals might bring; the principle of the proposed development; Victoria Tower Gardens as a location for the memorial, the consideration of alternative sites for the Memorial and the timing and content of the proposals. 24. In summary; the Inspector’s main conclusions and recommendations on the issues relevant to this challenge were as follows: a) the harm from the development to the Buxton Memorial and the Gardens did not approach anything near the NPPF policy threshold of ‘substantial harm’ (IR 15.69; 15.94 and 15.117). b) Nonetheless, the measure of harm to the Buxton Memorial should be assessed as being of great importance and the weight to that harm should be characterised as considerable. The weight to be apportioned to the (moderate) harm to the Registered Park and Garden should be characterised as considerable (IR 15.69; 15.94 and 15.117). c) In terms of public benefit, the proposal fully meets the Holocaust Memorial Commission recommendation for a striking new memorial prominently located in central London. Location of the Memorial adjacent to the Palace of Westminster is a public benefit of great importance. These factors merited considerable weight in the heritage and planning balance (IR15.155-15.161). d) Alternative locations should be taken into account when determining the acceptability of the proposal if they would avoid an environmental cost (IR15.164). e) Whilst seeming to offer a benign alternative, the Imperial War Museum site lacks a detailed scheme that would meet the core requirements of the HMC and has clear constraints that may hamper delivery. The weight to be afforded to it was therefore very limited (IR15.169). f) The two other sites merited still lesser weight than the site at the Imperial War Museum (IR15.169). g) Achieving a memorial within the lifetime of survivors of the Holocaust has a resounding moral importance that can be considered a material consideration and a public benefit of great importance meriting considerable weight in the planning balance (IR15.170 -172). h) Weighing the public benefits of the proposal (including its location next to Westminster and the delivery of a Memorial within the lifetime of survivors) against the identified heritage harms, and taking account of the limited viability of alternative locations, the balance can be seen to clearly and demonstrably weigh in favour of the proposals (paragraph 196 (now 202) NPPF)(IR 15.186-15.189). 7