162. Mr Mould seeks to draw an analogy between provisions in the 1900 Act, which predates modern planning control, which regulate the performance and future maintenance of the improvement works, with conditions in a modern planning permission which state and define the ambit of the planning control. However, unlike the modern planning Acts, section 8 of the 1900 Act is specific to Victoria Tower Gardens. The historical context revealed by the passage of the Act, which the appeal submissions do not address, is clear. It supports the construction of section 8(1) as imposing an enduring restriction on the use of the land. Victoria Tower Gardens is an example of land with a statutory restriction (like, for example, much of National Trust land may be declared inalienable, pursuant to Act of Parliament). Any change to its use as a public garden requires parliamentary approval. If recourse may be had to prelegislative material for meaning, then the reference in the Report of the Improvements Committee (13 March 1900) to the land being kept as a garden for the use of the public forever’ puts the matter beyond doubt. Given the detail available in the archival material, one would have expected to see a great deal written on the matter, had the ‘forever’ point been controversial. 163. As regards the exercise of discretion to allow Ground 3 to be argued: Mr Mould places reliance on the statement in Trustees of Barker Mills Estates v Test Valley Borough Council [2016] EWHC that “one factor which weighs strongly against allowing a new point...is that if it had been raised in the earlier inquiry...it would have been necessary for further evidence to be produced and/or additional factual findings or judgments by the inspector, or alternatively participants would have had the opportunity to adduce evidence or make submissions”. Mr Mould submits that this was precisely the case here. However, there is a clear distinction between the present case and the Barker Mills case. In Barker Mills the point in question had not been raised by any party during the examination, a point the Judge placed emphasis on (“Furthermore, no one suggests that it was raised by any other party” (70)). Here, the point was raised by a party and in terms which directly invoke the central point about legality (“Building on VTG…would be illegal under the Act…as the Act requires that the land be maintained as ‘a garden open to the public’” (extract from the relevant submission)). Having been raised, the Act needed to be grappled with, but it was not. This is the context in which Mr Mould’s submission that the parties have been denied an opportunity to adduce evidence on the matter falls to be assessed. In the circumstances of this case, any such missed opportunity cannot amount to a countervailing factor against the exercise of the discretion. 164. On the unusual facts of this case, the 1900 Act was a material planning consideration, for the reasons explained in paragraphs 110, 111, 143, 149 and 154 of the judgment. The Act affects the deliverability of the Memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens and the desirability of implementing the Memorial within a reasonable timescale was an integral part of the Inspector’s reasoning. 165. In the absence of a real prospect of success on appeal, there are no other compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. A ‘compelling’ reason must be a legally compelling reason. Public interest in the project does not suffice. The argument about construction of section 8 is specific to the present application for planning permission. This is not a case where there is a need to elucidate the legal 58