clear however is that the detailed process of selection, evaluation, preparation, design, consultation and formal consideration of a new proposal would begin anew, with all the gestation time this implies. If the programme for the current project is applied, this suggests approximately five years of further work. We know that a number of survivors who saw the outcome of the HMC will not have lived long enough to learn of the outcome of this Inquiry. Another five years of renewed planning would only but add to their number. 15.172 Whilst the matter of timing alone would not be of determinative weight, any such new scheme and its location must after all achieve HMC expectations and meet development plan and statutory planning requirements. But achieving a memorial within the lifetime of survivors, so seeking to honour the living as well as the dead, has a resounding moral importance that can legitimately, in my view, be considered a material consideration and a public benefit of great importance, meriting considerable weight in the planning balance in this case.” 111. If, as I consider to be the case, installation of the Memorial in the Gardens is contrary to the statutory purpose of section 8 of the 1900 Act then in my judgment this is a material consideration, given the Inspector’s emphasis on the importance of the need to deliver the Memorial within the lifetime of the Holocaust survivors. I note that, in May 2020 at least, the Government Legal Department appeared to be of the same view: “….All substantive matters relating to the planning application will be for the appointed Inspector to consider and to report to the Minister of State in accordance with the procedure laid down by The Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 (“the Inquiries Procedure Rules”). Those matters include section 8(1) of the 1900 Act, insofar as it is engaged by the planning application. The Inspector must consider all material considerations, including any relevant legislation, in preparing the inquiry report under rule 17 of the Inquiries Procedure Rules. All parties to the inquiry will have the opportunity to make submissions on those matters to the Inspector at the inquiry.” (pre-action correspondence dated 18 May 2020) Raising a new point on appeal 112. The third aspect of Mr Mould’s response on this ground was that the Inspector cannot be criticised for not considering the 1900 Act when it was not raised before 40