maintained…for use as a garden open to the public and as an integral part of the existing Victoria Tower Garden”. We have taken advice form counsel Mr Thomas Seymour of Wilberforce Chambers. He has reviewed the proposal and plans and confirms that developing a substantial part of the land as a Memorial and Learning Centre would, unarguably, be in breach of that provision. It would accordingly be unlawful for the Secretary of State, who has ministerial responsibility for the Holocaust Memorial project, to seek to proceed with a proposal in breach of a statutory prohibition. It would likewise be unlawful for the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, to whom title to VTG has passed from the Commissioners of Works, and to whom we are copying this letter, to permit the development to proceed.” 122. The Secretary of State replied on 31 October 2019, stating that the provision of the memorial complied with the 1900 Act: “We are of the view that the proposal for a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre compiles with Section 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1990 and will not be withdrawing the planning application...” 123. In May 2020, the Trust raised the same point in pre-action correspondence in relation to the call in of the application: “On 31 July 2019 Richard Buxton Solicitors (RB), representing one of the other Rule 6 parties, wrote to the Secretary of State and MHCLG pointing out that the building of the VTG Proposal would infringe the terms of the London County Council (Improvements) Act, 1900, which requires the preservation of VTG. MHCLG replied by stating that it would comply with the relevant section of that Act” 124. The Government Legal Department replied as follows: “The 1900 Act 17. The lawfulness of the decision to call in the planning application is unaffected by section 8(1) of the London County Council (Improvement) Act 1900 (“the 1900 Act”). It is a decision as to the statutory procedure to be followed for the purpose of determining the planning application under Part 3 44