“It is reasonable to suggest that if there are alternative locations for a proposal which would avoid an environmental cost, then these should be taken into account when determining the acceptability or otherwise of the proposal at hand. This is a particularly attractive prospect if it is held that there are viable alternatives sites that could accommodate the proposal without attendant harm.” (IR15.164) 132. However, the Inspector went onto express caution about the prospect of alternative sites: “But such an approach has to be treated with caution. Whilst (as the Courts have determined) the desirability of having alternative proposals before the Inquiry may be “relevant and indeed necessary”, (though not always essential), in order that it may garner significant weight, the merits of such alternatives must, logically, be underpinned by a good measure of evidence demonstrating their viability and credibility as such an alternative. 501 [8.62, 9.65]” 133. This extract formed the basis of Mr Drabble’s submission under this ground. He submitted that the passage demonstrates an error of law in that it places a burden of proof on an objector to demonstrate the existence of a feasible alternative scheme showing how a prominent and striking memorial can be provided with less harm than at Victoria Tower Gardens. The application of the error is said to be evident in the Inspector’s conclusion that the weight to be afforded to the Imperial War Museum site as an alternative in the planning balance is “very limited” as, “whilst seeming to offer a benign alternative, it lacks a detailed scheme that would meet the core requirements of the HMC and carries clear potential constraints that may hamper its delivery” (IR15.169). There is, Mr Drabble submitted, no legal requirement or burden of proof on an objector to identify and establish the existence of a specific site as a preferable alternative before an application can be refused on the basis that a particular need can be satisfied elsewhere (Trusthouse Forte at 300-301 and South Cambridgeshire DC v SoSCLG [2009] PTSR 37). In the context of a proposal such as the Memorial, and the site selection process that proceeded it, the burden placed on any objector may well prove impracticable to discharge. The particular facts of this case and the concerns around the lack of transparency in the site selection exercise meant this was a case where the burden in relation to alternative sites was firmly on the developer because of the site selection process. The Secretary of State had it in his power to produce detailed schemes but did not do so. On the very specific facts of this case the Inspector’s reliance on the absence of detailed schemes for the alternative sites was unlawful. 134. Case law provides that the extent to which it will be for the developer to establish the need for his proposed development on the application or appeal site rather than for an objector to establish that such need can and should be met elsewhere will vary and 47