Site Limited) v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWHC 2161 (Admin) was about the construction of a new route for the A303 in Wiltshire; R (J (A Child)) v North Warwickshire BC [2001] P.L.C.R. 31 was about a proposal for eight affordable bungalows for older people; Derbyshire Dales DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] 1 P. & C.R. 19 concerned a proposal for 4 wind turbines; and R (Langley Park School for Girls Governors) v Bromley LBC [2010] 1 P. & C.R. 10 was about re-building a school in Kent. These examples - a hotel; school building; affordable bungalow; wind turbine – may be located in any number of places and still function in the same way. 138. I accept Mr Simons’ submission that the depth of meaning associated with locating the Holocaust Memorial next to the Houses of Parliament sets the present case apart from the other case law on alternatives put before the Court. The Inspector accepted that the proposed location in Victoria Tower Gardens meets the core expectations of the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission’s report. Its location would help the scheme to make a “clear and unequivocal statement about the degree of importance we as a nation place on preserving the memory of the Holocaust” which would “readily serve as a focal point for its national commemoration”. He accepted that there is an explicit and direct relationship between the significance and prominence of any given site and the value and status that individuals assign to the events commemorated (IR15.157). The Scheme’s location next to Parliament in a place of “national and indeed international importance” was found to be justified (15.158). The Inspector continued in the same paragraph that: if one accepts the primacy of location in recognising the importance of the Holocaust, it follows that the selection of a less significant location connotes a lesser degree of significance to the purpose of that commemoration.” Nonetheless; I did not understand Mr Simons to be proposing a new legal proposition to reflect the distinction. The matter remains one of planning judgment for the Inspector who found in this case that the location in Victoria Tower Gardens merits considerable weight. I agree with Mr Simons that this sets the context for the exercise of his planning judgment in the consideration of alternative sites for the Memorial. 139. Having reached his conclusion on the suitability of Victoria Tower Gardens, the Inspector made the following observation in which he accepted the relevance of alternative sites: “15.163 the belief that if the proposals were moved to another location, specifically the IWM, the clouds of such controversy would lift and a universal consensus on the merits of that location be achieved is, to say the least, optimistic. From what I heard at the Inquiry and saw during my site visit, the debate over the merits of that location, the relationship of its purpose to its host, and the environmental and social costs it might entail, would still prevail. Nevertheless, a consideration of such alternative sites is reasonable and justified in light of the matters raised at the Inquiry.” (IR 15.163) (emphasis added) 51