Memorial during the lifetime of Holocaust survivors, a matter to which considerable weight should be attached. If the scheme at Victoria Tower Gardens were to be refused, work may have to begin on the scheme at an alternative with consequent further delay (IR15.170-172 set out in full above). Analysis of Ground 4 142. Mr Drabble’s case on this ground is based on one sentence in IR 15.64 by which he seeks to derive a quasi-legal test said to be applied by the Inspector, at IR 15.69. The Courts have on many occasions cautioned against a forensic and overly legalistic focus on individual sentences in the context of, as in this case, a lengthy, sophisticated and nuanced report. The Report must be read as a whole and in proper context. 143. In this respect, the key building blocks to the Inspector’s approach to alternative sites were as follows: 1) Great weight should be given to locating the Memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, next to the Houses of Parliament, given the profound connection between the location and the purpose of the Memorial. 2) There are obvious constraints on locating the Memorial in the Imperial War Museum including that it does not appear able to fulfil a key Commission requirement for a striking and prominent Memorial. 3) Other constraints on the Imperial War Museum site include potential impact on heritage assets; security and impacts on local residents. 4) The suggestion that locating the Memorial in the Imperial War Museum will be free from controversy is optimistic. 5) Though unusual in planning terms, it is of material weight that the Holocaust Memorial should be raised within the lifetime of at least some of those survivors. 6) In the event the Minister was to refuse permission for the Memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens the detailed process of selection, evaluation, preparation, design, consultation and formal consideration of a new proposal would begin again. This suggests approximately five years of further work, which will add to the number of survivors who do not live to see the outcome. 7) Achieving a memorial within the lifetime of survivors has a resounding moral importance that can legitimately be considered a material consideration and a public benefit of great importance, meriting considerable weight in the planning balance in this case.” 144. I am not persuaded that the Inspector fell into the error suggested by Mr Drabble in impermissibly elevating a matter of planning judgment into a hard-edged principle 53