152. Section 288(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act defines the relief available on an application under the section in the event the Court is satisfied of the unlawfulness of a relevant decision. The Court’s discretion extends to a quashing order, not a declaration. 153. In considering the exercise of my discretion, I take into account the existence of an Act of Parliament (the 1900 Act) which specifically regulates the land in question and the statutory basis on which the land must be held (a public garden). 154. In assessing the suitability of the Gardens and in placing little weight on alternative sites, the Inspector placed considerable weight on the timing of deliverability of the Scheme. In his submissions on Ground 4 (alternative sites), Mr Katkowski described the timing aspect of deliverability as a ‘powerful’ aspect of the Inspector’s analysis. However, the Inspector did so without any appreciation of the deliverability issue raised by the 1900 Act. 155. I was not addressed on the mechanics of if, how or when the 1900 Act might be repealed. Mr Drabble posited that it may require hybrid legislation. It was not disputed that the issue raises factual questions of some difficulty and detail which may require exploration of the relative speed of delivery of each site. 156. Mr Drabble submitted it is plain that the proposed scheme will breach the requirements of the 1900 Act, which are that the land be retained as a public garden and integral part of Victoria Tower Gardens. He pointed to the requirement in section 8(6) for uniformity of design in the Gardens. 157. Mr Katkowski pointed me to passages of the Inspector’s report which he submitted demonstrated a measured, sensible and nuanced assessment of the likely impact and overall position in relation to the Gardens from the proposals, leading to a conclusion that the Gardens would continue to function as a garden for the public. However, the passages in question do not address the impact in the context of the provisions of the 1900 Act (integral garden; public use; uniformity of design). Moreover, the Inspector’s assessment includes the following analysis: 15.206 “The UKHMLC has been designed to as far as possible integrate with its context. Nonetheless, its purpose would be to both command attention and generate an emotional response to seeing and visiting it. It would attract large numbers of visitors. From the current highest recorded occupancy level of almost 400, this is anticipated to increase to a maximum of 1,269 people at any one time. The peak number of visitors accessing the secure area per day is estimated as 3,000, with a 56