further 7,000 per day estimated as entering the park to view the Memorial only. Whilst these would be peak rather than typical use figures, it is inevitable that the significant increase in visitor numbers to the park would have an impact on its character and functionality, particularly during the Memorial opening hours proposed as between 09:30-17:30. 15.207 The degree to which the park could be used in a relaxed and informal way would be constrained by the reduction in size and division of the open flat green space, and inevitably to some extent by the increase in visitor numbers. Its quality as a peaceful breathing space would, to a degree, be diminished and it would become a busier and more structured environment. This would include lighting of the Memorial, and the footpaths leading to it, at night.” 158. Given this assessment, it cannot be said that the existence of the 1900 Act makes no difference to the outcome of the decision. On the information before the Court, Mr Drabble’s contention is a proper one with real prospects of success. Accordingly, the appropriate remedy is to quash the decision, so as to enable further consideration of the implications of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 for the proposed scheme. Conclusion 159. For the reasons explained above, the claim fails on Ground 1 (heritage impacts) but succeeds on Ground 3 (London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900) and on Ground 4 (alternative sites), to the extent that the Inspector’s assessment of alternative sites was conducted without an appreciation of the implications of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. The Minister’s decision is quashed. Postscript: Permission to appeal 160. After the judgment was circulated in draft to the parties, the Court received applications for permission to appeal from the Minister and the Secretary of State. Submissions in response were filed by the Trust. Having considered the submissions carefully, I refuse permission to appeal for the following reasons. 161. I am not persuaded that the submissions made by the Minister in relation to the construction of the 1900 Act raise points with a real prospect of success. Section 8(1) of the Act provides that the land “shall be laid out and maintained...for use as a garden open to the public”. Section 8(1) remains in force. It is the use (as a public garden) that has to be maintained, not just its physical characteristics. 57