By proposing an alternate use with some financial utility, there is an argument to be made that the lease is being provided uncompetitively and without best benefit to the current owners - that is the public. The simple fact that there is an alternative use requires consideration. The fact that there is a lease proposed implies that the current owners can place onditions on tha lease. It is not a lease for any use but for specified use. The erection of any kind of structure implies a plan to remove that structure shoudl the lease fall though. There has been no clarification fo how this removal would be carried out or even planned. This is a question that needs to be answered: what happens if it all goes wring? How will te site be restored to its current situation.

Its not a glorious argument. It is a practical last line position. If last line postions are clear then it makes it harder to overcome the first line.