Authority referred to the content of the Requested Information and contended that it was sensitive, given the controversial nature of the project. 78. Given our earlier findings about the Free Access Policy being separate and decided (by way of the Announcement) at the time of the Request, we consider that there is no need for a ‘safe space’ to be maintained and consequently that no weight should be attached to that with regard to the Public Interest Test. 79. For similar reasons, we do not agree with the Authority’s arguments regarding the ‘chilling effect’. We are not persuaded that disclosure of the relevant Requested Information would create a ‘chilling effect’, especially given that it relates to a matter which is already decided. There was also no evidence to support the Authority’s arguments regarding the ‘chilling effect’. Consequently we find that little weight should be attached to ‘chilling effect’ concerns in respect of the Public Interest Test. 80. Linked to the foregoing, we also find that consideration had been given to the question of making the Announcement at an early stage (notwithstanding the possibility that the Centre may not be built at Victoria Tower Gardens), yet the decision was nevertheless made to proceed with the Announcement. Similarly, it was open to the Authority to make the Announcement conditional (whether in respect of the proposed planning permission or otherwise) but, as we have noted, it was not so caveated. 81. See point 4 of the closed annex to this decision. 82. We consider that the decision to make the Announcement (without conditions or caveats), even though other matters relating to the Centre were not finalised, militates against the Authority’s stated ‘chilling effect’ concerns regarding disclosure of the relevant Requested Information. 83. The Authority also submitted, with regard to the Public Interest Test, that disclosure of the relevant Requested Information will not particularly help further public understanding of matters relating to the free admission to the Centre, on the basis that similar information is already in the public domain. The Authority also considered, in essence, that there was limited wider public interest beyond the Requestor’s own personal interests in the Requested Information. 84. We accept that there is a certain amount of information in the public domain relating to the Free Access Policy. However, based on our assessment of the Requested Information, we consider that disclosure of it would help further public understanding of the Free Access Policy and matters relating to the decision in respect of it. We also consider that there is wider public interest in the relevant Requested Information, including having regard to the Authority’s own arguments about the controversial nature of the project, but also given the potential amount of public money involved (and what has already been spent). 85. We therefore reject the Authority’s arguments regarding Ground 2 and we find that the Commissioner was correct to conclude, in the Decision Notice, that the Public Interest Test favoured disclosure of the relevant Requested Information. Ground 3 86. The Authority argued that the Commissioner failed to apply the Public Interest Test correctly because he failed to correctly consider and give sufficient weight to his earlier decisions. 87. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Authority referred to four other decision notices of the Commissioner in which he found that the Authority was entitled to withhold information relating to the Centre under section 35(1)(a). Those four decisions were 11