Requestor because otherwise it would negate the Authority’s right to seek to appeal this decision. It also refers to some content of the Requested Information which has been withheld under section 42, which was not the subject of the appeal (and consequently will remain withheld accordingly). Introduction 4. This was an appeal against the Decision Notice, which (in summary) decided that the Authority was not entitled to withhold the Requested Information under section 35(1)(a), but could rely on section 42(1) to withhold a paragraph of the Requested Information. Background to the Appeal 5. The background to the appeal is as follows. 6. It may be helpful to first provide some context relevant to the Request. On 28 January 2021, Robert Jenrick (the Communities Secretary at the time), announced free admission, for perpetuity, to the proposed UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre. The announcement (cited in the Decision Notice) was made by way of a ‘press release’, published at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jenrick-announces-free-admission-to-the-proposed-ukholocaust-memorial. The Request 7. On 19 January 2024, the Requestor contacted the Authority and requested information in the following terms: “Please send me the briefing papers, including the financial plans, which informed the decision of the Communities Secretary, Robert Jenrick, on 28 January 2021 that entry to the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre should be free.”. 8. The Authority responded on 21 February 2024. It refused to provide the Requested Information, citing section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) and section 40(2) (personal information). 9. On the same date, the Requestor requested an internal review in respect of the Authority’s response to the Request. 10. On 19 March 2024, the Authority provided the Requestor with the outcome of its internal review, upholding its previous position. 11. On 25 March 2024, the Requestor complained to the Commissioner about the Authority’s response to the Request. 12. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, the Authority stated that it also considered an aspect of the Requested Information to be exempt from disclosure under section 42 (legal professional privilege). The Requestor also confirmed that he was content for any personal data to be redacted from the Requested Information. 13. The Commissioner subsequently issued the Decision Notice. The Decision Notice 14. In the Decision Notice, the Commissioner decided that: a. the Authority was not entitled to rely on section 35(1)(a) to withhold the Requested 3