Tower Gardens. However, it did not say anything to the effect that the commitment to free entry was conditional on the Centre being built at that location. 58. The Announcement also subsequently stated: “Government support will supplement funds raised from visitor donations and other charitable contributions to cover the running costs of the Memorial and Learning Centre which, subject to planning permission, is expected to open in 2024. The government has already announced that it will contribute up to £75 million towards construction costs, to be supplemented by £25 million from charitable donations.”. 59. The Announcement therefore set out some details regarding how the Free Access Policy would be financed, but without qualification as to the location of the Centre. Whilst reference was made to ‘planning permission’, this was in the context of the anticipated opening date of the Centre. Again, nothing was stated to the effect that the commitment to free entry was conditional on the design of the Centre, where it was located, or any planning permission being successful. 60. We therefore find that the commitment regarding free entry to the Centre was a separate standalone policy (the Free Access Policy), on the basis that it was not dependent on the design or location of the Centre, or any issues relating to planning permission. We also find that, as the wording of the Announcement was unequivocal, the Free Access Policy had been given final approval and was therefore not a live policy at the time of the Request. 61. See point 1 of the closed annex to this decision. 62. The Authority argued that “it would have made no sense to qualify [the Announcement] with “a range of hypothetical scenarios about other memorial sites”, because there was a clear commitment to the Centre being located at Victoria Tower Gardens. 63. We do not accept that argument, particularly given the fact that planning consent for the proposed site had been underway since 2018 and, at the time of the Announcement, planning consent had not been obtained. There was therefore still some uncertainty as to whether planning permission would be granted at that time. Also, the Authority’s stated position in the appeal (regarding Ground 2 in particular) was that there were uncertainties connected with the site and the planning permission (and in our view those uncertainties did not arise only following the planning consent being quashed in April 2022). 64. The Authority also asserted that the Announcement was only made in the context of the Centre being located at Victoria Tower Gardens. It stressed that the Announcement referred to providing “free entry for all visitors to the proposed new national Memorial and Learning Centre”, emphasising that the term “proposed” had been used. The Authority’s position was that the Announcement was made in the context of one particular scheme, namely regarding the proposed location of the Centre at Victoria Tower Gardens only. 65. Whilst the Announcement did use the term “proposed”, we do not agree with the Authority’s interpretation that this was relating to the proposed location of the Centre at Victoria Tower Gardens. Having regard to the wording of the Announcement, we find that the term “proposed” was used in the context of the proposed ‘Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre’ and not in the context of the proposed location of the Centre. 66. For the same reason, we do not accept the Authority’s related argument that, even if the Free Access Policy was a separate standalone policy, it would be very narrowly defined as the policy for the provision of free entry for all visitors to the proposed new Centre at Victoria Tower Gardens. As we have noted, there was no such caveat in the Announcement. The Announcement did state that “The Memorial… is planned to be built next to Parliament in 9