Victoria Tower Gardens…”, but this reference to the planned location was made after the first two main paragraphs of text we cited in paragraph 54. There was no suggestion in the Announcement that the commitment to free access was conditional on where the Centre was to be built. In other words, the Announcement did not state that there would be free admission to the Centre if it was located at Victoria Tower Gardens. 67. The Authority stated that we could observe from the Requested Information that financial planning/forecasting, including affordability assessments, was only undertaken in consideration of the free entry proposal at the Victoria Tower Gardens site (and not in respect of any other site). We accept that some of the Requested Information referenced the proposed location of the Centre at Victoria Tower Gardens. However, not all of it specifically referenced the location when addressing financial planning and forecasting matters. 68. See point 2 of the closed annex to this decision. 69. Moreover, the Authority recognised that there was no certainty that the Centre would be opened at Victoria Tower Gardens. We therefore find that the Announcement was made cognisant of the possibility that the Centre may not be built at Victoria Tower Gardens. 70. See point 3 of the closed annex to this decision. 71. Consequently, whilst the Authority argued that the financial planning and forecasting matters, including with regard to potential operating costs, were only undertaken in respect of the location of the Centre at Victoria Tower Gardens, that does not detract from the fact that the Authority was aware of the possibility that the Centre may not open at that location, yet the Announcement was made nevertheless. 72. For the reasons we have given, we reject the Authority’s arguments regarding Ground 1. Ground 2 73. The Authority contended that the Commissioner failed to apply the Public Interest Test correctly because he failed to correctly consider the ‘safe space’ and ‘chilling effect’ arguments. 74. The premise behind Ground 2 was that the Commissioner gave insufficient weight to those arguments because he incorrectly categorised the Announcement as relating to a separate policy matter which had already been decided (as referred to in Ground 1). 75. We do not set out the details here, but the Authority’s arguments were based around the need for a ‘safe space’ regarding consideration of issues relating to how the Centre is planned and delivered, and about ‘chilling effect’ concerns for the future provision of free and frank advice and the exchange of views if the Requested Information was disclosed. 76. The Authority’s arguments were based on uncertainties in relation to the Centre, including whether planning consent is obtained for Victoria Tower Gardens, and wide ranging public views regarding the Centre. It was concerned about potential delays to the project, and resulting further costs, “if every single decision in relation to it was open to challenge”. Consequently, the Authority submitted that the Public Interest Test favoured maintaining the exemption in section 35(1)(a). 77. The Commissioner’s position was that the sensitivity of the Requested Information had waned, on the basis that the Free Access Policy was no longer live at the time of the Request. As we have noted, this was disputed by the Authority (with particular reference to the outstanding issue of planning permission) and it argued that the project remains topical and that the proposed site at Victoria Tower Gardens remains “extremely controversial”. The 10