being in favour of withholding the requested information from disclosure to the world at large. 22. It is clear on the evidence before us that there was no planning permission at the time of refusal of the request (and this remains the position at the time of hearing) and accordingly the policy remains live. If policy is still live until planning permission is granted the Appellant’s arguments cannot, in our view, alter that position. Requested information can be withheld under section 35(1)(a) FOIA see: (p280 Upper Tribunal Case No: GIA/0355/2021). – 23. The Tribunal find that the requested information can be withheld under section 35(1)(a) FOIA which we find is engaged. We find here it is still a live policy as the Planning was quashed. – we note in circumstances where especially pertaining to the location and where no construction work had been started. 24. In relation to the public interest assessment, the Tribunal find that the public interest in this very specific information is quite limited. There is nothing to be gained by the publication of this during the live policy phase when the safe space arguments are strong. There will of course be a public interest in the costs of the project (which information has been published by the National Audit Office) but that is quite different from the detail of how optimism bias features as part of the policy formulation and decisionmaking process. Our unanimous finding is that the public interest lies strongly in favour of withholding the requested information. 25. For all the above reasons we must dismiss this appeal. Brian Kennedy KC 10 January 2024. 15