7. In 2020 the Commissioner issued two decision notices addressing requests made to DLUHC’s previous incarnation (the Ministry of Housing, UKHMF and the HMLC2. In both cases the Commissioner found that section 35(1)(a) applied to the information. The Commissioner’s decisions in these cases were subsequently appealed and considered by the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) – the “Information Tribunal”. The Information Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner had correctly determined that the information was subject to the exemption in section 35(1)(a). 8. The Commissioner accepts that at the time of the request, the policy process in relation to the HMLC was still ongoing. In the Commissioner’s opinion there remained a need for an appropriate degree of safe space within which to consider live policy issues away from external interference and distraction and to protect the policy and the process of its formulation and development. Therefore, on balance the Commissioner considered that the public interest weight favours withholding the requested information. The Grounds of Appeal: 9. On 25 April in the Grounds of Appeal (“GoA”) the Appellant argues: “The information requested relates to one aspect of the costing of the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre (HMLC) in Victoria Tower Gardens. The grounds of appeal are (i) that the information requested does not relate to the formulation of policy and (ii) regardless of any decision on that point, the public interest test relating to s.35(1)(a) FOIA has been incorrectly applied, both by the Department and the Commissioner. 10. The Appellant expands further in the GoA under the following headings with reasons; 4