decided, and the decision announced”. 38. The Authority submitted that the policy to which the Requested Information relates is the Government’s commitment to establish the Centre and that it was ‘government policy’ as the final policy decisions relating to the delivery of the Centre are subject to approval by Ministers. The Authority stated that the Centre is still under development and that Ministers still need to make decisions in respect of it, including matters relating to its operation. 39. The Authority acknowledged that the Announcement had been made regarding the cost of admission to the Centre. The Authority’s position was that the cost of admission to the Centre remained to be categorised as an operational decision subject to final approval by Ministers and that it was not an issue which was the subject of a separate policy of its own standing, notwithstanding the Announcement. 40. The Authority stated that, at the time of the Announcement, the process of obtaining planning consent for the proposed site of the Centre (at Victoria Tower Gardens) had been underway since 2018 and that planning consent was originally granted in July 2021. It also stated that such planning consent was quashed by the High Court in April 2022. We do not need to address here the reasons for the planning consent being quashed, but the Authority explained that proposed legislation was progressing through Parliament which aimed to resolve matters related to that. 41. The Authority therefore submitted that, as planning consent for the proposed location of the Centre at Victoria Tower Gardens has not yet been obtained, the policy in question is incomplete and accordingly remains live policy. 42. The Authority also stated that there was still some uncertainty regarding the proposed legislation referred to in paragraph 40 and whether planning permission would in fact be granted at the Victoria Tower Gardens site. The Authority submitted that, if that were the case, then it would need to explore alternatives to the current proposals, including proposals at different sites. 43. The Authority’s position was that, if alternative proposals needed to be explored, then all aspects of the design, building and operation of the Centre would need to be reconsidered and this could include the commitment to free entry to the Centre, as the Announcement was based only upon the plans for the Centre at Victoria Tower Gardens. 44. The Commissioner’s view (as stated in paragraph 16 of the Decision Notice) was that the specific standalone policy in question was the policy that the Centre will be free of charge to enter (the “Free Access Policy”), pursuant to the Announcement. He considered that it was wrong of the Authority to conflate the Free Access Policy, as a specific standalone policy, to the overall policy of the Government’s commitment to establishing the Centre. 45. The Commissioner argued that the Announcement was made three years before the Centre was originally expected to open. He considered that if the Free Access Policy was intrinsically linked to the issue of planning permission then the Free Access Policy would have been publicly reversed when the planning permission was quashed. The Commissioner’s position was that this had not happened because the Free Access Policy was a specific standalone policy. 46. The Requestor also disputed the Authority’s position that the Announcement was dependent on the Centre being located at a particular site. He gave the following three reasons in support of his view. 47. First, he stated that the Announcement did not give any indication that the decision was provisional, or dependent on a particular site or design. 7