Vale of Glamorgan Council — Email Correspondence Catalogue (Part 2)

From: Sion Buckler
To: complaints@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk (cc VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, democratic@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, gdcarroll@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)
Date: 27 July 2026, 21:21 UTC
Subject: Complaint – Failure to Respond / Failure to Deal Properly with Case – Cllr George Carroll (Llandough) – Great House Farm / Church View Close
Attachments: Great_House_Farm_Reconstruction_v7.pdf

Dear Monitoring Officer / Corporate Complaints Team,

With great regret I am writing to make a complaint about the persistent
failure of Councillor George D. D. Carroll (Llandough ward) to respond
substantively to my repeated and reasonable correspondence concerning
historic land, planning, enforcement, heritage and related public-interest
matters at Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough (now Church View Close),
Vale of Glamorgan.

I have a legitimate and long-standing family interest in the site
(Williams/Buckler family connection documented from the 17th century). See
attached.

The issues raised include alleged defective notices, loss of opportunity to
contest enforcement leading to demolition in 1988, heritage/regulatory
oversight, planning and title records, and related transparency failures.

Despite multiple contacts over several months, I have received no
substantive replies from Cllr Carroll. This constitutes a failure to
respond and a failure to deal with the case properly.

### Full correspondence log with Cllr George Carroll (
gdcarroll@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)

| Date | Subject / Key content
| Response received |
|------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|
| 16 Feb 2026 | Potential gaps in Council planning/record-keeping for Great
House Farm (demolished 1988); title fraud and procedural issues relating to
Church View Close | None |

| 4 May 2026 | Request regarding BP vs Buckler 1987; shared
media/evidence; request for attention as Llandough councillor | None |

| 7 Jun 2026 | “Church View Close, Llandough” – piecing together 1988
events from public records, family testimony and media | None |

| 25 Jun 2026 | “Great House Farm, Llandough” – enquiry whether prior
concerns on family dispossession had been reviewed; request for any
progress or discussion | None |

| 13 Jul 2026 | “Great House Farm/ Church View Close” – formal follow-up
listing the above timeline, restating legitimate interest (family roots
since 1667), noting absence of replies, requesting detailed response within
10 working days, and raising the removed commemorative tree | None |

### Remedy sought

1. A full written response from Cllr Carroll addressing the points raised
in the logged emails, within 10–15 working days.

2. Confirmation that this complaint has been logged under the Council’s
corporate complaints procedure and/or referred to the Monitoring Officer /
Standards Committee as appropriate for any potential breach of the
councillor Code of Conduct (failure to respond / failure to deal properly
with a case).

3. Written confirmation of the process and timescale for investigation and
response.

I have retained the full original emails and attachments and can supply
them on request. Please acknowledge receipt of this formal complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Sion Hywel Buckler (Ret’d Sergeant)
5 Robin Hill, Dinas Powys, CF64 4TF
hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
020 3137 7118

From: Victoria Davidson (VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk) — automatic reply
To: Sion Buckler
Date: 27 July 2026, 21:22 UTC
Subject: Automatic reply: Complaint – Failure to Respond / Failure to Deal Properly with Case – Cllr George Carroll (Llandough) – Great House Farm / Church View Close

Diolch am eich e-bost. Rwyf allan o'r swyddfa ar hyn o bryd rydw i allan o'r swyddfa tan 27 Gorffennaf 2026

Ar gyfer materion brys, cysylltwch â Vicci Rowlands yn vrownlands@valeoflgamorgan.gov.uk neu Henry Brown hjabrown@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk

Thank you for your email. I am currently away from the office until the 27th July 2026.

For urgent matters please contact Vicci Rowlands at vrowlands@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk. or Henry Brown hjabrown@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk

From: Complaints Team (complaints@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk) — automatic reply
To: Sion Buckler
Date: 27 July 2026, 21:22 UTC
Subject: Automatic reply: Complaint – Failure to Respond / Failure to Deal Properly with Case – Cllr George Carroll (Llandough) – Great House Farm / Church View Close

Thank you for your email. We aim to respond to your email within 5 working days. In the meantime, please see further information on our web site below:

We are listening and learning (valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)

Our Corporate Concerns and Complaints Policy can be found here:

Corporate-Concerns-and-Complaints-Policy2013 (valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)

For Social Services Complaints please see the contact details below:

Social Services Complaints (valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)

Find out what else you can do online today:

Do It Online

Diolch am eich e-bost. Byddwn yn ceisio ymateb i’ch ymholiad o fewn 5 diwrnod gwaith. Yn y cyfamser, mae mwy o wybodaeth ar ein gwefan isod:

Rydym yn gwrando ac yn dysgu (https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/cy/Index.aspx)

Gellir dod o hyd i'n Polisi Pryderon a Chwynion Corfforaethol yma:

https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/Documents/Our%20Council/Compliments%20&%20Complaints/Corporate-Concerns-and-Complaints-Policy-2013-(Welsh).pdf (valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)

Ar gyfer Cwynion y Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol gweler y manylion cyswllt isod:

Cwynion y Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol (valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)

Dysgwch bech arall y gallwch ei wneud ar-lein heddiw:

Gwnewch e ar-lein

From: Victoria Davidson, Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal and Democratic Services (VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)
To: Sion Buckler
Date: 12 August 2026, 14:24 UTC
Subject: RE: Complaint – Failure to Respond / Failure to Deal Properly with Case – Cllr George Carroll (Llandough) – Great House Farm / Church View Close

Dear Mr Buckler,
Thank you for your email regarding Councillor George Carroll and for setting out the background to your concerns relating to Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough, now Church View Close.
I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence and have carefully considered the matters you have raised.
Having reviewed your complaint, I do not consider that it falls within the scope of the Vale of Glamorgan Council's Corporate Concerns and Complaints Policy. The substance of your correspondence relates to historic planning, enforcement, land ownership, heritage and record keeping matters dating back several decades, together with requests for review, explanation and further investigation of those matters.
The Corporate Concerns and Complaints Policy is not intended to provide a mechanism for challenging or revisiting decisions where there is a separate statutory process or right of appeal; seeking changes to properly made decisions, policies or legislation; pursuing matters which are not the responsibility of the Council; promoting a particular cause or campaign; or addressing matters for which alternative legal or regulatory processes exist.
You have also requested that the matter be considered by me as the Monitoring Officer as a potential breach of the Member’s Code of Conduct by Councillor Carroll.
The role of the Monitoring Officer in this context is limited to considering whether there is evidence that a member has failed to comply with the statutory Members’s Code of Conduct. Having reviewed the information you have provided, I have not identified evidence which would indicate a breach of the Members Code of Conduct.
Accordingly, the issues raised will not be progressed under the Council's Corporate Concerns and Complaints Policy as they fall outside the scope of that procedure. I do not consider there is sufficient evidence to justify referral of the matter for consideration under the Members’s Code of Conduct. No further action will therefore be taken by me in my capacity as the Council’s Monitoring Officer in relation to this complaint.
I appreciate that this response may be disappointing. However, I trust it clarifies the Council's position and the limits of the Corporate Complaints Procedure and the Monitoring Officer's role in the context of the matters you raise.
Yours sincerely,

Victoria Davidson
Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal & Democratic Services / Rheolydd Gweithredol, Gwasanaethau Cyfreithiol
Management Team - Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr - Adnoddau
Vale of Glamorgan Council / Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
tel / ffôn:
mob / sym: 01446 709407
e-mail / e-bost: VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk

Consider the environment.. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
Ystyriwch yr amgylchedd. Peidiwch ag argraffu'r neges hon oni bai fod gwir angen.

Visit our Website at www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Ewch i'n gwefan yn www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk

Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook
Follow us on Instagram / Dilynwch ni ar Instagram
Follow us on LinkedIn / Dilynwch ni ar LinkedIn

Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg.

From: Sion Buckler
To: VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Date: 12 August 2026, 23:47 UTC
Subject: Re: Complaint – Failure to Respond / Failure to Deal Properly with Case – Cllr George Carroll (Llandough) – Great House Farm / Church View Close

Ms Davidson,

Thank you for your response.

I accept the distinction you draw between the Council's Corporate Concerns
and Complaints Policy and the separate statutory framework governing the
conduct of elected members. I am not seeking to use the corporate
complaints procedure as an appeal against historic planning, enforcement,
land or judicial decisions.

However, I do wish to clarify one important point concerning your decision
in your capacity as Monitoring Officer.

My complaint about Councillor George Carroll was not simply that the
Council should revisit historic decisions concerning Great House Farm. The
specific concern was his repeated failure to provide any substantive
response to correspondence sent to him in his capacity as the elected
councillor for Llandough, despite repeated approaches over a period of
approximately five months and despite the correspondence setting out
specific matters concerning his ward.

The chronology supplied with my complaint records correspondence on:

- 16 February 2026;
- 4 May 2026;
- 7 June 2026;
- 25 June 2026; and
- 13 July 2026.

My complaint therefore concerned the conduct and handling of that
correspondence by an elected member, rather than asking the Monitoring
Officer to determine the underlying historical ownership or planning
dispute.

You state:

“Having reviewed the information you have provided, I have not identified
evidence which would indicate a breach of the Members Code of Conduct.”

I would therefore be grateful for clarification of the basis upon which
that conclusion was reached.

In particular, please confirm:

1.

*Which specific provisions of the Members' Code of Conduct were
considered* in assessing my complaint.
2.

*Whether the complete correspondence chronology and the underlying
emails and attachments were considered*, rather than merely my summary
of them.
3.

*Whether Councillor Carroll was invited to provide an explanation or
response* concerning the repeated absence of any substantive response to
the correspondence.
4.

If so, whether his response was taken into account in reaching your
conclusion.
5.

If not, please explain how the Monitoring Officer was able to determine
that there was no evidence indicating a possible breach without obtaining
the member's account of the conduct complained of.
6.

Please explain, in sufficient detail to enable me to understand the
decision, *why the documented pattern of conduct was considered
incapable of engaging any provision of the Members' Code of Conduct*.

I appreciate that failure to answer correspondence does not, by itself,
necessarily constitute a breach of the Code. I am not asserting that
proposition. My concern is that the Monitoring Officer appears to have
reached a definitive conclusion without identifying the relevant Code
provisions, the evidence considered, or the reasoning by which that
evidence was found insufficient.

I would also ask you to clarify whether you consider that the matter should
instead be referred to the *Public Services Ombudsman for Wales* for
consideration under its jurisdiction concerning complaints about the
conduct of elected members.

I note that your response states that no further action will be taken by
you as Monitoring Officer. I will therefore retain your letter, together
with my original complaint and the complete correspondence record, for
consideration of whether a complaint should be submitted to the Public
Services Ombudsman for Wales.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking you to determine the historical
merits of the Great House Farm dispute through the corporate complaints
procedure. I am asking for the reasoning and evidential basis for the
separate determination you have made concerning the conduct of an elected
member.

I would be grateful if you could therefore provide the above clarification
and confirm the relevant Code provisions considered.

Regards,

Sion Hywel Buckler
(Ret’d Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber & Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

From: Sion Buckler
To: VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk (cc complaints@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, democratic@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)
Date: 21 August 2026, 08:13 UTC
Subject: Re: Complaint – Failure to Respond / Failure to Deal Properly with Case – Cllr George Carroll (Llandough) – Great House Farm / Church View Close – Request for clarification (12 Aug)

Ms Davidson,

I refer to my email of 12 August 2026 seeking clarification of the basis
for your determination that there was no evidence indicating a possible
breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

I have not yet received a response. Please confirm whether a reply is still
intended and the expected timescale.

Regards,

Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber and Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

From: Victoria Davidson, Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal and Democratic Services (VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)
To: Sion Buckler
Date: 24 August 2026, 13:59 UTC
Subject: RE: Complaint – Failure to Respond / Failure to Deal Properly with Case – Cllr George Carroll (Llandough) – Great House Farm / Church View Close

Dear Mr Buckler,
Thank you for your email.
I note your request for further clarification regarding my decision in my capacity as Monitoring Officer.
The assessment I undertook was limited to considering whether the information provided disclosed evidence which, if established, could indicate a failure by the member to comply with the statutory Member’s Code of Conduct. As Monitoring Officer, I do not have formal investigatory powers equivalent to those of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales and I am not required to undertake an investigation or obtain representations from a member before deciding whether there is sufficient basis for a referral to be made. My role at this stage is to consider whether the information presented discloses evidence of conduct that appears capable of amounting to a breach of the Code.
In reaching my view, I considered the information provided within your complaint, including the chronology you supplied regarding correspondence sent to Councillor Carroll between February and July 2026. The substance of the complaint was that you had not received substantive responses to a number of emails sent over that period.
For completeness, I considered whether the conduct alleged could potentially engage any of the principal obligations contained within the Member's Code of Conduct. These include requirements that members show respect and consideration for others, do not engage in bullying, harassment or discriminatory behaviour, do not bring their office or authority into disrepute, do not improperly use their position to confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person, and do not misuse Council resources or confidential information.
Whilst I appreciate that the absence of a response to correspondence may be frustrating, the information provided did not disclose evidence of disrespectful behaviour, bullying, harassment, misuse of position, misuse of Council resources, disclosure of confidential information, conduct bringing the office of member or the authority into disrepute, or any other behaviour which appeared capable of amounting to a breach of the Code. In reaching that view, I considered the nature of the conduct alleged, namely a failure to respond to correspondence, and whether that conduct engaged any provision of the Code.
It is important to note that the Member’s Code of Conduct does not impose a general obligation on elected members to respond to all correspondence received from members of the public, nor does it prescribe timescales within which responses must be provided. The Code is concerned with standards of conduct rather than the quality, adequacy or timeliness of constituency casework. Consequently, a decision not to respond, or not to respond in the manner sought by a correspondent, does not of itself constitute evidence of a breach of the Code.
Given that the information provided did not disclose evidence which appeared capable of amounting to a breach of the Code, I did not consider it necessary or proportionate to seek comments from Councillor Carroll before reaching that conclusion. My decision was therefore based upon the information contained within your complaint and whether that information, taken at its highest, indicated a potential breach of the Code warranting further action.
For completeness, any person is entitled to submit a complaint directly to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales if they believe a member has failed to comply with the Member’s Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman is independent of the Council and is responsible for determining whether a complaint should be investigated and, if so, whether any further action is appropriate.
I trust this clarifies the basis of my decision. Having reviewed the information provided, my position remains that I have not identified evidence which would justify further action by me in my capacity as Monitoring Officer.
Yours sincerely,

Victoria Davidson
Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal and Democratic Services / Swyddog Monitro / Pennaeth Gwasanaethau Cyfreithiol a Democrataidd
Director's Office - Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr - Adnoddau
Vale of Glamorgan Council / Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
tel / ffôn: 01446 709407
mob / sym: 07891 449715
e-mail / e-bost: VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
Ystyriwch yr amgylchedd. Peidiwch ag argraffu'r neges hon oni bai fod gwir angen.

Visit our Website at www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Ewch i'n gwefan yn www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk

Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook
Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter

Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg.

From: Sion Buckler
To: VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Date: 24 August 2026, 19:31 UTC
Subject: Re: Complaint – Failure to Respond / Failure to Deal Properly with Case – Cllr George Carroll (Llandough) – Great House Farm / Church View Close

Ms Davidson,

Thank you for your further response. Very much appreciate your time in this
matter.

I have considered it carefully. I now need to make one fundamental point
clear. This is not any animosity or prejudice but a matter of upmost
importance to my family, many of whome are women and too frightened to
speak out. I must do my ahsolute best and part here and take the following
position on this matter.

I do not accept the characterisation of my complaint as being simply that a
councillor failed to answer a number of emails.

That formulation removes the very circumstances which made the conduct
complained of potentially relevant to the standards expected of an elected
member.

Councillor Carroll initially responded to me and asked how he could help. I
then provided the information and evidence requested. What followed was not
an isolated unanswered email, but a documented pattern of non-engagement
over approximately five months, notwithstanding repeated approaches
concerning matters affecting his own ward, including planning, development,
historical records and a serious concern that the title upon which current
development is proceeding may itself require examination.

I am not asking the Monitoring Officer to determine the ownership of Great
House Farm by correspondence. Nor am I asking the Council to accept my
allegations as established fact.

I am asking whether the conduct of an elected member, in the circumstances
actually presented, was properly assessed against the full range of
standards applicable to that member.
1. The Code cannot be reduced to an obligation to answer emails

I accept the proposition that the Members' Code does not create a general
rule requiring a councillor to answer every email received from a member of
the public within a prescribed period.

That is not the proposition I have advanced.

The question is whether a sustained course of conduct can engage provisions
of the Code concerning respect and consideration, conduct capable of
bringing the member's office or authority into disrepute, misuse of
position, and the broader principles governing the conduct of elected
representatives.

The Council's current Constitution places the Members' Code within Section
19 and separately identifies the principles governing members' conduct.

The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales itself describes the Code as
imposing enforceable minimum standards on councillors and identifies,
amongst other matters, conduct which negatively affects an authority's
reputation, unfair use of position, bullying, and failures to treat people
equally as matters which can potentially constitute breaches.

I therefore ask you to identify precisely which provisions you considered
and, more importantly, why the particular factual circumstances I supplied
were considered incapable of engaging any of them.

A conclusion that "failure to respond is not itself a breach" does not
answer that question.
2. The actual chronology matters

Please record the chronology accurately.

This was not:

five emails were sent and a councillor did not reply.

It was:

- I approached my elected ward councillor concerning matters affecting
his ward;
- Councillor Carroll responded and asked how he could help;
- I then supplied substantive information and evidence;
- further correspondence followed on 16 February, 4 May, 7 June, 25 June
and 13 July 2026;
- the correspondence concerned, amongst other things, the historical
planning and development of Great House Farm / Church View Close, access to
relevant public records, and an apparent defect or inconsistency in the
historical title chain;
- despite the initial invitation to explain how he could assist, there
was subsequently no substantive engagement with the matters raised.

That is the conduct I asked you to assess.

I therefore ask you to confirm whether you considered the actual underlying
emails and attachments, rather than merely the summary chronology.
3. Was Councillor Carroll's account obtained?

You have now confirmed that you did not consider it necessary to seek
comments from Councillor Carroll.

I appreciate that you do not have to conduct a full investigation at this
stage.

Nevertheless, that makes the precise nature of your decision particularly
important.

You have reached a conclusion that the information provided did not
disclose evidence capable of amounting to a breach, whilst apparently not
obtaining the explanation of the person whose conduct was complained of.

That does not necessarily make the decision unlawful. But it does mean that
I am entitled to understand precisely what factual inference you drew from
the material before you.

In particular, if there was a reason why Councillor Carroll did not respond
after initially offering to help, I do not know what that reason was.

If the reason was that he considered the matter outside his role, please
say so.

If the reason was that he considered the correspondence excessive,
vexatious or otherwise inappropriate, please say so.

If the reason was connected with material I had published or discussed on
social media, please say so.

If there was another reason, please identify it.

I am not alleging any particular explanation. I am asking that the factual
basis of the conduct not simply be assumed.
4. Social media and equal treatment

I also wish to place one specific issue on record.

I understand that the Code does not simply regulate everything a member or
member of the public says on social media. The Ombudsman itself has
separate guidance concerning social media and the Code.

Accordingly, if social-media material has influenced Councillor Carroll's
decision to disengage from me, I would ask that this be disclosed rather
than silently becoming the background justification for his conduct.

It would be an obvious inconsistency if material said or published by a
constituent outside the relevant Code framework were treated as a reason
for refusing to engage with that constituent, while the resulting conduct
of the elected member were then assessed in isolation as merely "a failure
to respond".

Again, I am not asserting that this occurred. I am asking that it not be
assumed away.
5. This is also a question of democratic accountability

There is a much wider issue here which I do not believe has been addressed.

I am raising a documented public-interest concern concerning land within
the Council's area, historical planning and enforcement records, the
demolition and subsequent development of Great House Farm / Church View
Close, and an apparent problem in the title history of land now associated
with substantial residential development.

I am not asking the Council to decide my private ownership claim.

I am asking that the concern be capable of being placed before the
democratic institutions of the Council and scrutinised by the appropriate
people.

The Council itself expressly operates mechanisms for public questions at
Full Council, and its published meeting material demonstrates that
questions from the public are part of its democratic process. The Council
also states that its meetings are conducted to support and promote
democratic engagement and public interest.

Your response says that no further action will be taken by you. It does
not, however, tell me what democratic route remains available for me to
place the underlying public-interest concern before elected members.

I therefore ask you to identify that route.

Specifically, please confirm how I may:

1.

submit a public question to Full Council concerning the Council's
records and handling of this matter;
2.

submit a petition or e-petition;
3.

seek consideration by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee;
4.

raise the adequacy of the Council's handling of the matter with the
Governance and Audit Committee or other appropriate constitutional body; and
5.

request inspection of relevant historical background papers associated
with the planning and demolition history of the site.

The answer cannot simply be that the Monitoring Officer has decided not to
take further action. That determines one particular route. It does not
extinguish democratic accountability.
6. The public-record issue needs to be separated from the ownership dispute

I also want to avoid any further misunderstanding concerning the planning
records.

I have repeatedly encountered historical material which is not presently
accessible to me through the Council's online planning system.

I am not presently asserting that this proves deliberate concealment.

There may be perfectly legitimate explanations: age of the records,
digitisation, migration between systems, retention arrangements, technical
problems, or the fact that historical material was never placed online.

But the important point is that the Council's own planning-register
arrangements acknowledge that the online register is not necessarily a
complete database of everything held by the Council.

That makes the appropriate question one of transparency:

*What records does the Council hold, what records does it no longer hold,
where are the surviving records, and how can they be inspected?*

That is a straightforward public-record question.

It should not depend upon the Council first accepting my interpretation of
the title history.

I therefore intend to pursue the records question separately and formally,
including under the applicable information-access legislation where
appropriate.
7. The historical planning record is itself relevant

The historical demolition of Great House Farm is not an invented issue
arising solely from my family account.

The historic environment record identifies Great House Farm as a
historically significant site and records its sudden and complete
demolition in December 1988 amid considerable local controversy.

Whatever conclusion is ultimately reached concerning ownership, title or
the historical allegations, the existence of a significant historical
record means that it is reasonable to ask what planning, enforcement,
demolition, committee and officer records survive and what decisions were
made.

I am therefore not asking the Council to rewrite history in accordance with
my family's interpretation.

I am asking the Council to disclose its own documentary history.
8. Monitoring Officer responsibilities

I also ask you to clarify the extent to which you have considered the
Council's own potential obligations as an authority, as distinct from your
assessment of Councillor Carroll's individual conduct.

Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 places a statutory
reporting function upon a Monitoring Officer where it appears that a
proposal, decision or omission by the authority, its committees,
sub-committees, officers or other specified authority actors gives rise to
the statutory circumstances identified in that provision.

I am not asserting that section 5 automatically requires you to issue a
report merely because I have asked you to do so.

I am asking a narrower and more reasonable question:

*Have you considered whether any separate omission or decision by the
Council itself — particularly concerning access to public records,
democratic engagement or the handling of this matter — engages your
statutory Monitoring Officer responsibilities?*

If you have considered that question and concluded that section 5 is not
engaged, please say so and give the reason.

If you have not considered it, please confirm that.
9. The Ombudsman

Your response expressly directs me to the Public Services Ombudsman for
Wales.

I will therefore consider making a direct Code of Conduct complaint
supported by the underlying correspondence rather than relying upon the
Council's characterisation of the matter.

That is particularly appropriate because the Ombudsman states that its
initial assessment considers whether evidence suggests that a Code breach
may have occurred and, separately, whether investigation would be
sufficiently serious and in the public interest. The Ombudsman specifically
identifies maintaining public confidence in local councillors as one factor
relevant to that assessment.

I will therefore allow the Ombudsman to make its own assessment of the
evidence.

I will provide it with the actual chronology, the original correspondence,
the initial response from Councillor Carroll asking how he could assist,
the subsequent correspondence, and your decision.
10. One final point about the characterisation of my conduct

I have been persistent because I consider the underlying matter important.

Persistence should not be confused with misconduct.

The Ombudsman itself expressly states that it does not regard behaviour as
unacceptable merely because a complainant is forceful or determined, while
also making clear that correspondence should remain polite and courteous.

I accept the latter completely.

I am therefore going to continue to pursue these matters firmly, but
through the proper channels and on the evidence.

What I will not accept is the repeated administrative reframing of a
substantive public-interest concern as nothing more than an unhappy
constituent sending too many emails.
Accordingly, I ask you to confirm:

1.

The exact provisions of the Members' Code of Conduct which you
considered.
2.

Whether you considered the five original emails and their attachments in
full.
3.

Whether you considered Councillor Carroll's initial response asking how
he could assist.
4.

Whether Councillor Carroll was asked for an explanation. If not, please
confirm that.
5.

Whether you are aware of any reason why he subsequently ceased
substantive engagement.
6.

Whether social-media activity formed any part of the reason for his
non-engagement.
7.

Whether you have considered any potential omission or decision by the
Council itself under your statutory Monitoring Officer responsibilities.
8.

What democratic mechanism you say is available for me to place the
underlying public-interest concern before elected members.
9.

How I can obtain or inspect the surviving planning, enforcement,
demolition, committee and officer records relating to Great House Farm /
Church View Close which are not available through the online planning
system.
10.

Whether any relevant records are known to have been destroyed, disposed
of, transferred, archived elsewhere or otherwise become unavailable, and,
if so, under what records-management arrangements.
11.

Whether the historical demolition and subsequent development were
considered by a Council committee and, if so, where the relevant agendas,
reports, minutes and background papers can be inspected.

I am deliberately keeping these questions precise because I want a proper
evidential record rather than another exchange in which the substance of
the issue is lost in administrative categorisation.

I am also not asking you to endorse my conclusions concerning title.

The democratic question is much simpler:

*Where a constituent places before his elected representative a documented
concern that land within the ward may be affected by a defective or
unresolved title history, and where the historical public records needed to
examine that concern are not readily accessible, what mechanism exists for
that concern to be transparently examined rather than simply closed
administratively?*

That question remains unanswered.

I would therefore be grateful for a substantive response to the points
above.

Yours sincerely,

*Sion Hywel Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)*
*Royal Signals Cyber & Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member*

From: Sion Buckler
To: RegistrationService@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk; registrars@cardiff.gov.uk
Date: 20 August 2026, 19:33 UTC
Subject: Application for copy death certificates – William Buckler (1990) and Mary Doreen Williams (1983)

Dear Register Office,

I wish to obtain certified copies of the death certificates for the
following individuals:

1. William (Billy) Buckler
- Died on or about 29 May 1990 at Llandough Hospital
- Aged 41
- Late of Great House Farm, Llandough
- Likely registered in the Vale of Glamorgan / South Glamorgan district

2. Mary Doreen Williams
- Born 10 August 1913
- Death registered March 1983, South Glamorgan (Vol 28, Page 3029)

Please advise the correct office holding each entry, the application
process, current fees (standard and priority), payment methods, and any
additional information required to locate the entries accurately.

I am happy to complete any formal application forms and provide
identification if needed.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours faithfully,

Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber and Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

Note: Sent jointly to the Vale and Cardiff register offices. Cardiff Register Office's replies in this thread are catalogued on the Cardiff Council page.

From: Michelle, Registration Service, Vale of Glamorgan Council (RegistrationService@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)
To: Sion Buckler
Date: 8 September 2026, 14:45 UTC
Subject: RE: Application for copy death certificates – William Buckler (1990) and Mary Doreen Williams (1983)

Hello Sion

We have been unable to find records for either of the requested certificates. Please contact Cardiff to request as deaths between 1990 and 1996 in LLandough are held at Cardiff and South Glamorgan covered the Vale and Cardiff.

Many thanks
Michelle

From: Sion Buckler
To: monitoringofficer@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk; chiefexecutive@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk; s151@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk (cc complaints@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, finance@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)
Date: 21 August 2026, 08:13 UTC
Subject: Formal Governance and Integrity Notification — Great House Farm / Ty Mawr, Llandough

Sir/Madam,

I write to give formal notice of documentary evidence which, if correctly
understood, raises a potentially material question concerning the
historical identity, ownership and/or title to land formerly known as *Great
House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough*, subsequently developed for residential
purposes including *Church View Close*.

This correspondence is intended as a *governance and integrity notification*.
It is not an FOI or EIR request, nor am I asking the Council at this stage
to accept my allegations or conclusions as established fact.
1. The land and subsequent development

The land concerned is the former Great House Farm / Ty Mawr site at
Llandough.

The site was subsequently developed for residential use. Planning and
associated administrative decisions were therefore made in circumstances in
which ownership of the relevant land appears to have been treated as
sufficiently established for those purposes.

I am notifying the Council because documentary evidence now assembled
appears to raise a material question as to whether the historical title
position was in fact conclusively established, and whether that question
was adequately identified, examined and recorded within the Council's
administrative and planning records.
2. Potential title-chain discrepancy

The documentary record presently available to me indicates a historical
dispute concerning the land involving my grandmother and the
Williams/Buckler family on one side and BP-related entities on the other.

My understanding of the available records is that:

- proceedings in 1974 did not result in a final judicial determination
conclusively establishing the underlying title in the manner subsequently
assumed;
- a further hearing listed for *31 October 1974* did not proceed
substantively;
- the land was subsequently registered in the name of BP-related
entities around *1982*;
- my grandmother died in *1983*, without, on the evidence presently
available to me, a final judicial determination of the underlying ownership
dispute or compensation resolving the family's claim;
- the subsequent *1987 Court of Appeal proceedings, BP Properties Ltd v
Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2*, did not, in my assessment, constitute a
comprehensive adjudication of every underlying historical title question
now arising from the documentary record.

I emphasise that I am *not asking the Council to determine the civil title
itself*. Rather, I am asking whether the Council has properly established
what was actually determined by the courts, what remained disputed, what
documentary basis was relied upon for treating title as settled, and
whether that distinction was properly reflected in its own records and
decision-making.

That distinction is important.
3. Documentary evidence

I have assembled documentary material concerning the historical title
chain, court proceedings, registration history, conveyances and associated
records, together with a chronological record of notifications and
responses.

The core documentary evidence can be supplied to the Council immediately.

Some of the underlying material and references have also been raised in
previous correspondence with the Council and other public bodies. I
therefore request that this notification be considered alongside the
relevant material already held on Council files, rather than treated as an
isolated new allegation.
4. Authorities previously notified

The matter has previously been raised with, among others:

- the Planning Department — from 31 January 2026 and subsequently;
- the Council's FOI / Information Governance function, including case
*00210772*;
- Councillor George Carroll — through multiple contacts between February
and July 2026;
- Corporate Complaints / the Monitoring Officer — including
correspondence dated 27 July 2026 and the determination dated 12 August
2026;
- Cadw and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments
of Wales (RCAHMW);
- other public bodies involved in the continuing documentary and
evidential trail.

I am concerned that the substantive governance question identified above
has not yet been independently addressed.
5. Matters requiring independent examination

In particular, I request that the Council establish:

1. *Whether the historical title dispute was ever conclusively determined
by a competent court*, distinguishing between orders concerning
possession, proceedings concerning particular issues, and an actual final
determination of the underlying title.

2. *What documentary evidence the Council historically relied upon when
treating ownership of the relevant land as established* for planning,
development, conveyancing or other administrative purposes.

3. *Whether the Council's planning and administrative records contain any
recognition of the historical dispute*, including any consideration of
competing title claims or unresolved matters affecting the identity or
ownership of the land.

4. *Whether any independent review of these issues has previously been
undertaken*, and if so, by whom, on what terms, and with what
conclusions.

5. *Whether any current Council officer involved in reviewing this
notification has previously participated materially in the decisions,
complaints, correspondence or investigations now under examination*,
and, if so, what arrangements will be made to ensure genuine independence.

6. *Whether the Council considers that any governance, record-keeping,
planning or public-confidence issue remains outstanding*, irrespective
of the ultimate determination of civil title.

6. Why independent examination is warranted

The fact that the land has subsequently been developed does not, by itself,
resolve the historical documentary question.

If the evidence demonstrates that a material title issue was overlooked,
misunderstood or inadequately recorded, that may have implications
extending beyond the original ownership dispute, including the accuracy and
integrity of public records and the basis upon which subsequent
administrative decisions were made.

Conversely, if the Council considers that the historical record
conclusively resolves the matter, I ask that it identify *the specific
documentary and judicial basis for that conclusion*.

That is why I am requesting an independent examination rather than asking
individual officers who have previously dealt with the matter simply to
reaffirm earlier positions.
7. Formal request

I therefore formally request that the Council:

*a.* acknowledge this notification and identify the officer or function
responsible for independently reviewing it;

*b.* confirm how that review will be kept independent of officers who have
previously dealt substantively with the matter;

*c.* identify the principal Council records and documentary evidence that
will be considered;

*d.* determine whether the historical title issue described above has
previously been properly examined and recorded;

*e.* identify any material governance or administrative issue that remains
outstanding; and

*f.* provide a written response setting out the process to be followed and
the anticipated timescale.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am *not asking the Council to accept that
fraud, unlawful dispossession or defective title has been established*. I
am notifying the Council that documentary evidence appears to raise a
potentially material question concerning the historical identity and/or
title to land upon which subsequent development took place, and I am asking
the Council to establish whether that question has ever been properly
examined.

If the Council considers that determination of the underlying civil title
falls outside its functions, I would nevertheless ask it to address the
separate governance question: *whether its own historical records and
decision-making properly identified and dealt with the title issue on the
evidence available to it.*

This is a *formal governance and integrity notification*, not an FOI or EIR
request.

I would be grateful for written acknowledgement and confirmation of the
process and timescale for an independent determination.

Yours sincerely,

*Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)*
Royal Signals — Cyber and Electronic Warfare Professional
Life Member

Note: Gmail returned delivery-failure notices the same day for finance@, monitoringofficer@ and s151@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk ("Recipient address rejected: Access denied"). No reply from the Council appears in this thread.

From: Sion Buckler
To: lburnett@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk; leader@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk (cc gdcarroll@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, democratic@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)
Date: 10 September 2026, 14:23 UTC
Subject: Escalation — Llandough ward member silence: Great House Farm / Church View Close and removal of commemorative tree
Attachments: 14473.jpg, Particulars_of_Claim_Great_House_Farm_Solicitor_Draft-2.pdf

Councillor Burnett,

I write to you as Leader of the Vale of Glamorgan Council because the
elected member for Llandough, Councillor George D. D. Carroll, has not
answered a sequence of written enquiries spanning more than six months. I
am going above him for that reason alone. I am not asking you to adjudicate
the historic title dispute. I am asking that a constituent with a
documented family interest in the ward receive a reply that the ward member
has declined to give.

I understand that elected members do not have a line manager in the
employment sense. Councillor Carroll is Leader of the Conservative Group.
You are the political head of the authority. After the ward member and the
Monitoring Officer, you are the proper next addressee.

Why I am writing to you rather than waiting further

1. Councillor Carroll has not sent a single substantive reply to me at
gdcarroll@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk.
2. On 27 July 2026 I filed a formal complaint about that silence (copied to
him, Democratic Services and the Monitoring Officer).
3. On 12 August 2026 Victoria Davidson, Monitoring Officer, wrote that the
matter fell outside the Corporate Concerns and Complaints Policy and that
she had not identified a Code of Conduct breach. That determination did not
require him to respond. It left the original questions unanswered.
4. I followed up with the Monitoring Officer on 12 August, 21 August and 24
August 2026. The position did not change.
5. I copied Councillor Carroll again on 28 August 2026 (joint letter with
Stephen Doughty MP). Still no reply from him.

The questions he has not answered include a simple, current, ward-level
one: who removed the tree my great-grandfather planted to mark the family’s
claim, as recorded in the Collection of Wales / archival image. That is a
local enquiry a ward member can signpost to Parks, Highways, Planning or
the landowner. It is not a request that he retry BP Properties Ltd v
Buckler.

From his public output, Councillor Carroll appears to concentrate on
blocked drains, potholes and similar highway defects. Those matters matter.
The correspondence I sent him is of a different character: heritage,
planning and enforcement records, the 1988 demolition of Great House Farm
(Ty Mawr), now Church View Close, and the removal of a commemorative tree.
I accept that may be outside the type of casework he usually handles. That
is why a short, honest reply — even if only to say the questions sit with
named officers, and to pass the tree query to the correct department —
would have been sufficient. Silence is not.

Recorded approaches to Councillor Carroll (gdcarroll@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)

All sent. No substantive reply on any of them.

- 16 February 2026 — “Title Fraud and Procedural Concealment – Church View
Close, Llandough (formerly Great House Farm / Ty Mawr)”. Planning and
record-keeping gaps; 1988 demolition.
- 4 May 2026 — follow-up on BP v Buckler 1987; ITV footage; request for
attention as Llandough councillor.
- 3 May 2026 — joined the public “George Carroll for Llandough” Facebook
group (approved). Not a substitute for a council-email reply.
- 9 May 2026 — a wider formal notice also addressed to
gcarroll@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk. That address bounced. Subsequent mail used
the correct gdcarroll@ address.
- 7 June 2026 — “Church View Close, Llandough”. 1988 events from public
records, family testimony and media.
- 25 June 2026 — “Great House Farm, Llandough”. Asked whether he had
reviewed the earlier concerns and whether any discussion was possible.
- 13 July 2026 — “Great House Farm / Church View Close”. Full timeline
restated. Ten-working-day request. Explicit question: who removed the tree
my great-grandfather planted to commemorate the ownership claim, as shown
in the Collection of Wales archive image.
- 27 July 2026 — formal complaint to complaints@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk,
copied to Councillor Carroll, Democratic Services and the Monitoring
Officer.
- 28 August 2026 — further letter to Councillor Carroll and Stephen Doughty
MP on the same site.

What I am asking you to do

1. Note that the ward member has not answered, and that the complaint
process produced no requirement that he do so.

2. Ask Councillor Carroll, or the relevant Director, to provide a short
written reply on the tree: which department or landowner authorised or
carried out its removal, on what date, and under what power or works order
— or to confirm that the Council holds no such record.

3. Identify the correct officer contact for heritage, trees and historic
planning records at Church View Close / former Great House Farm, so I am
not left circling a silent ward inbox.

4. Confirm whether the Council will treat a documented family connection to
a demolished historic farmstead in the ward as a legitimate basis for a
reply, even where the correspondent is not presently resident in Llandough.

The thesis of my concern is that the lawfare/ warfare that systematically
attempted to make our occupancy permissive as early as the 40's (with my
grandmothers statement of title being stolen, a failed attempt to get us
into a tenancy afterwards, and ambiguity in a 1955 order for another parcel
we leased and defaulted on, which later meant it was able to be
misinterpreted to make it appear our parcel of land (now Church View Close)
was part of theirs, like it was in 1916 - 1928) is a racket. The ownership
dispute was a problem created. The reaction followed and the solution was
to focus on possession. And so in 1987 BP were awarded possession with what
was a defective title chain.

I do not expect you to reopen 1987 litigation. I do expect the authority,
once the ward member has been given months and a formal complaint, to
answer a factual question about a tree on land in that ward. Because that
tree was part of a long list of evidence supporting our ownership claim.

I can supply the original emails and the 27 July complaint in full if
Democratic Services does not already have them. See attached the
aforementioned tree planting ceremy image. I also enclose a draft chancery
court allocation so you can understand the legal arguments.

Due to a lot of suspicious and conveniently timed deaths in our family,
surrounding this case, like my grandmother dying in the 2 weeks she will
have had to challenge BP quietly registering our land parcel in their names
in 1983, without declaring our ownership claim, which was never
exstinguished as the first 1974 court case was ajourned. Or my fathers
death after his appeal of the 1987 ruling was dismissed on grounds of
"heads BP win, tails we lose". Followed by ECHR rejection citing BP own the
land, despite BP only seeking possession and never seeking or gaining
ownership.

I have a trove of evidence and I am collecting more and investigating and
in talks with CPS and Fraud Police and MoJ and Land Registry. The initial
thing I would like from you is the record of the removal of the tree we
planted. The picture attached depicts its location. I'd like to know who
removed it and when it was removed?

Regards,

Sion Hywel Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber/ Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member
5 Robin Hill, Dinas Powys, CF64 4TF

From: Victoria Davidson, Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal and Democratic Services (VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)
To: Sion Buckler (cc Democratic@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, FoiUnit@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)
Date: 18 September 2026, 14:01 UTC
Subject: RE: Escalation — Llandough ward member silence: Great House Farm / Church View Close and removal of commemorative tree

Dear Mr Buckler
Thank you for your recent correspondence which I am responding to on behalf of the Leader, concerning Great House Farm/Church View Close, the removal of a commemorative tree and your communications with Councillor Carroll.
I have considered the matters you have raised.
As you are aware, I have previously responded to your concerns regarding Councillor Carroll's lack of response to your correspondence. Having reviewed those concerns, I concluded that the matter did not fall within the Council's Corporate Complaints Policy and I did not identify any basis for further action under the Members' Code of Conduct process. The Council has no mechanism by which it can compel an elected member to respond to correspondence from a constituent and, accordingly, the Council's consideration of that aspect of the matter is concluded.
Please note that the Leader is not responsible for the conduct of Members other than those with her own political group
I note that your recent correspondence extends beyond the issue of Councillor Carroll's responsiveness and raises a broader range of concerns relating to historical land ownership, planning and heritage matters associated with Great House Farm/Church View Close, together with a request for information regarding the removal of a commemorative tree.
In relation to the tree, I am making enquiries to establish whether the Council holds any records which may assist in answering your question regarding its removal. This is being dealt with by the Information Governance Team, I have copied in the FOI unit email domain. If relevant information is held by the Council, I will advise you accordingly. Equally, if no such records are held, I will confirm that position.
In respect of the wider matters raised in your correspondence, it is important that I clarify the scope of the Council's role. The Council is not able to determine disputed ownership of land, revisit historical legal proceedings, adjudicate upon competing title claims, or investigate allegations of fraud or other criminal conduct. Those matters fall within the jurisdiction of the courts, HM Land Registry, the police and other external bodies as appropriate.
Whilst I appreciate the strength of feeling reflected in your correspondence and recognise the significance that these matters have for you and your family, the Council must limit its involvement to those issues which fall within its statutory functions and responsibilities. Any response provided by the Council will therefore be confined to matters upon which it may properly comment and any information which it may hold.
The FOI team will write to you further once enquiries regarding the tree have been completed.
Yours sincerely,

Victoria Davidson
Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal and Democratic Services / Swyddog Monitro / Pennaeth Gwasanaethau Cyfreithiol a Democrataidd
Director's Office - Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr - Adnoddau
Vale of Glamorgan Council / Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
tel / ffôn: 01446 709407
mob / sym: 07891 449715
e-mail / e-bost: VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
Ystyriwch yr amgylchedd. Peidiwch ag argraffu'r neges hon oni bai fod gwir angen.

Visit our Website at www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Ewch i'n gwefan yn www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk

Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook
Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter

Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg.

From: Sion Buckler
To: VDavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Date: 18 September 2026, 16:23 UTC
Subject: Re: Escalation — Llandough ward member silence: Great House Farm / Church View Close and removal of commemorative tree
Attachments: 1095.jpg, 1155.jpg, 507.jpg, 983.jpg

Ms Davidson,

Thanks for your reply. Firstly see attached an actual image of my amputee,
widow pensioner grandmother Mrs Williams, who's land I believe was stolen.
Resulting in mine and my families inhumane dispossession by BP and local
authories here, in 1988. I will save you images of the small army of her
heirs and successors which have the interest in this land i.e. her 7
children and their many surviving children each. My grandmother died
asserting her ownership. My father died asserting his ownership.

We have never surrendered or conveyed or sold our ownership. Ignoring us,
killing us, supressing/ concealing even destroying evidence has never
changed the fabric of reality or changed our position on this matter. The
thing with twisting reality to suite, in this case more concentration work
camp houses, by stealing an indigenous disabled, widow pensioners family
land and home of almost 4 centuries, is that reality always snaps back.
Truth takes longer, but it does always come out. And you can fool some of
the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

The land registry even explicitly wrote to me, not just the MP today, to me
they stated they have never claimed we do not own our land parcel. Nor that
evidence existed we don't own it. Nor has any court ever ruled we don't.
Possession fell to BP due to their presentation to the court and lawfare.
Our family fell for their theatrics as much as local authories. It doesn't
change the fact the title chain of the possessors is defective and is based
on a falsehood that our occupancy of our parcel was permissive. When in
fact our undefeated title chain of our land parcel from 1928, is proceeded
by Daniel Thomas & Son, before that Marquess of Bute, before that Vaughan
family and the origin is a 1000 year freehold from Knight Sir Herbert of
Swansea to Vaughan in the 1500's.

BPs interest in our parcel was a 1969 purchase of interest in an unenforced
(possible undeclaired) possession order, by Western Ground Rents, based on
a 1955 order that, like in 1974, attempted to make our occupancy of our
land parcel permissive. It said the order was for the "whole farm" and only
excluded our parcel because of my nans "condition and resistence". Having
just had her leg amputated.

Firstly the whole farm was defined as the parcel they'd possessed to the
east of ours, as per the 1939 agreement (see attached). It no longer
included our parcel from the 1916 agricultral tenancy, because in 1928 our
1877 agreement with Daniel Thomas enacted when the last quarrying machine
was removed. Our grandad even registered the land in our names in and
around 1928 too. The 1939 revisal of the 1916 agricultural tenancy
explicitly didn't include our land parcel. So the whole farm was not the
same definition as the 1916 agricutural tenancy which was conveyed to
Western Ground Rents in 1938. Secondly my nan wasn't just resisting moving
due to having her leg amputated. She was asserting ownership. She also
refused a previous attempt to make her occupancy permissive in 1949, by
rejecting a WGR attempt to get her into a tenancy. Which she explicitly
rejected due to asserting ownership.

So you see my disabled, widow, pensioner grandmother, even until her
conveniently timed death in 1983 , in the two week window she will have had
to challenge BP registering our land in their names at the land registry
(which she was never even made aware of, nor did BP disclose to land
registry her ownership claim), even unto her dying breath she challenged
permissive occupancy and asserted ownership.

The land registry wrote back to the MP actually and is still trying to worm
their way out of this. Them not admitting a mistake is even an audacity as
it was clearly more than a mistake at the land registry in my estimation.
They will have had to look at the 1974 court proceedings to see BP seeking
possession, yet ownership wasn't determined in case 1 of 1974, it was
ajourned. And the quashing of the posssession order in case 2 in 1974 is
also dubious, as the case was quashed the same day my nan was notified of
BPs offer. So she wasn't actually given ample time to respond. Furthermore
the license letters were to a mrs buckler, my nan was a Mrs Williams. The
land registry admitted to me in writing they will have used my nans 1935
marriage certificate to officiate BPs 1974 license letters to a Mrs
Buckler. Furthemore the land registry cite the 1983 decision they made was
fine as the 1987 court paperwork says so. Not that they could have known
its outcome in 1983. And the 1987 case is based on the 1983 land registry.
And they both depended on BPs attempt to make our occupancy of our 800 year
home, and family home since 1667 - permissive, when we owned it since 1928.
Furthmore, having never paid anything on our land since 1928, we will have
qualified for adverse possession by 1940 in any case. The interruption of
our adverse possession which is alleged to have begun in 1955, and was
interrupted in 1962 and 1974, will have only been for the land parcel to
the east of ours. Not the land parcel we were on.

This is the problem with theatre, fraud, concentalment, government
involvement (force), corporate manslaughter, suppression, lawfare etc. It
is all short term gains. But without legitimacy, local authorities lack
actual authority. The authority must derive from legitimacy. What I am
alluding to may be rough edged and not meticulous, but its not before a
court yet. Also what I alledge isn't entirely contrary to the official
narrative. Both can be true simultaneously is the wild part of all this.

The concern I raise, is more for local authories sakes, because a lot of
actions were taken by the council, CADW, Police, which were based on fraud
and BPs defective title. My mum was physically thrown over our garden gate
to get her off the property, while pregnant, dislocating her collar bone
in that process too. All she was doing was trying to get medicine from our
occupied/ stolen home (since the 16th century), for my terminally ill dad
who was in hospital. The press all labelled us "squatters being evicted".

I am horrified at the local authories here who insist on my family of
mostly women being a hostage prisoner of war class under terrorists.
They're all afraid to even speak out or challenge the narrative as anyone
in our family who has conveniently died. Myself, as a decorated war veteran
warfare peofessional with tens of soldiers I've served with, do not
negotatiate with terrorists as it is. We don't stand for this terroist/
hostage situationship. Much like us indigenous Briton welsh nationals on
our ancestral birthland, accept our towns and cities being turned into
ethnic cleansing concentration work camps.

Marconi's stay with us is covered up. Even unto this day. Along with the
Roman Villa, Monestry, Peerless Jims first fight in our barns. Even the
2,200 year old round house isn't mentioned. Why? Llandough has been turned
into a concentration work camp. The town website history page doesn't even
mention the half of this. Also all the campaigning to petition the housing
development (on our land) in 1974 and affirm our home was a county
treasure, was suppressed. When BP demolished our home in 1988 and went back
to the Vale council for planning approval. The council never held BP to
account for just demolishing our country treasure home. And even suppressed
or down played any record it was ever a county treasure property. Or site
of historic and archelogical signifcants.

I am not just writing about my disappointment in the councillor. I know
he's likely already been scolded by the aforementioned terrorists that
outrank him, in the aftermath of rejecting being replaced and ethnically
cleansed which resulted in him being ejected from a council meeting for
challenging Cardiff being a city of Sanctuary. My motto is different in
that I say "Bring Guns" and am fully aware everything comes down to guns
and fire fights. So I will always need an actual gun to be fired at me or
held to my head to make me even consider standing down. And even then the
last 3 times firearms have been drawn on me I ended up disarming the
aggressor. So I'm perhaps a different breed to the councillor or civilians
alike.

But I am bona fide. I left my military career with full honours.

In any case, separately from the Councillor Carroll complaint which you
closed today. This complaint concerns two connected matters: the custody
and handling of Llandough Community Council records concerning Great House
Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough, and the completeness and treatment of Vale of
Glamorgan Council's planning and heritage records relating to application
89/01396/OUT and the subsequent reserved-matters application.

I appreciate that you do not employ the former Clerk, Mr Paul R. Egan. I am
nevertheless raising the matter with you as Monitoring Officer because the
underlying planning file is a Vale file, the Community Council's records
form part of the local documentary record, and I need a clear written
account of who now has responsibility for those records and what has
happened to them.

Everyone's also got a boss. Mine being God and my 56 British Soldier
shareholders in my US based company private security group. So feel free to
pass this up your ranks to your overlords if you can't or won't make sense
of it or take any action.

I also want to be precise about what I am, and am not, alleging. I do not
have evidence that Mr Egan removed, altered or destroyed any document. Nor
can I establish from the present evidence why he retired when he did. The
fact that a long-serving Clerk retired during the period in which I was
seeking these records is, however, a material chronology, particularly
because he had initially adopted a position of not engaging beyond a
statutory search. I therefore ask the Council to establish the facts rather
than assume either that the matter is innocuous or that any wrongdoing
occurred.

1. Llandough Community Council records

In May and June 2026 I asked Mr Egan for Community Council records
concerning Great House Farm, including material concerning the events
surrounding my late father's involvement with the property in 1988.

On 14 June 2026 Mr Egan stated that minute books from 1982 onwards had been
deposited with Glamorgan Archives in 2002 and relied on section 21 FOIA. He
subsequently retired. On the day of his retirement he directed me towards
Leckwith records and the 1939 Western Ground Rents tenancy with my
great-grandfather.

That tenancy is significant because, on the documents I have examined, it
appears to concern the eastern field rather than the House Plot containing
the farmhouse and associated buildings. I therefore do not regard that
reference as resolving the documentary position concerning Great House Farm
itself.

I need the Council to establish:

- who is now Clerk and Proper Officer of Llandough Community Council;
- who currently has custody of its historic minute books, correspondence
and other records;
- what records were handed over or inventoried when Mr Egan retired;
- whether any search has been made specifically for Great House Farm /
Tŷ Mawr records, rather than relying solely on the general statement that
minute books were deposited in 2002; and
- whether any Community Council correspondence, consultation response or
minute relating to 89/01396/OUT or the later reserved matters survives.

If any part of this falls solely within the responsibility of Llandough
Community Council or the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, please
identify the appropriate authority and the person to whom I should address
that part of the complaint.

2. What the existing evidence establishes

This section turns from Community Council custody to the Vale's own
planning and archaeological file for 89/01396/OUT. The points below are
based on documents already in my possession and published archaeological
material, and are separate from the matters in Section 1, where I am asking
the Council to search its records.

1.

Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr is recorded in the historic environment
record as County Treasure, reference SMR/HER 2038s / GGAT02038s, at
approximately ST 1681 7331. The 1990 GGAT assessment records that, because
of an ownership dispute and the subsequent sudden destruction of the
property in 1988, the building was incompletely understood.
2.

Outline planning application 89/01396/OUT, submitted by BP Properties
Ltd, followed the 1988 demolition by approximately a year. The application
answers the relevant questions as follows: buildings to be demolished —
"None"; site — "Disused"; previous use — "Not known".
3.

The Vale officer material in my possession refers to an outline-stage
indicative scheme of 18 dwellings. The subsequent reserved-matters scheme
approved on 3 September 1992 is for 20 dwellings.
4.

The 1990 evaluation recorded archaeological potential to the north of
the churchyard and identified a medium-to-high potential area. What it does
not establish by itself is the full extent of the archaeological remains
subsequently encountered.
5.

Cotswold Archaeology excavated at the same general location in 1994,
immediately adjacent to St Dochdwy's Church. The published archaeological
account records 1,026 burials from an excavated area of 0.22 hectares. I am
relying on the excavators' published figure rather than the lower secondary
figure of 858, which appears to conflate different phases of investigation.
6.

PPG16 was issued in November 1990 and therefore post-dates the March
1990 outline decision, but was applicable by the time of the September 1992
reserved-matters decision. I am not presently asserting what archaeological
conditions were imposed in 1992. The drawings I hold are stamped as
approved on 3 September 1992, subject to compliance with conditions if any,
but I do not hold the decision notice setting out the actual conditions.
That decision notice is therefore a critical missing document.
7.

I am also not treating the handwritten numbering on the surviving
consultation material as conclusively establishing which sheet relates to
which responding body. The underlying consultation responses remain
relevant and should be located irrespective of that numbering issue.
8.

The documentary gap that now needs explaining

The sequence is straightforward.

The historic farmhouse and associated buildings were demolished in December
1988.

The subsequent 1989 outline application described the site as "Disused",
stated that there were "None" buildings to be demolished, and gave the
previous use as "Not known".

The 1990 archaeological evaluation had already identified significant
archaeological potential near the churchyard.

The 1992 reserved-matters approval provided for 20 dwellings.

The 1994 excavation subsequently recorded 1,026 burials from 0.22 hectares
immediately adjacent to the church.

What I cannot establish from the records presently available to me is how
the archaeological excavation area relates spatially to the approved
housing layout and retained areas. In particular, I need the 1994
excavation plan and the corresponding Ideal Homes layout so that the two
can be compared accurately.

I also need to understand how the 1989 application descriptions came to be
accepted against the documentary and historic-environment information
already available concerning the demolished farmhouse.

I am not asking the Council to adopt my interpretation of these matters. I
am asking it to establish what was known, what was checked, what was
recorded, and what records still exist.

4. Specific information and records requested

Please provide a substantive written response to each of the following:

1.

Who is currently Clerk and Proper Officer of Llandough Community
Council, and who has custody of its historic records?
2.

Was Llandough Community Council consulted on application 89/01396/OUT
and/or the subsequent reserved-matters application? If so, please provide
the consultation requests, replies, minutes and associated correspondence,
or confirm specifically that no such material is held.
3.

Please provide the full planning decision notice dated 3 September 1992,
including all conditions, rather than the approved drawings alone.
4.

Please confirm whether Vale holds the 1994 Cotswold Archaeology
site/excavation plans and the relevant Ideal Homes development layout
plans. Please also confirm whether the Council has ever undertaken or
commissioned a plan-to-plan comparison showing the excavation area against
the approved development footprint.
5.

Please identify the officer or officers responsible for assessing the
1989 application against the information then available concerning the 1988
demolition and HER/SMR record 2038s, including the entries "None",
"Disused" and "Not known".
6.

Please confirm what planning, enforcement, conservation/heritage,
archaeological, consultation, photographic and correspondence records
remain for the site and where they are presently held.
7.

Given the issues raised by my FOI/EIR correspondence and the corporate
complaint of 17 September 2026, please ensure that surviving records
concerning Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, including Community Council records
where they remain identifiable, are preserved pending resolution of these
matters. I am particularly concerned that records should not disappear
simply because responsibility has passed from one office-holder to another.
8.

Please confirm whether there was a formal handover, inventory or records
transfer when Mr Egan retired, and whether any such documentation records
the location of material concerning Great House Farm, planning
consultations, or the 1988 demolition.
9.

Finally, if the Council considers that any aspect concerning Mr Egan's
conduct as Community Council Clerk falls outside the Vale's jurisdiction,
please identify the proper route and responsible body rather than simply
closing that part of the complaint.

I am deliberately separating evidence from inference. I am not alleging
that Mr Egan's retirement was caused by my FOI requests, nor am I alleging
that any individual deliberately concealed records. The timing, however, is
sufficiently relevant that the Council should establish what happened to
the records at the point responsibility changed. The immediate issue is
capable of being answered objectively: what records exist, what was known
to the authority, what checks were carried out, what decisions were made,
and where the missing documents are now.

Please treat this as a formal request for a written governance/records
response and address each numbered question individually. It should be read
alongside FOI/EIR reference 00210772 and my correspondence of 17–18
September 2026.

Regards,

Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member
------------------------------

Changes made: added the Re: line, opened Section 2 with a sentence flagging
the shift from Community Council custody to the Vale's own file, and merged
the two closing paragraphs to drop the repeated point. Everything else —
including all the evidence/inference hedging — is untouched. Want it as a
Word doc or PDF instead, or any further tweaks?

From: Sion Buckler
To: contactonevale@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Date: 17 September 2026, 04:19 UTC
Subject: Great House Farm, Llandough
Attachments: 507.jpg

Customer Relations / Planning Complaints Officer,

I wish to make a formal complaint concerning the Vale of Glamorgan
Council's Dear Customer Relations / Planning Complaints Officer,

I wish to make a formal complaint concerning the Vale of Glamorgan
Council's handling of Great House Farm, Llandough-juxta-Penarth,
particularly the circumstances surrounding its demolition in December 1988
and the subsequent planning process.

Please register this as a formal complaint under the Council's corporate
complaints procedure and provide me with a complaint reference number.

This complaint concerns the Council's administration and exercise of its
planning and heritage responsibilities. It is not intended to constitute an
appeal against a properly made historic planning decision.

1. Great House Farm, Llandough (Cardiff not Cowbridge) was recognised as a
building of historic importance

The planning and archaeological documentation concerning the site
identifies Great House Farm as a building of heritage significance.

In particular, the archaeological material identifies the former building
as a "county treasure" associated with SMR 2038s, while earlier
architectural recording by RCAHMW describes a substantial historic
farmhouse with surviving historic fabric.

The later 1990 archaeological assessment states:

«"Owing to an ownership dispute and the subsequent sudden destruction of
the property in 1988 the building was incompletely understood."»

I regard that statement as highly significant because it records,
contemporaneously with the subsequent planning process, that the building
had been destroyed suddenly and that its archaeological and architectural
history had therefore not been adequately understood or recorded.

2. The Council's apparent failure to take protective action before the 1988
demolition

I ask the Council to investigate what action, if any, its planning and
heritage officers took when Great House Farm was at risk of demolition.

In particular, I ask the Council to establish:

1. Whether the Council knew that Great House Farm was at risk of demolition
before December 1988.

2. Whether the Council received any notification, complaint, application,
correspondence or other warning concerning the proposed demolition.

3. Whether the building had been considered for statutory listing or other
statutory protection.

4. Whether consideration was given to the use of a Building Preservation
Notice or any other available statutory or administrative mechanism capable
of preventing or delaying demolition pending assessment.

5. Whether the Council's heritage officers, planning officers or
archaeological advisers were consulted.

6. Whether any inspection or photographic/architectural record was
undertaken immediately before or after the demolition.

7. Why, given the building's recognised historic significance, the Council
did not secure a comprehensive standing-building record before the building
was lost.

I am not asserting at this stage that a particular statutory power
necessarily had to be exercised. I am asking the Council to investigate
what powers and procedures were available in 1988 and why they were, or
were not, used in this case.

3. The "sudden destruction" of the building requires investigation

The 1990 archaeological assessment expressly attributes the incomplete
understanding of the building to its "subsequent sudden destruction ... in
1988".

I therefore ask the Council to establish from its records:

- the date on which it first became aware of the proposed or actual
demolition;

- the identity of the relevant officers;

- whether the Council received complaints or reports concerning demolition
activity;

- whether any site visit took place;

- whether any notice, warning, enforcement action, preservation action or
other intervention was considered;

- and whether the Council has retained records explaining why the
demolition was allowed to proceed.

This is particularly important because the building was subsequently
treated within the planning process as an already-cleared site.

4. The 1989 planning application appears to contain a significant
historical discrepancy

The outline planning application submitted by BP Properties Ltd in 1989
states, in the section asking which buildings were to be demolished:

«"None."»

The same application describes the site as "Disused" and the previous use
as "Not known".

This requires explanation because the application followed the demolition
of Great House Farm in December 1988 by approximately one year.

I ask the Council to investigate whether its planning officers:

- were aware of the former Great House Farm building when the 1989
application was processed;

- knew when and how it had been demolished;

- checked the accuracy of the applicant's statement that no buildings were
to be demolished;

- identified the former farmhouse in the planning history and supporting
documentation;

- and considered whether the demolition itself raised any planning,
heritage or enforcement issue requiring investigation.

I am particularly concerned that the planning process appears to have
proceeded on the basis of a cleared site without first establishing the
circumstances in which the historic building had disappeared.

5. Failure to create an adequate record of the lost building

The subsequent archaeological documentation states that the building was
"incompletely understood".

I ask the Council to explain what mitigation, recording or investigation it
required in consequence.

The documentary evidence presently available indicates that substantial
historic fabric and multiple phases of the building existed, yet the
building was destroyed without a complete standing-building survey having
been secured.

I therefore ask the Council to identify:

- all surveys undertaken before demolition;

- all surveys undertaken after demolition;

- all archaeological or architectural advice obtained by the Council;

- all photographs held by the Council;

- all correspondence concerning the building's architectural or historic
importance;

- and the Council's policy or practice in 1988 concerning the recording of
significant unlisted historic buildings at risk.

6. Subsequent planning treatment of the site

Following demolition, the planning process concentrated heavily on
below-ground archaeology, ultimately resulting in archaeological
investigation of the cemetery and associated remains.

I do not suggest that archaeological excavation was inappropriate. My
concern is that the destruction of the standing historic building appears
to have been treated as a fait accompli rather than as an event requiring
accountability and an explanation of how the Council's heritage
responsibilities had been discharged.

The later planning documentation should therefore be reviewed alongside the
records relating to the 1988 demolition.

In particular, I ask the Council to identify precisely when the planning
authority first recorded the former farmhouse as demolished and what
explanation was placed on the planning file for its loss.

7. Matters I ask the Council to investigate

Please investigate and provide a substantive response to the following
questions:

A. What did Vale of Glamorgan Council know about the impending demolition
of Great House Farm before December 1988?

B. What statutory and non-statutory heritage protections were available to
the Council at the time?

C. Were any of those mechanisms considered or discussed?

D. Were any Building Preservation Notice, listing, enforcement, urgent
works, archaeological recording or other protective measures considered?

E. Why was the building apparently destroyed without a comprehensive
standing-building survey?

F. What records does the Council hold concerning the demolition itself?

G. Why did the 1989 planning application proceed despite the recent
demolition of a building identified in the archaeological record as a
"county treasure"?

H. Why was the applicant's answer "None" given to the question concerning
buildings to be demolished, and did the Council investigate the apparent
discrepancy?

I. Did any Council officer consider whether the 1988 demolition constituted
a breach of planning control or otherwise required investigation?

J. Did the Council investigate whether the building had been demolished
lawfully?

K. What heritage assessment was undertaken before the subsequent
development permissions were processed?

L. What lessons has the Council subsequently incorporated into its
procedures for County Treasures and other locally significant historic
buildings?

8. Records requested as part of the investigation

Please preserve and review all relevant records, including planning files,
enforcement records, heritage files, committee papers, officer reports,
internal correspondence, site inspection notes, photographs, archaeological
correspondence and consultation records concerning:

- Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr / Cedfin / Cydfin;

- SMR/HER reference 2038s / GGAT02038s;

- the December 1988 demolition;

- the 1989 outline planning application;

- the 1990 archaeological assessment;

- and the subsequent reserved matters/development applications.

I would also ask that the Council identify any material which has been
destroyed or cannot now be located, together with the applicable
retention/disposal record where one exists.

9. Outcome sought

I am seeking a formal investigation and a reasoned written explanation of
the Council's actions and omissions.

In particular, I ask the Council to determine:

1. Whether its officers discharged the heritage and planning
responsibilities applicable at the time.

2. Whether any failure occurred in relation to the identification,
protection, recording or investigation of Great House Farm.

3. Whether the Council's handling of the 1989 planning application
appropriately addressed the recent demolition of the building.

4. Whether any relevant records have been lost or destroyed and, if so,
when and under what retention arrangements.

5. What procedural lessons arise from the case.

I also request disclosure of the relevant non-exempt records identified
during the complaint investigation, where these are not otherwise
available. I recognise that requests for specific recorded information may
need to be dealt with separately under the appropriate information-access
regime.

I have only recently been able to examine and correlate the surviving
planning, archaeological and heritage documentation sufficiently to
identify these issues. I therefore ask that the Council accepts the
complaint for investigation notwithstanding the age of the events concerned.

Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the complaint reference and the
officer responsible for its investigation.

Yours faithfully,

Sion Buckler of Great House Farm, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, particularly the
circumstances surrounding its demolition in December 1988 and the
subsequent planning process.

Please register this as a formal complaint under the Council's corporate
complaints procedure and provide me with a complaint reference number.

This complaint concerns the Council's administration and exercise of its
planning and heritage responsibilities. It is not intended to constitute an
appeal against a properly made historic planning decision.
1. Great House Farm was recognised as a building of historic importance

The planning and archaeological documentation concerning the site
identifies Great House Farm as a building of heritage significance.

In particular, the archaeological material identifies the former building
as a "county treasure" associated with SMR 2038s, while earlier
architectural recording by RCAHMW describes a substantial historic
farmhouse with surviving historic fabric.

The later 1990 archaeological assessment states:

"Owing to an ownership dispute and the subsequent sudden destruction of the
property in 1988 the building was incompletely understood."

I regard that statement as highly significant because it records,
contemporaneously with the subsequent planning process, that the building
had been destroyed suddenly and that its archaeological and architectural
history had therefore not been adequately understood or recorded.
2. The Council's apparent failure to take protective action before the 1988
demolition

I ask the Council to investigate what action, if any, its planning and
heritage officers took when Great House Farm was at risk of demolition.

In particular, I ask the Council to establish:

1. Whether the Council knew that Great House Farm was at risk of
demolition before December 1988.
2. Whether the Council received any notification, complaint,
application, correspondence or other warning concerning the proposed
demolition.
3. Whether the building had been considered for statutory listing or
other statutory protection.
4. Whether consideration was given to the use of a Building Preservation
Notice or any other available statutory or administrative mechanism capable
of preventing or delaying demolition pending assessment.
5. Whether the Council's heritage officers, planning officers or
archaeological advisers were consulted.
6. Whether any inspection or photographic/architectural record was
undertaken immediately before or after the demolition.
7. Why, given the building's recognised historic significance, the
Council did not secure a comprehensive standing-building record before the
building was lost.

I am not asserting at this stage that a particular statutory power
necessarily had to be exercised. I am asking the Council to investigate
what powers and procedures were available in 1988 and why they were, or
were not, used in this case.
3. The "sudden destruction" of the building requires investigation

The 1990 archaeological assessment expressly attributes the incomplete
understanding of the building to its "subsequent sudden destruction ... in
1988".

I therefore ask the Council to establish from its records:

- the date on which it first became aware of the proposed or actual
demolition;
- the identity of the relevant officers;
- whether the Council received complaints or reports concerning
demolition activity;
- whether any site visit took place;
- whether any notice, warning, enforcement action, preservation action
or other intervention was considered;
- and whether the Council has retained records explaining why the
demolition was allowed to proceed.

This is particularly important because the building was subsequently
treated within the planning process as an already-cleared site.
4. The 1989 planning application appears to contain a significant
historical discrepancy

The outline planning application submitted by BP Properties Ltd in 1989
states, in the section asking which buildings were to be demolished:

"None."

The same application describes the site as "Disused" and the previous use
as "Not known".

This requires explanation because the application followed the demolition
of Great House Farm in December 1988 by approximately one year.

I ask the Council to investigate whether its planning officers:

- were aware of the former Great House Farm building when the 1989
application was processed;
- knew when and how it had been demolished;
- checked the accuracy of the applicant's statement that no buildings
were to be demolished;
- identified the former farmhouse in the planning history and supporting
documentation;
- and considered whether the demolition itself raised any planning,
heritage or enforcement issue requiring investigation.

I am particularly concerned that the planning process appears to have
proceeded on the basis of a cleared site without first establishing the
circumstances in which the historic building had disappeared.
5. Failure to create an adequate record of the lost building

The subsequent archaeological documentation states that the building was
"incompletely understood".

I ask the Council to explain what mitigation, recording or investigation it
required in consequence.

The documentary evidence presently available indicates that substantial
historic fabric and multiple phases of the building existed, yet the
building was destroyed without a complete standing-building survey having
been secured.

I therefore ask the Council to identify:

- all surveys undertaken before demolition;
- all surveys undertaken after demolition;
- all archaeological or architectural advice obtained by the Council;
- all photographs held by the Council;
- all correspondence concerning the building's architectural or historic
importance;
- and the Council's policy or practice in 1988 concerning the recording
of significant unlisted historic buildings at risk.

6. Subsequent planning treatment of the site

Following demolition, the planning process concentrated heavily on
below-ground archaeology, ultimately resulting in archaeological
investigation of the cemetery and associated remains.

I do not suggest that archaeological excavation was inappropriate. My
concern is that the destruction of the standing historic building appears
to have been treated as a fait accompli rather than as an event requiring
accountability and an explanation of how the Council's heritage
responsibilities had been discharged.

The later planning documentation should therefore be reviewed alongside the
records relating to the 1988 demolition.

In particular, I ask the Council to identify precisely when the planning
authority first recorded the former farmhouse as demolished and what
explanation was placed on the planning file for its loss.
7. Matters I ask the Council to investigate

Please investigate and provide a substantive response to the following
questions:

A. What did Vale of Glamorgan Council know about the impending demolition
of Great House Farm before December 1988?

B. What statutory and non-statutory heritage protections were available to
the Council at the time?

C. Were any of those mechanisms considered or discussed?

D. Were any Building Preservation Notice, listing, enforcement, urgent
works, archaeological recording or other protective measures considered?

E. Why was the building apparently destroyed without a comprehensive
standing-building survey?

F. What records does the Council hold concerning the demolition itself?

G. Why did the 1989 planning application proceed despite the recent
demolition of a building identified in the archaeological record as a
"county treasure"?

H. Why was the applicant's answer "None" given to the question concerning
buildings to be demolished, and did the Council investigate the apparent
discrepancy?

I. Did any Council officer consider whether the 1988 demolition constituted
a breach of planning control or otherwise required investigation?

J. Did the Council investigate whether the building had been demolished
lawfully?

K. What heritage assessment was undertaken before the subsequent
development permissions were processed?

L. What lessons has the Council subsequently incorporated into its
procedures for County Treasures and other locally significant historic
buildings?
8. Records requested as part of the investigation

Please preserve and review all relevant records, including planning files,
enforcement records, heritage files, committee papers, officer reports,
internal correspondence, site inspection notes, photographs, archaeological
correspondence and consultation records concerning:

- Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr / Cedfin / Cydfin;
- SMR/HER reference 2038s / GGAT02038s;
- the December 1988 demolition;
- the 1989 outline planning application;
- the 1990 archaeological assessment;
- and the subsequent reserved matters/development applications.

I would also ask that the Council identify any material which has been
destroyed or cannot now be located, together with the applicable
retention/disposal record where one exists.
9. Outcome sought

I am seeking a formal investigation and a reasoned written explanation of
the Council's actions and omissions.

In particular, I ask the Council to determine:

1. Whether its officers discharged the heritage and planning
responsibilities applicable at the time.
2. Whether any failure occurred in relation to the identification,
protection, recording or investigation of Great House Farm.
3. Whether the Council's handling of the 1989 planning application
appropriately addressed the recent demolition of the building.
4. Whether any relevant records have been lost or destroyed and, if so,
when and under what retention arrangements.
5. What procedural lessons arise from the case.

I also request disclosure of the relevant non-exempt records identified
during the complaint investigation, where these are not otherwise
available. I recognise that requests for specific recorded information may
need to be dealt with separately under the appropriate information-access
regime.

I have only recently been able to examine and correlate the surviving
planning, archaeological and heritage documentation sufficiently to
identify these issues. I therefore ask that the Council accepts the
complaint for investigation notwithstanding the age of the events concerned.

Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the complaint reference and the
officer responsible for its investigation.

Yours faithfully,

Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)

Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

Note: The email as sent repeats its opening and most of its body; it is reproduced exactly as sent.

From: Complaints Team, Vale of Glamorgan Council (noreply@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)
To: Sion Buckler
Date: 17 September 2026, 07:30 UTC
Subject: Complaints - VOG-874631131

Case ID: *VOG-874631131*
Enquiry: *Complaints*
------------------------------

Hello Sion Buckler,

Thank you for getting in touch.

*What happens now*

We’ll review your complaint. If it meets our Corporate Concerns and Complaints Policy, we’ll confirm this with you.

If it doesn’t fall under the policy, we’ll pass it to the right service team who will contact you directly.

Please use the case ID above if you need to contact us about this enquiry.

*What you need to do next*

You don’t need to do anything right now. We’ll be in touch as soon as possible.

Kind regards,

Complaints Team

------------------------------

Helo Sion Buckler

Diolch i chi am gysylltu.

*Beth sy'n digwydd nawr *

Byddwn yn adolygu eich cwyn. Os yw'n bodloni ein Polisi Pryderon a Chwynion Corfforaethol, byddwn yn cadarnhau hyn gyda chi.

Os nad yw'n dod o dan y polisi, byddwn yn ei drosglwyddo i'r tîm gwasanaeth cywir a fydd yn cysylltu â chi'n uniongyrchol.

Defnyddiwch yr ID achos uchod os oes angen i chi gysylltu â ni am yr ymholiad hwn.

*Beth sydd angen i chi ei wneud nesaf *

Nid oes angen i chi wneud unrhyw beth ar hyn o bryd. Byddwn mewn cysylltiad cyn gynted â phosibl.

Cofion caredig,

Tîm Cwynion

From: Hayley Jefferies, Superintendent Registrar/Registration Service Manager (hjefferies@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)
To: Sion Buckler
Date: 28 September 2026, 11:42 UTC
Subject: death certificate

Good afternoon,

I have received your request for a copy certificate for the late Mary Doreen WILLIAMS.

I am struggling to find the record, can you confirm the place and date of death.

Many thanks

Hayley

Hayley Jefferies
Superintendent Registrar/Registration Service Manager
Democratic Services
Vale of Glamorgan Council / Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
tel / ffôn: 01446 709166
mob / sym:

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
Ystyriwch yr amgylchedd. Peidiwch ag argraffu'r neges hon oni bai fod gwir angen.

Visit our Website at www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Ewch i'n gwefan yn www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk

Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook
Follow us on Instagram / Dilynwch ni ar Instagram
Follow us on LinkedIn / Dilynwch ni ar LinkedIn

Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg.

From: Sion Buckler
To: hjefferies@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Date: 28 September 2026, 15:38 UTC
Subject: Re: death certificate
Attachments: 3844.jpg, 4044.jpg

See attached images.

Also website https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com
which is being generated and maintained by my A.I agents.

Regards,

Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber/ Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

From: Shireen Ahmed Little, Registration Officer (RegistrationService@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk)
To: Sion Buckler
Date: 30 September 2026, 10:34 UTC
Subject: RE: death certificate

Hi Sion,

I have also looked for the record and I do not believe it is held in the Vale of Glamorgan.

I have passed on to our colleagues in Cardiff and asked them to contact you if they hold the record.

Many thanks
Shireen

Shireen Ahmed Little
Registration Officer / Swyddog Cofrestru
Democratic Services / Gwasanaethau Democrataidd
Vale of Glamorgan Council / Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
tel / ffôn: 01446 709166
e-mail / e-bost: sahmedlittle@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
Ystyriwch yr amgylchedd. Peidiwch ag argraffu'r neges hon oni bai fod gwir angen.

Visit our Website at www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Ewch i'n gwefan yn www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk

Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook
Find us on Instagram / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Instagram
Find us on LinkedIn / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar LinkedIn

Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg.

From: Sion Buckler
To: RegistrationService@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Date: 30 September 2026, 12:20 UTC
Subject: Re: death certificate

Thank you.

That was more than you needed to you and I appreciate that.

Regards,

Sion

From: Sion Buckler
To: vdavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk; DPO@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk; complaints@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Date: 28 September 2026, 21:41 UTC
Subject: Formal concern, preservation and subject access — Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough — remedy before escalation

Victoria Davidson
Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Vale of Glamorgan Council
vdavidson@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
Also: DPO@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk; complaints@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk

Sirs/Madam,

This is a formal concern, a preservation notice, and a subject access request. It is the opportunity to remedy before the Information Commissioner and, if the internal processes end without remedy, the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.

I am not asking the Council to decide title. I am asking it to deal with its own records and its own delay.

1. Complete the internal review of FOI/EIR 00210772, requested 7 July 2026, acknowledged 10 July 2026, further apology 11 September 2026, chased 5 August, 1 September and 22 September 2026. There is still no outcome. That is past a reasonable period. An ICO complaint confined to that delay is drafted. A completed review would deal with the point.

2. Preserve planning, building-control, housing, legal, local-land-charge and land records for Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough, titles WA231076 and WA240304, Church View Close, and the 1988 demolition (possession 29 November 1988; demolition begun 6 December 1988). Stop routine destruction of those files. That hold includes, if held:
- any section 52 TCPA 1971 / later section 106 / deed / undertaking and the matching land-charge entry;
- the 1988 GDO planning-register entries for 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES;
- officer-report Appendices B–E (B = further GGAT comments after discussions with the Trust);
- conditions 16–18 and the 1990–94 discharge papers, including the October 1990 confirmation of condition 17 and the 1993–94 dispute over condition 18;
- any environmental-assessment / screening determination for the outline application;
- the complete 92/00671/RES file and any BP–Ideal Homes sale, option or conditional-contract paper on the planning files, including the recorded transfer of 3 December 1993.
A separate FOI/EIR for those classes will follow and must not be folded into 00210772, 00211463 or 00211484.

3. Subject access under UK GDPR Article 15: personal data you hold about me, Sion Buckler, in those files, and about Mary Doreen Williams (died 26 March 1983) and William Buckler so far as the law allows a relative to see it. Say what identification you need before the month starts.

The public evidence index is https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/ . The investigation distinguishes Parcel A (farmhouse, garden, buildings and yard — the family's maintained freehold) from Parcel B (eastern fields — not presently disputed). The 1987 Court of Appeal decided possession, limitation and the October 1974 letters. It did not decide the documentary root of Parcel A. Council papers on planning and demolition go to that question. They are not a finding against any officer.

Nothing in this letter abandons any claim concerning title, registration, concealment, limitation, reopening or reparations. This is not a claim form.

Please acknowledge, name the officer for the hold, and give a date for the 00210772 outcome.

Yours faithfully,

Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals
hywelapbuckler@gmail.com

From: Sion Buckler
To: Andy.Wigley@gov.wales; Freedom.ofinformation@gov.wales; Wales.Office@landregistry.gov.uk; dataprotection@landregistry.gov.uk; hello@heneb.org.uk; her@heneb.org.uk; nmr.wales@rcahmw.gov.uk; FoiUnit@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk; DPO@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk; Glamro@cardiff.gov.uk; information@south-wales.police.uk; FOIRequests@nationalarchives.gov.uk; walesofficefoi@ukgovwales.gov.uk; enquiry@library.wales
Date: 28 September 2026, 21:41 UTC
Subject: Preservation notice — Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough — do not destroy, transfer or dispose

To each recipient, in your own capacity as holder or likely holder of records. Please do not treat this as a joint reply. Answer only for your own holdings.

Sirs/Madam,

This is a preservation notice. It is not a claim form and not service of proceedings. It does not replace any FOI, review or subject access request already with you.

Land: Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, adjoining St Dochdwy's. Titles WA231076, WA240304 (closed), WA513690, WA735527, and any related title. Planning refs 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES.

Please preserve, and do not destroy, transfer out of your custody without a written receipt, or dispose of, any file, plan, photograph, tape or electronic record in your possession, custody or control relating to:

1. The 1877 split, the 1916 and 1939 tenancies, and the 1938 Bute to Western Ground Rents conveyance.
2. The 1955 and 1962 possession orders, the 1974 proceedings, and BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2.
3. First registration: WA231076 application 30 November 1982; WA240304 application 23 February 1983; later amalgamation.
4. The 1988 possession (29 November) and demolition (begun 6 December), including listing, planning, police and any liaison papers.
5. Mary Doreen Williams (died 26 March 1983) and William Buckler, so far as your file concerns this land.

Also preserve, if you hold them, the following planning and land-charge classes. Absence from a 2026 file disclosure is not proof they never existed:

6. Any section 52 Town and Country Planning Act 1971 agreement, later section 106 instrument, deed, undertaking or other agreement regulating the development or use of this land, and any corresponding local-land-charge entry.
7. The historic planning-register entries required by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 for 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES (applications, reserved matters, plans and drawings, and decision information).
8. The officer's report annexes to 89/01396/OUT, including Appendix B (further GGAT comments after discussions with the Trust), and Appendices C–E.
9. The condition chain on 89/01396/OUT: conditions 16–18; the Council's October 1990 confirmation of condition 17; GGAT's July 1992 archaeological warning; the September 1992 reserved-matters approval; and the 1993–94 papers on whether condition 18 had been discharged.
10. Any preliminary environmental-assessment / screening determination for the outline application (site described as about 3.4 acres / 1.38 ha).
11. Any record of the statutory consultation route used because the land was, or was treated as, a site of archaeological interest / SMR entry under the 1988 Order.
12. The complete 92/00671/RES file, and any sale, option, conditional-contract or transfer paper on the planning files covering BP Properties to Ideal Homes Wales, including the recorded transfer of 3 December 1993.
13. The application-receipt record for 89/01396/OUT (form dated October 1989; reconstructed Council receipt 8 November 1989).

Please stop routine deletion, including archived mailboxes, for anything in that scope.

The public evidence index is https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/ . The investigation distinguishes the farmhouse parcel from the eastern fields. The 1987 Court of Appeal decided possession, limitation and the October 1974 letters. It did not decide the documentary root of the farmhouse parcel. These records go to that question. This notice is not a finding against any of you.

Please acknowledge, name the officer responsible for the hold, and say what you hold in scope. If you hold nothing, say what you searched.

Nothing in this letter abandons any claim concerning title, registration, concealment, limitation, reopening or alteration of the register.

Yours faithfully,

Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals
hywelapbuckler@gmail.com

Note: Sent jointly to fourteen record holders, including the Council's FOI Unit and DPO. No reply from the Council appears in this thread; replies from other bodies are catalogued on their own pages.