Vale of Glamorgan Council — correspondence with David Buckler and Mary Godfrey (email)

Hi Requester Thank you for copying me in on this. If you’d like to discuss, please let me know. All the best, George [quoted text trimmed]

Hi, Yes please. Thank you. If you have any avaliablity Monday please tell me the best time to call. I’m also reachable for scheduled calls on [removed] Otherwise I’m on WhatsApp, which you can reach out to me on anytime. [removed] Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

George, See attached. Regards, Requester [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester We are writing to introduce ourselves as the Council’s Information Governance Team, who handle requests for information. Your request regarding the above matter has been referred to us by the Council’s Legal Services Department. We note that your request relates to a historic matter from 1987. As such, it may take some time for us to check records and consider any information that may be held. Please be aware that, due to the time that has passed, the Council may no longer hold information relating to this matter. If this is the case, we will do our best to offer advice that may assist you in continuing your enquiries. We will write to you again as soon as possible. In the meantime, if you have any further questions or need clarification, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. Kind regards Information Governance Officer / Swyddog Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth Director’s Office – Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr – Adnoddau [address removed] 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil&gt; Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter<http://twitter.com/vogcouncil&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg.

Hi, Thanks. Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Sirs/Ma’am, I’m writing in relation to land formerly known as *Great House Farm, Llandough (Vale of Glamorgan)*, subsequently developed for residential use and historically connected with the proceedings culminating in *BP v Buckler (Court of Appeal, 1987)*. I appreciate that the Local Planning Authority is not responsible for determining land ownership, nor am I asking it to do so. My purpose is to place on record a *chronological summary of unresolved land-governance issues* which may be material to the integrity of the planning history relied upon for that site. In brief and as reflected in public records: – In *July 1974*, proceedings involving my grandmother and BP both asserting ownership, were adjourned and did not result in a judicial final determination. – On *31 October 1974*, a further listed hearing did not proceed substantively, following correspondence sent that morning by BP entities. No judgment on title was issued. My nan requested the audience with the judge the day before, with her lawyer. But that got leaked, the press descended on our farm (not that I can find evidence of news articles from said press), and the following morning the two letters from BP arrived to our solicitor, effectively squashing the court hearing and audience with the judge my nan had sought, to make her case of ownership. Her reply to both BP letters (one from BP Pension Trust Ltd and one from BP Properties Ltd), that morning of the 31st of October, was also ‘I own the land’. – Throughout this period, my grandmother was *excluded from dealings* concerning land we asserted we owned, while the opposing party continued to *assert ownership*, notwithstanding the absence of a concluded judicial finding. – In or around *1982*, the land was registered in BP’s name, despite the earlier proceedings never having resolved the competing claims nor having resulted in findings adverse to my grandmother. – My grandmother then died in *1983*, after the registration had taken place, without compensation and without any final adjudication of her claim. – In the *1987 appeal*, the Court referred to correspondence as having been replied to (albeit not to the correct corporate entity – which is ultimately why we lost BP vs Buckler 1987), yet in my fathers appeal that followed, whereby he argued that surely BP Pension Trust should have been the claimant not BP Properties, the same judge from the case dismissed the appeal citing that both companies were effectively the same. This is all evidence on the face of the public record of these proceedings. – By that stage, and in the absence of a documentary title which had effectively been overtaken by registration, my family was driven to advance arguments in adverse possession as a *fallback position*, which itself should have assured our continued occupancy. The cumulative effect was that my family was *displaced*, the land was developed, and no compensation was ever paid, despite ownership never having been conclusively decided in court. Whether intentionally or not, the process operated in a manner where asserted ownership became treated as settled fact. I am not alleging misconduct, nor am I seeking retrospective remedies from the Authority. I am simply asking whether, given the above sequence, it would be appropriate for the Authority to: – note that historic planning decisions were taken on the basis of *assumed title*, and – record that the underlying ownership dispute was *never finally adjudicated*, for the sake of transparency and future governance integrity. This correspondence is intended to be factual, measured, and non-adversarial. I am happy to supply references to the relevant hearings, registrations, or judgments if that assists your records. But what I’m highlighting here is all on public record and in the public eye. Yours faithfully, Requester

Sir/Madam, I understand you may already be busy, so please don’t feel overwhelmed by this FOI request—I’m conducting my own diligence and happy for you to take the full statutory 20 working days to respond. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request copies of all records, correspondence, memoranda, internal notes, minutes, file notes, land registration applications, objections, or communications held by HM Land Registry from 1 January 1938 to 31 December 1987 relating to:Ty Mawr (Great House), Llandough, near Penarth, South Glamorgan (also known as Great House Farm). Land registration applications, title transfers, or dealings involving Mountjoy Ltd, Western Ground Rents Ltd, BP Pension Trust Ltd, and/or BP Properties Ltd (including the 1938 auction/reversion conveyance and 1969 sale). Interactions, notices, proceedings, tenancy offers, licences (e.g., 1974 unilateral lifetime licence letters), or disputes involving Mrs Mary Williams (also referred to as Mrs Buckler), Mr Frederick Buckler, or Williams/Buckler family occupiers—particularly the [removed] possession proceedings (Dec 11 order by Judge Temple Morris QC). Any possession proceedings, adverse possession claims, or title objections connected to the property (e.g., [removed] 1974 actions). Please include archived, off-site, or scanned records where applicable.If exemptions apply (e.g., Section 40 personal data), specify which and why. If costs exceed the appropriate limit, advise how to refine (e.g., prioritize 1955-1987 or 1962/1974 events). I look forward to your response within 20 working days. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Councillor Carroll & co, I write regarding potential gaps in the Council’s planning and record-keeping processes relating to Great House Farm, Llandough, which was demolished in 1988 following the 1987 Court of Appeal decision in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler. Recent evidence suggests the Council may wish to examine its own position on this matter, as it raises questions about procedural compliance and record integrity [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. CORE ISSUES **1. Identity and Procedural Integrity** The 1987 judgment turned on a 1974 licence addressed to “Mrs Buckler”. My grandmother, Mary Williams, did not use or accept this designation. Contemporaneous evidence (1978 newspaper article attached) records her asserting ownership under her correct name. If the 1987 court was not presented with this evidence, the judgment may rest on an incomplete factual record. This raises procedural fairness concerns relevant to any future review of the decision. **2. Heritage Information and Statutory Compliance** The site’s archaeological significance was documented by 1978 (Roman burials, monastic associations). Yet professional excavations in 1994 revealed 1,026 early medieval burials and monastic structures—findings that should have prompted evaluation under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Critical question: Did the Council conduct or require prior archaeological assessment before granting permissions to demolish? If not, this represents a potential gap in statutory process that may affect the validity of the permissions granted. **3. Land Registry Disclosure** BP registered title in 1982 based on the disputed licence. The Council should establish: – Whether any dispute notice or heritage caution was lodged; – Whether the Council disclosed relevant heritage information to the Land Registry; – What planning records exist from 1978–1988 regarding the site’s known archaeological potential. **4. Corporate Identity Inconsistency** During my father’s appeal, the court treated BP Properties Ltd and BP Pension Trust Ltd inconsistently—as separate entities when convenient, then as one when dismissing his claim. This raises questions about how thoroughly the litigation was scrutinised and whether the Council’s records reflect this uncertainty. WHY THIS MATTERS TO THE COUNCIL These issues go beyond a single historical dispute. They touch on: – **Planning record integrity**: Whether heritage information was adequately documented and acted upon; – **Procedural compliance**: Whether statutory protections (Ancient Monuments Act) were properly applied; – **Institutional liability**: Whether decisions were made on incomplete or misleading information; – **Precedent risk**: Whether similar vulnerabilities may exist in other historical planning decisions. REQUESTS I ask the Council to: 1. **Commission a review** of the planning permissions granted between 1978–1988 for Great House Farm, specifically examining what heritage and archaeological information was available to decision-makers and how it was handled. 2. **Refer this matter to the Monitoring Officer** for examination of procedural compliance and record integrity. 3. **Establish** what correspondence, cautions, or dispute notices exist in relation to this site’s title or heritage status. 4. **Clarify the Council’s current protocol** for handling historical title disputes, previously unknown heritage information, or allegations of material non-disclosure in past planning processes—to prevent recurrence. I am not asking the Council to reverse the 1987 judgment or disturb current residents. I am asking it to ensure its own records are accurate and its own processes are defensible. I attach the 1978 article and supporting documents, and am available to meet or provide further information. Yours faithfully, Requester[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Executor for the Manor of Llandough

Ms Hollis, I write further to your letter of 27 April 2026. This correspondence constitutes formal pre-action notice of my intention to pursue legal remedies arising from the historic proceedings concerning Great House Farm, Llandough. While I note your position regarding judicial independence, I do not accept that the issues raised can be dismissed at an administrative level. My representations concern alleged fraud, procedural irregularity, misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and structural unfairness which, taken together, raise serious questions as to whether the proceedings to dispossess my disabled, widowed nan, of our land and farm since 1667[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] were properly and fairly determined. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] And the fraud I discovered this year is the beginning of the Limitation clock so far as I understand, despite the fraud occuring almost 40 years ago. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] These matters warrant proper consideration, or at minimum clear direction to an appropriate forum capable of examining them. —————————— A. Grounds for Reparations The basis upon which reparations are sought includes: – Continuous occupation over approximately 318 years (1667–1988), open, peaceful, and without permission (*nec vi, nec clam, nec precario*), establishing de facto ownership; – No voluntary surrender of rights at any stage, with the claim maintained consistently to the present day; – Uncompensated dispossession, including eviction and demolition without settlement; – Coercive enforcement measures, including forced removal, detention, restraining measures, and demolition under duress; – [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – Destruction of an ancestral home of significant age and character (approximately 800 years); – Loss or disappearance of family records and evidential materials relevant to ownership; – Failure to act upon known archaeological and historical significance, resulting in loss of heritage protection; – Resulting public interest harm through the destruction of a site of historical importance. —————————— B. Grounds to Set Aside or Reopen the 1987 Ruling 1. Reliance on a disputed “licence by silence” The judgment relied upon an inferred licence accepted through silence. This is unsafe where: – correspondence was addressed to a disputed identity (“Mrs Buckler”); – evidence of active rejection (including 1978 news paper article) was not before the court. 2. Identity misrepresentation Mary Williams was treated as “Mrs Buckler,” which: – did not reflect her asserted identity; – weakened her position by obscuring lineage-based claims; – artificially linked her to the alleged intent of another party. 3. Misplaced reliance on Frederick Buckler’s intent Any alleged intention: – was personal to him and legally distinct; – did not bind Mary Williams; – was extinguished upon his death in 1965; – and was not supported by fulfilment of tenancy obligations. 4. Procedural irregularities (1974) There are serious concerns that: – an appeal attempt and request for a stay were disrupted; – licence correspondence was timed and/or presented so as to defeat due process; – a key hearing was effectively neutralised before determination. 5. Non-disclosure of material facts Relevant matters appear not to have been disclosed, including: – evidence of public rejection of the opposing claim; – archaeological and historical significance of the site; – the existence of an ongoing dispute in the context of land registration. 6. Inconsistent treatment of corporate identity – In 1987, my grandmother’s rebuttal to BP Pension Trust was disregarded on the basis that BP Pension Trust and BP Properties were separate entities; – In subsequent proceedings, the same entities were treated as effectively the same when dismissing an appeal. This inconsistency materially affected the outcome and raises concerns as to fairness and legal coherence. 7. Avoidance of substantive title determination The case proceeded within a possession framework rather than determining underlying ownership in an appropriate forum, resulting in the absence of a definitive adjudication on title. 8. Possible misrepresentation / constructive fraud Concerns arise that: – licence arrangements were asserted under a disputed identity; – the authority of the issuing entity was unclear; – planning and property descriptions may have mischaracterised the nature of the building. 9. New or previously unavailable evidence This includes: – missing or unavailable title documentation; – evidence relating to arrangements (including that attributed to Daniel Thomas); – [testimony of named family members] not previously considered; – subsequent archaeological findings supporting the site’s significance. —————————— C. Core Position Taken together, the 1987 outcome is arguable as unsafe due to flawed assumptions, missing evidence, and procedural unfairness. The resulting dispossession, demolition, and long-term harm give rise to a basis for reparative consideration. —————————— D. Why the Matter Requires Proper Consideration This matter should not be dismissed solely on the basis of judicial independence because: – The issues raised concern the *integrity of the process*, not simply disagreement with a result; – Allegations of *misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and procedural irregularity* fall outside ordinary appellate disagreement; – There is a *public interest dimension*, including loss of heritage and potential systemic issues; – The passage of time does not extinguish claims where *fraud or material injustice* is alleged; – Clarification is required as to the appropriate forum capable of examining such matters. —————————— E. Request for Clarification Before commencing proceedings, I request clarification of the following: 1. Whether any formal mechanism exists within government for referring allegations of procedural irregularity or fraud in historic cases for independent review; 2. Whether my correspondence has been referred to any oversight or investigatory body; 3. Whether the Ministry maintains any position as to the appropriate route for consideration of such evidence outside of direct court proceedings. —————————— Please treat this letter as a formal pre-action notice. I would be grateful for a substantive response within 14 days. Nothing in this letter should be taken as a waiver of any rights or remedies, all of which are expressly reserved. Yours sincerely, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Manor of Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan

Councillor of Llandough, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I’m still waiting for you and the MP to respond to this matter. For months now. MoJ won’t comment as they say its ongoing. See attached. Which doesn’t make sense as I’ve not begun legal proceedings and this hasn’t been touched in decades. They also took half a year just to reply. Land Registry made my query into a complaint and shut it down instantly. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] They should have listen it as a grade II. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There’s gaps in records. Court mistakes. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Procedural unfairness. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] In any case I believe my families standing, title and estate was stolen. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester We write further in relation to your request for information, referenced above. The relevant service area have requested we ask the below. We would be grateful if you could provide some clarification on the following point(s): Please can we ask for a plan showing the locations? We have found great house farm but the request includes Ty Mawr / Great House Estate and we are not clear the extent of the site being queried. This will help us to identify and locate the information you are seeking and ensure we provide you with the most relevant response. Please note that the statutory response deadline is paused while we await your clarification. Once we receive your response, we will resume processing your request. If we do not hear from you within [e.g. 2 months], we may consider the request closed Yours sincerely, Information Governance Officer/ Swyddog Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth Director’s Office – Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr – Adnoddau [address removed] [signature block trimmed]

[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] *[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] You are under a strict legal duty to preserve all physical and electronic records, metadata, correspondence, maps, and erased files relating to this site. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]* Dear Freedom of Information Officer, RE: Information Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 I am writing to request access to historical records, internal correspondence, planning briefs, and assessments held by your organization regarding Great House Farm, Llandough, near Penarth/Cardiff (demolished December 1988), and the historical occupancy of the Buckler family. Statutory Mandate on Accessibility & Charging Fees: I am aware that previous attempts to locate this data have resulted in directives to visit physical archives in person or use paywalled, commercial third-party web portals. Please be advised of the following statutory obligations: 1. Under EIR Regulation 8, fees cannot act as an unreasonable barrier or deterrent to access. Because my family was historically displaced from this site and I am executing this request remotely, forcing physical attendance or demanding payment constitutes an unlawful obstacle. 2. Public authorities are required to supply information in the format requested. I require all documents to be delivered digitally via email attachment or secure electronic download link, free of charge, as specified by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidelines for data already held electronically. Please provide all recorded information matching the following points: 1. Tenant/Ownership Identification and the 1880 Report – Any documents, archival notes, or registry indexes citing the William/ Buckler family line (who occupied and farmed the house across four generations). – Clarification on whether my family members were formally cited as the legal owners, long-term tenants, or registered reporters of the 1880 discovery under the dining room floor. – Any explicit records indicating gaps, deleted metadata, or missing volumes in your authority’s archive concerning the tenancy, land-dispute maps, or agricultural heritage of Great House Farm between 1950 and 1989. 2. Statutory Protection and Cadw’s Assessments – Given that the site’s extreme archaeological value (a 1st-to-4th-century Roman precursor villa and a massive early medieval monastic settlement) was verified by rescue operations as early as 1979, what are the recorded reasons why Cadw failed to place a statutory Schedule or Protection Order on the standing fabric of Great House Farm before its demolition? – All internal correspondence, risk assessments, or ministerial briefs evaluating the preservation value of the sub-medieval direct-entry farmhouse core before it was levelled. 3. Planning Approvals and Local Authority Governance – All minutes, planning committee files, and consultation responses from the local authority that granted planning permission and housing development rights on this specific acreage. – Direct information explaining how the council approved planning permission for a private housing development in light of the documented historical evidence surrounding the immediate parish boundary. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – Records showing exactly where and at what stage of the planning process this archaeological evidence should have been brought up but was not, which ultimately allowed developers and public bodies to claim they were unaware of the land’s deep significance until after the farmhouse was destroyed and housing development began. – Any environmental impact assessments, historic environment register (HER) lookups, or developer briefs filed between 1980 and 1990 regarding the footprint of Great House Farm. If any part of this request is refused under the guise of commercial sensitivity or archival limitations, you are required by law to state the exact statutory exemption applied and provide a formal internal review pathway. I expect your response within the statutory 20-working-day timeframe. Kind regards, *Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester Thank you for the below. We note its contents in relation to Freedom of Information however, we wrote to you (copy attached) seeking clarification on a previous request received by you which relates to the same matter. We are unable to progress your request until this clarification has been received. Kind regards Information Governance Officer / Swyddog Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth Director’s Office – Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr – Adnoddau [address removed] 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil&gt; Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter<http://twitter.com/vogcouncil&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. [quoted text trimmed]

What is your name please? Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester The Council’s Information Governance Team works collaboratively, and requests are managed collectively across the team rather than by individual officers. For this reason, correspondence is not issued under individual names. The team is managed by Evelyn Morgan who is the Council’s Data Protection Officer/Information Manager. We appreciate the detailed correspondence you have provided to date and understand that this matter is of importance to you. We have received multiple items of correspondence from you, including earlier requests relating to the legal case of BP Properties Ltd v Buckler. Work had already been undertaken to review this request and we were in the process of preparing a response when your more recent correspondence was received. We were aiming to ensure that all appropriate lines of enquiry had been explored before providing a response. At this stage, we would like to clarify that the Vale of Glamorgan Council does not hold records relating to this historic legal matter. Neither the Council nor its predecessor authorities, the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council or the former South Glamorgan County Council were involved in the case of BP Properties Ltd v Buckler. From the information available, it appears this was a private legal matter between BP Properties Ltd and the Buckler family. We also recognise that your enquiries extend beyond the Council and have been shared with a number of organisations. Some of the information you are seeking is more likely to be held elsewhere and not with the Council. Some information that may have historically been retained by the Council may now be held by the Glamorgan Archives but only in relation to historical land ownership, tenancy records, or court administrative deposits. Some information may also be obtainable from the Land Registry, but we can see that they have been included in your correspondence. In terms of information the Council may hold, this is most likely limited to planning related records. As previously advised, in order for our Planning colleagues to conduct accurate searches, they have requested a copy of the relevant site plan. Without this, there is a risk that any searches undertaken may not capture all relevant records. We note that this does not mean there are records just that in trying to cover every possibility we have asked for a site plan to complete this aspect of our enquiries. There may not be anything held but, we are trying to search for you. It is entirely a matter for you as to whether you provide a site plan. If you do not wish to provide one you do not have to but that will restrict our enquiries as it will be difficult to pin down the correct area. We are looking to assist in providing you with a full response as soon as possible with the information that is held by the Council. Your cooperation in providing the requested plan will help us progress this matter efficiently. We look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards Information Governance Officer / Swyddog Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth Director’s Office – Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr – Adnoddau [address removed] 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil&gt; Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter<http://twitter.com/vogcouncil&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. [quoted text trimmed]

Sirs/ Ma’am, I’m piecing together something I experienced in Llandough in 1988. From public record, my research and family testemony. And media. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I just thought I’d share this to invite you to comment/ advise on any of this case. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] But have never surrendered claim to land in Llandough. Our home, my home, since 1667. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Website below. I will work to get all these evidence onto this website so there’s a chrononical timeline and central location for the evidence. This matter is unresolved in many ways and I feel it needs to be handled. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester bpvsbuckler.datro.xyz

Dear Sir/Madam, Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and, where applicable, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, I request copies of records relating to Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough, near Cardiff. I am specifically seeking: 1. Planning applications, permissions, refusals, conditions, appeals, and related correspondence concerning the demolition of Great House Farm and subsequent residential development. 2. Any archaeological assessments, surveys, reports, briefs, watching briefs, excavation reports, or heritage impact assessments relating to the site. 3. Any correspondence between the Council, Cadw, BP Properties, BP, developers, archaeologists, the Royal Commission, or other public bodies concerning: – Great House Farm; – its historic significance; – archaeological discoveries; – listing or scheduling considerations; – demolition proposals. 4. Any records discussing reported Roman remains, medieval remains, monastic remains, burials, architectural fragments, or other archaeological features associated with the site. 5. Any records relating to emergency listing, spot-listing, preservation, or protection measures considered for Great House Farm during the 1980s. 6. Any committee minutes, officer reports, recommendations, or briefing papers relating to planning decisions affecting the site. If some records are held in archives or under a different authority, please advise where they may be located. I would prefer the information in electronic format. Yours faithfully, Requester [signature block trimmed]

FOI Unit / Evelyn Morgan / Information Governance Team, Thank you for your email dated 2 June 2026 and for the assistance provided so far in relation to reference 00210772. I appreciate the Council’s efforts to support this important family matter and note your confirmation that no records are held regarding the private legal proceedings in *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler*. As background, this case related to the longstanding claims of my Williams/Buckler family to ownership of Great House Farm (Ty Mawr). My grandmother Mary Williams maintained until her [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] death in 1983 (in the 2 week window to challenge BP’s registration of our home and land since 1667, in their names) that our family held ownership of the house following arrangements with Daniel Thomas involving the quarry, with the surrounding farmland subject to a lease that defaulted. There was a conveyance for the surrounding land and attempt to merge our farmhouse and garden into that single plot in 1975. Which was challenged by my nan. Something HM Land Registry correspondence (titles WA231076 and WA240304, first registered to BP Properties Limited in 1982/1983) references these conveyances and the Court of Appeal decision, which may assist in narrowing relevant planning and heritage searches. To enable your Planning, Heritage, and other relevant teams to conduct thorough searches without further delay, I confirm that enquiries should cover the historic Great House Farm / Ty Mawr estate in Llandough (adjacent to and including areas now known as Church View Close, north side of Leckwith Road, title WA231076). This includes any planning permissions, heritage assessments, demolition records (circa 1988), tenancy notations, environmental information, or correspondence from 1875 onwards. I am keen to receive a full and timely response within the statutory timeframe, drawing on all information the Council holds across departments. This is of profound personal and historic importance to the Williams family descendants as we seek to document and substantiate our family’s position. Should any records have been transferred to Glamorgan Archives or handled in any other way, details of this would be most helpful. Thank you once again for your understanding and support in this sensitive matter. I look forward to your substantive reply at the earliest opportunity. Kind regards, [signature block trimmed]

Dear Requester Thank you for the below. We have passed the information you have provided onto our Planning department who are looking into your request. Kind regards Information Governance Officer / Swyddog Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth Director’s Office – Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr – Adnoddau [address removed] 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil&gt; Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter<http://twitter.com/vogcouncil&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thank you for your emails, requesting information on the above mentioned site. I can confirm, I have done a search on the site and the two applications that may be of relevance, for the information you are seeking are noted below. Please be advised that this information is available via our online planning register<https://vogonline.planning-register.co.uk/Disclaimer?returnUrl=%2F&gt; and maps<https://myvale.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/mycouncil.aspx?MapSource=ValeOfGlamorgan/AllMaps&Layers=Planning_Applications&StartEasting=311395&StartNorthing=167640&StartZoom=5000&tab=maps&gt; ] I trust this is of assistance, however, if you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact us again. Kind regards Planning team 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<http://en-gb.facebook.com/valeofglamorganlife&gt; Follow us on Instagram / Dilynwch ni ar Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/vog_council&gt; Follow us on LinkedIn / Dilynwch ni ar LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/vale-of-glamorgan-council&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. ]<https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/en/our_council/achieving_our_vision/Corporate-Plan.aspx&gt;

Good morning, Yes, this is Helen Huggins Regards Helen Huggins Business Support Supervisor Business Support – Regeneration and Planning [address removed] 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<http://en-gb.facebook.com/valeofglamorganlife&gt; Follow us on Instagram / Dilynwch ni ar Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/vog_council&gt; Follow us on LinkedIn / Dilynwch ni ar LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/vale-of-glamorgan-council&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. ]<https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/en/our_council/achieving_our_vision/Corporate-Plan.aspx&gt; [quoted text trimmed]

Thanks for that info Helen. Appreciated. Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

George, Have you had an opportunity to look into any of the concerns I have raised with you regarding my family’s dispossession from land at Llandough? Might we be able to achieve even the smallest task together in trying to unravel what I allege may have involved fraud, concealment, mistakes, or other wrongdoing surrounding my family’s loss of possession of land there? It is land that my [family] claimed to own, and that claim has never, to my knowledge, been extinguished or determined against us by a court. The possibility of [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] court mistakes, Land Registry mistakes, the dismissal of my father’s appeal against the 1987 ruling, the rejection of the ECHR application, and Cadw’s inaction do not alter the central point: my family’s claim to ownership of the land itself has never been properly adjudicated upon or defeated. I may even have an interest in Church View Close. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Would you at least be willing to help with the more limited task of identifying when the tree planted by my family was removed? From what I can gather, the tree planting commemorated our claim to absolute title over our plot of land. Its removal could arguably represent the destruction of evidence connected with that claim. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester Thank you for your request for information about Great House Farm, Williams/Buckler Family, Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan and the further clarification that was received on the 7th June. Your request has been processed under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Council’s Planning records have been reviewed and the Planning department has provided the following response: In line with your clarification that was received on the 7th June, searches have been undertaken by the Council’s Planning department in relation to the historic Great House Farm / Ty Mawr estate in Llandough. This includes land adjacent to and including Church View Close and the north side of Leckwith Road, with particular reference to the area identified within Land Registry title WA231076 and the timeframe indicated from 1875 onwards, where records exist. We have been advised that the links to the planning records relating to the redevelopment of the site during the 1980s-1990s have previously been provided by colleagues in the Planning department. These records, including associated documentation, are publicly available via the Council’s Planning Register and can be accessed using the relevant application reference numbers at View or Comment on a Planning Application<https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/en/living/planning_and_building_control/Planning/Planning-Applications/View-or-Comment-on-a-Planning-Application.aspx&gt;. This information is therefore excepted under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 – information already publicly available and easily accessible by other means. Whilst planning files may contain some archaeological information, it is also noted that archaeological records for the Vale of Glamorgan are maintained by Heneb (formerly Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust). We suggest that you contact Heneb directly to access relevant records. Details on how to contact them can be found at Heneb – The Trust for Welsh Archaeology<https://heneb.org.uk/&gt;. To the extent that the Council does not hold further archaeological reports beyond those contained within planning files, Regulation 12(4)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (information not held) applies. Following searches of Planning records, no additional information has been identified within the scope of your request. You asked whether any records may have been transferred to Glamorgan Archives or otherwise. It is possible that historic material of this nature may be held externally, and you may therefore wish to contact Glamorgan Archives directly. Details on how to contact them can be found at https://glamarchives.gov.uk/contact/. From the clarification provided, the Council has been unable to identify which specific GIS datasets are being sought. Please provide further clarification regarding this and once received, we will consider this element further. As previously advised, the Council does not hold records relating to the legal case of BP Properties Ltd v Buckler. Neither the Vale of Glamorgan Council nor its predecessor authorities were parties to that case, which appears to have been a private legal matter. Accordingly, information relating to those proceedings is not held by the Council. If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to: c/o The Monitoring Officer – [removed] Or by post to The Monitoring Officer [address removed]. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications. If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: [address removed] Fax:[removed] Yours sincerely Information Governance Officer / Swyddog Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth Director’s Office – Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr – Adnoddau [address removed] 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil&gt; Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter<http://twitter.com/vogcouncil&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg.

Dear Requester Thank you for your email, we note your concerns as set out below. We are reviewing your concerns and will be in touch further as soon as possible. Kind regards Information Governance Officer / Swyddog Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth Director’s Office – Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr – Adnoddau [address removed] 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil&gt; Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter<http://twitter.com/vogcouncil&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. [quoted text trimmed]

Sirs/ Ma’am, Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and, where applicable, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, I request copies of records relating to the acquisition of the land used for the construction of Llandough Primary School. Specifically, I request: ■ The transfer deed, conveyance or other legal instrument by which the Council acquired the land. ■ The purchase price or consideration paid for the land. ■ If the land was gifted, transferred at nominal value or below market value, records explaining the basis for that arrangement. ■ Any valuation reports obtained before acquisition. ■ Any agreements, correspondence or meeting minutes between the Council and BP (or any BP subsidiary, trust or associated company) concerning the transfer of the land. ■ Any Cabinet, Committee or Council reports authorising the acquisition. ■ Any planning agreements or obligations connected with the transfer. If any of the requested information is already publicly available, please provide the relevant links or document references. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

———- Forwarded message ——— [quoted text trimmed]

Cllr Carroll, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to follow up on my previous emails regarding matters connected to Great House Farm / Church View Close in Llandough. Although I am not currently a resident, my family has deep historical roots in the area since 1667 and we maintain a legitimate interest in the land, history, and related issues. For your reference, here is a summary of my prior correspondence to you: Email Date Key Points Raised 16 Feb 2026 • Potential gaps in Council planning and record-keeping for Great House Farm (demolished 1988) • Title fraud and procedural concealment relating to Church View Close (formerly Great House Farm / Ty Mawr) 4 May 2026 • Setting aside BP vs Buckler 1987 case (stolen paper title, identity fraud, court mistakes, procedural unfairness) • Shared ITV footage link and request for attention as Llandough Councillor 7 Jun 2026 • Church View Close, Llandough – piecing together 1988 events from public records, [named family members’ testimony], and media 25 Jun 2026 • Enquiry whether you had reviewed prior concerns on family dispossession from land in Llandough; request for any progress or discussion I’d also like to know who removed the tree my great grandad planted to commemorate our ownership claim. As per the image in the collection of Wales archive. I have not received substantive replies to these points. As the elected Councillor for Llandough, you have a public duty to respond to reasonable enquiries from those with a legitimate interest in the ward in a timely manner (typically within 10–15 working days per standard local authority expectations). I would appreciate your detailed response to the above at your earliest convenience, ideally within the next 10 working days. Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your reply. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Diolch. Who sent me this email. Your name please. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

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 ( [removed]) | 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, [named family members’ 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, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Dear Information Governance Team, On 7 July 2026 I requested an internal review of the Council’s response to my Environmental Information Regulations request (Case Ref 00210772). You acknowledged this on 10 July 2026 and stated you were reviewing my concerns and would be in touch further as soon as possible. Over 20 working days have now passed with no further update or decision. Please provide the outcome of the internal review, or a clear timescale for when it will be issued, within 5 working days. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Dear Information Governance Team, On 14 July 2026 you acknowledged my FOI/EIR request (Case Ref 00211027) concerning the acquisition of land for Llandough Primary School. I replied the same day asking for the name of the officer who sent the acknowledgement. I have received no further response or substantive reply. Please now provide either the information requested or a formal response (including any refusal notice) within 5 working days. The statutory deadline has passed. Yours faithfully, Requester [signature block trimmed]

Dear Requester Thank you for your email. Our apologies that you did not receive a response to your email requesting the name of the officer who had acknowledged your request. We have previously advised that due to the Information Governance Team working collaboratively, and requests being managed collectively across the team, rather than by individual officers. Correspondence is not issued under individual names. In regards to this request, we are still working on it. Your request was received on 13 July 2026 therefore, the 20 working days timeframe has not yet elapsed. We aim to respond no later than 10 August 2026 and will write to you as soon as possible. Kind regards Information Governance Officer / Swyddog Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth Director’s Office – Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr – Adnoddau [address removed] 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil&gt; Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter<http://twitter.com/vogcouncil&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. [quoted text trimmed]

Sirs/ Ma’am, Thank you for your response. My query regarding the substantive FOI/EIR request is separate from my request for the identity of the officer who acknowledged my correspondence. I asked for the name of the officer who sent the acknowledgement email. Your reply does not answer that request. Instead, it refers to the team’s general practice of issuing correspondence collectively. If the information is held and you are refusing to disclose it, please issue a formal refusal notice identifying the relevant statutory basis for withholding it and advising me of my review rights. If no individual officer’s name is recorded or held in relation to the acknowledgement, please confirm that expressly. Otherwise, please provide the information requested. I look forward to your response. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester We apologise for the delay in replying, for information further enquiries are being made with service areas in light of the concerns you have raised with the original response. Those enquiries are not quite complete yet. We will write to you further by Friday 14th August 2026 with a further update. Regards Information Governance Officer/ / Swyddog Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth Legal & Democratic Services /Gwasanaethau Cyfreithol a Democrataidd Vale of Glamorgan Council / Cyngor Bro Morgannwg 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil&gt; Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter<http://twitter.com/vogcouncil&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. [quoted text trimmed]

I understand. And appreciate. Thank you for your time in this matter. Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, 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 [address removed] 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<http://en-gb.facebook.com/valeofglamorganlife&gt; Follow us on Instagram / Dilynwch ni ar Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/vog_council&gt; Follow us on LinkedIn / Dilynwch ni ar LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/vale-of-glamorgan-council&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. ]<https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/en/our_council/achieving_our_vision/Corporate-Plan.aspx&gt; [quoted text trimmed]

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, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Information Governance Team, I refer to the internal review of Case Ref 00210772 (Great House Farm / Ty Mawr, Llandough) which I requested on 7 July 2026. On 5 August 2026 you acknowledged that the matter remained outstanding beyond the 20-working-day statutory period and stated that further enquiries with service areas were ongoing. You indicated a further update or decision would be provided. As of the close of business on Friday 14 August 2026 no substantive response or decision has been received. This is a formal chase. The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 require that internal reviews be completed promptly and, in any event, within a reasonable time. The delay is now significant. Please provide the completed internal review decision within 5 working days of this email (i.e. by close of business on Monday 24 August 2026). If a full response is not received by that date I may escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office for non-compliance with the statutory timescales under the EIR, which I do not care to do. Please also confirm, as part of the outstanding review or by way of further disclosure under the same reference: 1. Whether the Council (as local planning authority) considered issuing a Building Preservation Notice under section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (or any equivalent provision) in respect of Great House Farm at any time between July and December 1988. 2. If it was considered, who decided against it and on what grounds. 3. If it was not considered, why not, given that the building was under active bailiff enforcement, partial demolition of outbuildings had already occurred, and Cadw had publicly stated on 3 December 1988 that listing was under active consideration. A Building Preservation Notice would have provided interim protection at the critical moment. Its absence is material to the internal review of the original response and to the wider handling of the case. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Williams/ Buckler Family Estate — [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Hi, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I discovered that we weren’t “evicted as squatters” after BP vs Buckler 1987. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Our home was a former 800-year-old manorial house in Llandough (Great House/Ty Mawr). Our land and home since 1667. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Marconi stayed with us while inventing radio. Peerless Jim fought his first fight in our barn. Our home should have been listed as a Grade II by CADW. And Vale Council should have put a demolition block. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Furthermore our home sat on a medieval burial site of 1,026 bodies, secretly relocated in lieu of housing development after our home was demolished. And a Roman villa sits under that. And a monastery under that too. Which still no formal discovery of has been made. We reported a Roman soldier discovery in 1870. And the Roman villa was 1979. Our home was also considered a local treasure despite spot listing being ignored. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I believe the Senedd need to do a public enquiry ASAP. The MP finally replied after months which is a start. The councillor for Llandough is silent. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] South Wales Police won’t reply on email and want a [removed] Amy who is now arranging a 4th visit to try to understand our ownership claim and chain of title. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] This is a matter of national public interest Christopher. My family require of you/the Vale Council real support. Legal aid. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I got my nan’s statements and other stuff, despite no cooperation from South Wales Police who deny holding any record. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] And some of what I have they still won’t release or when they do it’s heavily edited. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The first time we’ve been off our land or out of our home since the 16th century according to the South Wales Echo. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Sincerely, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

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, *Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

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, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester, 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 [address removed] 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil&gt; Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter<http://twitter.com/vogcouncil&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. [quoted text trimmed]

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. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 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 [relatives’] 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. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 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, *Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Good Sirs, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I have now spent considerable time reconstructing what happened. The deeper I dig, the more the story appears to unravel. We were not merely separated from a house. We were separated from ancestral land, family history and heritage. And now the woodland on that land is being cleared for a development of 133 homes. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Whatever one’s political position, the fact remains that possession being awarded through historical court proceedings does not magically make every underlying question of title, evidence, procedure or institutional conduct disappear. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I attach a summary of my grievances concerning CADW, particularly its historic involvement in this matter. I also attach a mock court application which I have been developing alongside AI-assisted legal research, not as a substitute for legal advice, but as a means of stress-testing the evidence and identifying the questions that require proper legal determination. I hope you will read them carefully. This is considerably larger than one parcel of land The parcel my family occupied — Church View Close — may ultimately prove to be only one piece of a much larger story. The same apparent pattern of irregularity that I am investigating in relation to our parcel appears potentially relevant to: – the parcel we leased immediately to the east, now proposed for the 133-home development; – the playing fields subsequently acquired by the council; – the 33 acres associated with the limeworks; and – potentially the underlying question of whether the Marquess of Bute possessed the freehold interest that has subsequently been assumed. That last question is obviously not something I intend to settle by rhetorical flourish. It is precisely the sort of question that should be settled by *documents, title records and evidence*. One relevant public-record reference is here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2020_01590_hyb <https://reference-url-citation.invalid/0&gt; That is the point of my investigation. I am not asking anybody to accept my conclusions simply because I have reached them. *I am asking institutions to produce the evidence.* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Instead, the historical record appears fragmented, inaccessible and in places remarkably difficult to obtain. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The emerging picture includes questions concerning procedural fairness, court proceedings, evidential failures, institutional decision-making, heritage protection and the apparent absence of effective oversight. The more documents I obtain, the more questions arise. And I am increasingly uncomfortable with the proposition that *the descendants of the people affected should have to conduct the investigation themselves simply to discover what the institutions already ought to know.* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I appreciate that public bodies have procedures. I appreciate that officials have workloads. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am asking you to intervene I do not expect either of you to determine the merits of my family’s historical or legal claims yourselves. I am asking you to ensure that the matter receives *proper independent scrutiny*. Specifically, I am asking you to assist in ensuring that: 1. relevant surviving records are identified and preserved; 2. agencies holding potentially material records provide substantive answers rather than procedural evasions; 3. the historical involvement of CADW and other public bodies is properly examined; 4. the underlying title, conveyancing and land-history evidence is obtained wherever it survives; 5. any allegations of procedural unfairness or institutional failure are referred to the appropriate independent bodies where necessary; and 6. my family is finally given a meaningful opportunity to establish, through evidence, what actually happened. I have no interest in mythology. I want the documents. I want the chronology. I want the title deeds. I want the correspondence. I want the decisions. I want to know who knew what, when they knew it, what they did with that information, and why. If the evidence ultimately disproves some of my suspicions, so be it. *But the evidence must first be allowed to speak.* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am asking for cooperation in recovering whatever evidence remains and allowing it to be examined properly. The local community members who have contacted me have long memories. Many remain convinced that something about this episode was profoundly wrong. I intend to establish exactly what happened — not through rumour, grievance or inherited mythology, but through the surviving documentary record. And if the record contradicts me, I will accept that. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I therefore ask you, gentlemen, to address this matter with the seriousness it deserves and to assist my family in obtaining the answers that have been denied to us for far too long. I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking for the truth. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Information Governance Team, I refer again to the internal review of Case Ref 00210772 (Great House Farm / Ty Mawr, Llandough), requested on 7 July 2026. On 5 August 2026 you stated that further enquiries were ongoing and that you would write further by 14 August 2026. On 14 August 2026 I chased and required the completed internal review decision by close of business on 24 August 2026. No substantive response or decision has been received. This is a further formal chase. The delay is now substantial and continues to breach the requirement under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 that internal reviews be completed promptly. Please provide the completed internal review decision within 5 working days of this email (i.e. by close of business on Friday 4 September 2026). If a full response is not received by that date I will need to escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office for non-compliance with the statutory timescales under the EIR. In addition to the outstanding review, and under the same reference, please confirm the following: Whether the Council (as local planning authority) considered issuing a Building Preservation Notice under section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (or any equivalent provision), or a demolition stop order / equivalent interim protection, in respect of Great House Farm at any time between July and December 1988. If considered, who decided against it and on what grounds. If not considered, why not, given that the building was under active bailiff enforcement, partial demolition of outbuildings had already occurred, and Cadw had publicly stated on 3 December 1988 that listing was under active consideration. Whether the 1984 Council meetings that raised the “county treasure” significance of the house were considered in any relevant planning process, including any BP application and any consideration of a demolition stop order or Building Preservation Notice. Whether the 1974 inspection by historians that noted the architectural significance of the house was considered in any relevant planning process, including any BP application and any consideration of a demolition stop order or Building Preservation Notice. Whether the 1974 planning application by BP for 13 houses is held and available for disclosure. Why the current planning permission for the 133 houses is not downloadable on the planning portal, and whether the full documentation can be provided. Whether any report or allegation of fraud / concerns raised by my late father (William “Billy” Buckler) was received and documented by the Council. If so, please provide the relevant records or confirm their destruction / non-retention and the date of any such action. Please also supply a copy of the Council’s current complaints procedure (or a direct link to it). Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Information Governance Team, I refer again to the internal review of Case Ref 00210772 (Great House Farm / Ty Mawr, Llandough), requested on 7 July 2026 and acknowledged by you on 10 July 2026. On 5 August 2026 you wrote that further enquiries were ongoing and that you would provide a further update by Friday 14 August 2026. On 14 August 2026 I chased and requested the completed internal review decision by close of business on 24 August 2026. No response or update has been received. The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 require that internal reviews be completed promptly and within a reasonable time. The delay is now substantial and exceeds both the statutory expectation and the deadlines you yourselves set. Please issue the completed internal review decision within 5 working days of this email (i.e. by close of business on Tuesday 8 September 2026). If a substantive response is not received by that date I will escalate the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office for non-compliance with the EIR timescales. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

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 [removed]. 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. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 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. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Recorded approaches to Councillor Carroll ([removed]) 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 [removed]. That address bounced. Subsequent mail used the correct [removed] address. – 7 June 2026 — “Church View Close, Llandough”. 1988 events from public records, [named family members’ 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. 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. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 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. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 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, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Dear Requester We are sorry for the delay in providing you with a substantive update in this matter. You asked for an internal review in particular because you had concerns about whether or not substantive enough searches had been carried out. We wrote to you on 5th August 2026 advising that further enquiries regarding the searches was being made with service areas. We advised you those enquiries were not quite complete. Service areas have reverted, and further historical documentation has been found. Unfortunately, we are still sifting through it to determine its relevance to your request. It is also not necessarily Council documentation but is nonetheless in the Council’s possession therefore, anything that may be relevant to your request also requires the Council to consider whether or not it should consult with 3rd parties and if necessary consult with them. We are undertaking the review of the documentation to determine relevance and whether we need to consult with third parties. We intend to try and update you further by the end of next week with a clearer time frame of when we may be able to respond substantively about this other documentation and indeed provide copies of anything we feel able to. We are grateful to you for your patience and apologise for the time it is taking. Regards Information Governance Officer/ / Swyddog Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth Legal & Democratic Services /Gwasanaethau Cyfreithol a Democrataidd Vale of Glamorgan Council / Cyngor Bro Morgannwg 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil&gt; Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter<http://twitter.com/vogcouncil&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester Thank you for your request for information about Llandough Primary School and your further enquires around whom you within the Information Governance team you have been corresponding with. You asked Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and, where applicable, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, I request copies of records relating to the acquisition of the land used for the construction of Llandough Primary School. Specifically, I request: ■ The transfer deed, conveyance or other legal instrument by which the Council acquired the land. ■ The purchase price or consideration paid for the land. ■ If the land was gifted, transferred at nominal value or below market value, records explaining the basis for that arrangement. ■ Any valuation reports obtained before acquisition. ■ Any agreements, correspondence or meeting minutes between the Council and BP (or any BP subsidiary, trust or associated company) concerning the transfer of the land. ■ Any Cabinet, Committee or Council reports authorising the acquisition. ■ Any planning agreements or obligations connected with the transfer. If any of the requested information is already publicly available, please provide the relevant links or document references. You then issued further correspondence requesting: On 14 July 2026 you acknowledged my FOI/EIR request (Case Ref 00211027) concerning the acquisition of land for Llandough Primary School. I replied the same day asking for the name of the officer who sent the acknowledgement. I have received no further response or substantive reply. Our Response The transfer deed, conveyance or other legal instrument by which the Council acquired the land The Council holds a conveyance dated 11 June 1965 made between: 1. Lakeside and Llandough Development Company Limited; 2. Western Ground Rents Limited; and 3. The Glamorgan County Council. A scanned copy of the conveyance and its plan is attached (“the 1965 Conveyance”). The purchase price or consideration paid for the land The consideration recorded in the 1965 Conveyance is £16,800. If the land was gifted, transferred at nominal value or below market value, records explaining the basis of that arrangement The 1965 Conveyance records a purchase for £16,800. No record has been located within the papers held by Legal Services indicating that the land was gifted or transferred at nominal value or below market value. Any valuation reports obtained before acquisition Searches were undertaken with Legal Services and Estates Department. No valuation report relating to the acquisition has been identified. The Council does not hold any valuation report falling within the scope of this request. Any agreements, correspondence or meeting minutes between the Council and BP, or any BP subsidiary, trust or associated company, concerning the transfer No agreements, correspondence or meeting minutes between the Council and BP or any BP subsidiary, trust or associated company relating to the acquisition of the land have been identified. Any Cabinet, Committee or Council reports authorising the acquisition The Council has not identified any Cabinet, Committee or Council reports within its current records management systems which fall within the scope of your request. Given the age of the acquisition, any surviving historic records may have been transferred to Glamorgan Archives. You may wish to contact Glamorgan Archives directly regarding records from this period. Any planning agreements or obligations connected with the transfer No planning agreement or planning obligation connected with the 1965 Conveyance has been identified within the title deeds held by Legal Services or, within the Planning Departments records. We have considered this aspect of your correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Council’s Information Governance Team deal with requests on a collective basis and all requests will be considered by different officers. The requests are dealt with via a generic e-mail account so that all officers in the Team can consider correspondence. There are several reasons why the Information Governance Team work in this way. One reason is to ensure that correspondence is considered as soon as possible and to ensure that messages or e-mails are not sent to individuals and overlooked within our systems overall. The information requested is also considered to constitute the personal data of a member of staff and disclosure would amount to disclosure to the world at large. Therefore the Council is unable to provide the name of the individual officer, because it is not considered that there is a lawful basis that would make disclosure fair or necessary in the circumstances. The Council’s correspondence is issued on behalf of the authority, and requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 are made to the Council as a public authority rather than to individual officers. It is not necessary to know the identity of a particular officer in order to submit a valid request for information. If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to: c/o The Monitoring Officer – [removed] Or by post to The Monitoring Officer [address removed]. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications. If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: [address removed] Fax:[removed] Kind regards Information Governance Officer / Swyddog Llywodraethu Gwybodaeth Director’s Office – Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr – Adnoddau [address removed] 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil&gt; Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter<http://twitter.com/vogcouncil&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg.

Dear Freedom of Information Officer, I am researching the 1989 planning application for the development subsequently known as Church View Close, Llandough-juxta-Penarth. The planning officer’s report records that representations were received from the *Barry Preservation Society* and the *Civic Trust*, but the report does not reproduce the substance of those representations. Please provide copies of all records held by the Council relating to the representation made by the *Barry Preservation Society* in connection with that planning application, including: 1. The original letter, objection or representation submitted by the Barry Preservation Society. 2. Any covering letter, acknowledgement or correspondence concerning its submission. 3. Any internal Council correspondence referring to or summarising the Society’s representations. 4. Any plans, photographs or supporting material submitted by the Society. 5. Any correspondence concerning the *retention, preservation, alteration or demolition of Great House Farm farmhouse*. 6. Any subsequent correspondence between the Council and the Barry Preservation Society concerning Great House Farm or the development. I am particularly seeking the Society’s *original 1989 comments about Great House Farm farmhouse*, rather than a later summary of them. The organisation is referred to in later Vale of Glamorgan Council records as the *Barry Preservation Society*, including its participation in the Council’s Conservation Area Advisory Group. It also appears in historical publications as the *Barry Preservation Society and Civic Trust*. If the original representation is no longer held, please state that explicitly and provide any surviving reference, file number, minute, extract or other record that identifies what was submitted and when. Please search the complete planning file and associated correspondence rather than relying solely on the published officer report. Regards, Requester

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, Requester 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, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear FOI Unit, Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and/or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (whichever regime the Council considers applicable to the material), I am requesting information held in relation to: – Planning application *89/01396/OUT* (outline permission granted 13 March 1990); and – The subsequent reserved matters application *92/00671/RES*, both concerning land at Great House Farm, Leckwith Road, Llandough, subsequently developed as Church View Close. I am seeking to reconstruct the documentary planning and consultation record between the outline permission and the subsequent detailed/reserved-matters approval. 1. Consultation responses to application 89/01396/OUT The Council’s own case officer’s report on application 89/01396/OUT records, in its consultations section: “Cardiff Bay Development Corporation: No objections – however, the Corporation would hope that the trees on the slope of the site facing north-west are retained and that the public right of way which runs through the site will be retained.” The same report refers to further consultation responses from the *National Rivers Authority* and the *County Engineer* by reference to attached typed sheets (“please type attached sh②” and “please type attached sh③”), without reproducing their substantive contents in the disclosed copy. Please therefore provide: 1. The *complete original written response from the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation* concerning application 89/01396/OUT, including any accompanying letter, report, plan, attachment or other document forming part of that consultation response. 2. The *complete National Rivers Authority consultation response* referred to in the report as one of the attached sheets, including the original document and any accompanying material. 3. The *complete County Engineer consultation response* referred to in the report as one of the attached sheets, including the original document and any accompanying material. I am deliberately not relying upon the handwritten numbering of sheets ② and ③ to identify which sheet belongs to which consultee, as the numerals are difficult to distinguish in the surviving copy. Please identify the corresponding sheet/document by reference to its contents or file provenance. 4. Any *covering correspondence, transmission record or internal record* showing when the NRA and County Engineer responses were received by the Council and how those responses were placed on, incorporated into or considered as part of the planning file. 2. Archaeological assessment and discharge of outline conditions Please provide: 5. The *formal decision notice and complete schedule of conditions* issued in connection with planning application 89/01396/OUT, including any condition concerning archaeological investigation, evaluation, assessment, excavation, recording, preservation or protection. 6. All records held by the Council demonstrating the *discharge, implementation or consideration of any archaeological condition* attached to the 1990 outline permission, including any archaeological evaluation, field assessment, report, correspondence, approval, discharge notice, consultation response or internal officer record. 7. Any correspondence or documentation showing how the Council considered the findings of that archaeological work in determining the subsequent reserved matters application 92/00671/RES. 3. Reserved matters application 92/00671/RES Please provide: 8. The *formal decision notice* for application 92/00671/RES, including the complete schedule of any conditions attached to the approval. 9. The consultation responses and representations received in connection with 92/00671/RES, including any response or representation from the *Cardiff Bay Development Corporation*, if one exists. 10. Any officer report, committee report, delegated report, recommendation or internal planning assessment relating to the determination of 92/00671/RES. 11. Any document recording the Council’s consideration of the relationship between the reserved-matters proposal and the parameters established by the outline permission 89/01396/OUT. 4. Change from the outline scheme to the reserved-matters scheme The officer’s report for the outline application describes the indicative scheme as *18 dwellings*, whereas the subsequent reserved-matters scheme appears to comprise *20 dwellings*. Please therefore provide: 12. Any document held by the Council recording or explaining the change from the indicative *18-dwelling* scheme at outline stage to the *20-dwelling* scheme submitted/approved at reserved-matters stage. 13. Any planning assessment, officer report, correspondence, committee/delegated report or other record explaining the planning basis upon which the additional two dwellings were considered acceptable under the outline permission. 14. Any document identifying the relevant condition, parameter, planning provision or other mechanism under application 89/01396/OUT under which the reserved-matters scheme was considered capable of differing from the indicative 18-dwelling layout. 5. Scope and record availability For the avoidance of doubt, this is *not a request for a general search of all historic records concerning Great House Farm*. It is specifically directed to the planning records and decision-making documents identified above for applications *89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES*. Please search the relevant planning application files and associated archived/scanned material, including attachments and documents stored separately from the principal application file where those documents form part of the application or consultation record. Please supply the information electronically, such as scanned copies, where practicable. If any requested record is *not held*, please confirm this specifically for the relevant item rather than leaving the point unanswered. If the Council considers that any information is exempt from disclosure, please identify the *specific exemption or exception relied upon* and explain its application. If any of the identified historical records were previously held but are no longer available, please confirm, where recorded: – whether the record was destroyed, transferred, archived elsewhere or otherwise disposed of; – the date or approximate date of that action, if recorded; – the authority or process under which it occurred; and – whether any surviving catalogue, disposal schedule, transfer record or other audit trail exists. I also understand that the application for housing began much further back as a petition was made in 1974 for 13 houses. Please could you give me a reference or link or that entire planning application record too. Please acknowledge receipt of this request and provide a reference number. I understand that the statutory response period is 20 working days. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester 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 [address removed] 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 http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk&lt;http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/&gt; Ewch i’n gwefan yn http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk&lt;http://www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk/&gt; Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil&gt; Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter<http://twitter.com/vogcouncil&gt; Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. [quoted text trimmed]

Ms Davidson, Thanks for your reply. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] My grandmother died asserting her ownership. My father died asserting his ownership. We have never surrendered or conveyed or sold our ownership. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 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. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 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 [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 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. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 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. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 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. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 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. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 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, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] —————————— [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Councillor Misra & Co, My family, the Williams and later Buckler family, lived at Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr) beside St Dochdwy’s for almost 4 consecutive centuries until 1988, when our 800 year old 10 bed manorial home was [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] demolished. I was born there. The site is now Church View Close. That whole incident appears to stem from a 1955 possession order for a parcel of land east of the parcel we held freehold of. The order contained ambiguity that was later misinterprited to make our occupancy of our parcel appear permissive, following our paper title copy being stolen. A 1962 possession order for our parcel was created based on that but not enforced on my disabled, widow grandmother. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Instead the interest in the 1962 order was conveyed from Western Ground Rents to BP in 1969. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] They again made her occupancy appear pernissive in 1974 with their famous licence letters. Then conveyed interest in that, again, to their own sister company in 1975. Not withstanding the possession of the 1962 order was quashed in 1974. Also in 1974 my nans ownership claim was not legally exstiguished and instead the court ajourned. In 1983 BP then quietly registered our land in their names at the land registry, failing to disclose my nans ownership claim, she also died in the 2 weeks she will have had to challenge them. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Land registry also didn’t notify her/ us. BP then merged our parcel into theirs[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. The land registry wrote to the MP this week claiming not find anything wrong with the role they played in 1982/1983. . In 1877 title became our families from Daniel Thomas & Son. But not until 1928 when quarrying completed on the land. In 1916 Bute produced an agrictural tenancy for our family featuring our occupied parcel and a parcel to the east. The interest in this is what conveyed to Western Ground Rents in 1938. And in 1939 they revised the agreement for the parcel east of ours. And excluded ours parcel from any tenancy due to the 1928 event and my great grandads registration of the freehold. The [removed] agreement and title deed was stolen from our home according to my late nans statement in these proceedings. When WGR saught possession of their parcel to the east of ours in 1955, they exercised moral hazard to introduce ambiguity into the order, considering my nans vulnerable state (amputee, widow, pensioner, stolen title deed), which could have and did get later misinterprited to make my nans occupancy appear permissive. And Western Ground Rents the owner. Thus fabricating a defective title with the 1962 possession order for my nans parcel and through conveying that unenforced possession order to BP in 1969. BPs permissive occupancy licence in 1974 and 1975 conveyance repeated that process to make interest transfer and a title chain emerge, with no root title. Mr Paul Egan answered a request from me on 14 June this year. He searched the Council’s records, explained that the minute books from 1982 onward were deposited with Glamorgan Archives in 2002, set out the section 21 position correctly, and pointed me to the Council’s own pages on buildings of significance in the community. He also told me something I had not known — that before 1982 Llandough came under Penarth Town Council — which has opened a line of research I would otherwise have missed. I had written to him in strong terms and he replied with courtesy and care anyway. I understand he has since retired after long service to the village. Please pass on my thanks if you are able to. I am not asking the Council to revisit his answer; it was a proper one. I am assembling a complete documentary and photographic record of my family’s old manorial 10-bedroom birth and family home since 1667[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] — I am interested in everything: planning, archaeology, land registration, family papers, oral memory — all into a single, centralised searchable archive. So the actual full story can be retold. Warts and all. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] It would be passable if we were sincerely squatters being evicted as the press reported. Or even courts believed. But the land BP possessed they had. We lost the parcel east of ours fair and square. They came to occupy our neighbouring land and home too [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case], to build Church View Close. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The destinction would have been clear had BP not registered our land in their names and merged ours into theirs, in such a clandestine way, in 1982/1983. So much of my family’s and people’s history and heritage in Llandough continues to be [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] without so much as a park-bench plaque to commemorate any of the following: – the 1,026 medieval burials – Marconi staying with us while inventing radio – Peerless Joe Driscoll fighting his first fight in our barn – the Roman villa – Christian monastery – 2,200-year-old Celtic roundhouse the list goes on. The LiDAR scans etc. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] We still appear to own the land under Church View Close. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] But this is a request for co-operation with reconstructing history, not a complaint. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] In the interests of being straight with you: I had difficulty getting replies from the Vale ward member, Councillor George Carroll, and earlier this year I made a formal complaint to the Vale of Glamorgan about that. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Does your [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]council hold any records that were created after 2002 and therefore not part of the 2002 deposit, concerning our [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr/Cedfin)/Church View Close land? [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] My focus and what I require of your Council, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] is the village green in front of St Dochdwy’s — including registered village green VG 41, which your Council raised formally with the Vale when the Great House Farm site came forward for planning in 1989. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Any record of works carried out on the green and the roadside verge by the churchyard wall in the mid-1980s is all I am asking for. I hold colour photographs of trees being removed, spoil carted away and new kerbstones laid; vehicle registrations in them date the works to between about 1983 and 1990, on more than one occasion. (See attached.) [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] My great-grandfather planted a tree on that green to mark my family’s claim to that land, and my family believe that tree was lost in the work of making that green[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. I should be clear that the green does not even appear to fall inside the boundary of land we have the interest in[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case], so this is a question about the village’s history as much as ours. Any photographs, postcards or images of the farm, the barn, the green or the church surroundings that the Council holds or knows of. Please disclose. I have vacuumed most of Leckwith Archives already. Any guidance on where the pre-1982 community records now sit, given that Llandough fell within Penarth Town Council before then, and whether the Council holds anything that came across at the 1982 reorganisation, I would like you to please disclose. The names of any former members, former clerks or long-standing residents who might be willing to talk to me about the village between the 1950s and the 1990s. I would approach anyone you suggest courteously and would not press a refusal. Please disclose. I am content for this email to be tabled at a meeting and minuted if the Council wishes. I am also happy to give a short talk to the Council or the community, without charge, on what the records have revealed about Llandough’s past — the Roman villa, the early medieval cemetery beneath Church View Close, the monastic history, and the farm itself. A good deal of what I have found belongs to the village as much as my family. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] P.S. Vehicle registrations visible in them (including A305 MKG, which cannot predate August 1983, and plant registered MTX 936X and MTX 930X) [signature block trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thanks for your email of 20th September 2026. I note that our Clerk, Paul Egan, has already directed you to all the information we have on the matter as indicated in paragraph 6 of your email. We have nothing more to add. Best regards Dr M C Misra, Chair Llandough Community Council [quoted text trimmed]

Freedom of Information Officer, Case Ref: 00211463 — request received 17 September 2026 I write to clarify and refine the above request while it remains open, having now examined the original manuscript of the planning officer’s report rather than a transcription. My earlier request named two organisations; the document in fact identifies the correspondents differently, and I ask that the request be read as follows. The passage relied upon The planning officer’s report on application 89/01396/OUT (residential development including new access road, land at Great House Farm, Leckwith Road, Llandough, Penarth; outline permission granted 13 March 1990) states, at page 2: “Two letters have been received from the Barry Preservation Society and Civic Trust and a local County Councillor (who is a member of the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust) making representations in respect of this application and a copy of both these letters are attached to this report as Appendices ‘C’ and ‘D’ respectively.” The following paragraph of the same report states: “The Applicants’ Agents have written in response to the report of the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust Ltd. on the site and a copy of this letter is attached to this report as Appendix ‘E’.” What I request Appendix “C” to the officer’s report on 89/01396/OUT — the letter from the Barry Preservation Society and Civic Trust. Appendix “D” — the letter from the local County Councillor referred to, together with that Councillor’s name. Appendix “E” — the letter from the Applicants’ Agents responding to the report of the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust Ltd. A list of all appendices (“A” to “E” or further) to that officer’s report, so that the complete annex set is identified. Any register, index, schedule or file list for application 89/01396/OUT recording the documents originally held on the file. A further document referred to in the same report The officer’s report also records, of the East Vale Local Plan: “The greater part of the land is allocated for new residential development in the East Vale Local Plan (Policy No. H.2.) The information supporting the policy states that buildings on the site should be retained, however were unfortunately demolished a little while ago.” I therefore also request: The text of Policy H.2 of the East Vale Local Plan and the supporting information to that policy referred to above, in the version current in 1989–1990. Points on handling These are documents the Council’s own report states were attached to it. If any of them is not held, I ask the Council to say so expressly, and to state (a) when it ceased to be held, (b) under what retention schedule or disposal decision, and (c) whether any record of that disposal exists. A response that “no additional information has been identified” would not address a request for annexes that the Council’s own report records as attached. I note the Council’s letter of 11 September 2026 in a related matter, which stated that “further historical documentation has been found… not necessarily Council documentation but is nonetheless in the Council’s possession”. I ask that this material be searched in responding to the present request. I intend this as a clarification and refinement of case 00211463 under the Council’s duty to advise and assist (s.16 FOIA 2000 / reg. 9 EIR 2004), and not as a new request. If the Council takes the view that any part of it must be treated as a fresh request, please confirm that in writing, identify which parts, and give the revised due date, so that I am not left uncertain which deadline applies to which element. I should be grateful for confirmation of receipt. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Chris, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr): The Williams–Buckler Dispute

[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Many and myself are still investigating. But in a nutshell a synthetic parcel appears to have been created, based on enough years of attempts to make our occupancy appear permissive, so that the land registry can accept the story. So 1974 licence letters was also a failed attempt and premis my family rejected, in a long line of failed attempts spanning back to at least 1949. The registration then made the 1987 ruling possible. And that ruling is what the land registry depend on to justify its decision to allow BP to register a synthetic mimic of our parcel in their names, without notifying us until long after the appeal of that registration had ended. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Equally that 1987 ruling depends on the 1983 registration of our land parcel (or mimic synthetic version of it, built from a falsehood of a chain that didn’t have root title and was not and never was successful attempts to make our occupancy permissive. Furthermore the “whole farm” being treated as one parcel, was not merged back into one parcel (a synthetic version of our parcel too, not ours), until after the 1986/1987 case. So my nan Mary Williams didn’t get a fair opportunity to reject the licence letter in 1974 between it being offered and quashing the 1962 possession order for our land parcel. Which itself was never enforced and arguably not legally enforceable as it was based on ambuguity from the 1955 order which made our occupancy of our parcel simply appear permissive with concealment of the fact my nans resistence was due to her ownership claim. And concealment of the fact “whole farm” excluded our parcel of land and was not in the 1939 tenancy agreement. So not conveyed to Western Ground Rents in 1938. Further to that my nans ownership claim, even though unable to be proven due her title being stolen in 1950/52, still means having not paid anyone for anything on her parcel since 1928 she will have already qualified for adverse possession by 1940. We didn’t get fair opportunity to appeal the 83 registration either. We also didn’t get opportunity to appeal CADWs decision to not list our county treasure 800 year old home as a grade II before BP demolished it at 4am the next day. Then the council didn’t hold them to any account when they returned in 1989 to get planning permission. The council are also under the microscope for many failures. Failure to issue a demolition block order. Also two annexes are missing from those planning docs which are local historic societies testemony to petition demolition citing our old ancestral homes significants (home since 1667 and my birth home I remind you). Please just look at the evidence.

Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr): The Williams–Buckler Dispute

[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

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, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Victoria Davidson Monitoring Officer and Head of Legal and Democratic Services Vale of Glamorgan Council [removed] Also: [removed] 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, Requester, 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, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Information Governance Team, Vale of Glamorgan Council [removed] Sirs/Madam, Case 00211484. This narrows the request. It does not reopen 00210772. Please keep them separate. I hold dated photographs of the works. Please disclose: 1. The instruction, works order or contractor record for removal of the commemorative tree on or adjoining the former Great House Farm / Church View Close land. 2. The date of the works and who authorised them. 3. Any note linking the tree to the Williams / Buckler family, to Mary Williams, or to the 1988 demolition. If nothing is held, say what was searched. The public evidence index is https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/ . This request is about one tree and one works record. It is not a request that you decide title. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Information Governance Team Vale of Glamorgan Council [removed] cc: [removed] Sirs/Madam, New request under FOIA 2000 and/or EIR 2004. Do not treat this as a reopening or expansion of 00210772, 00211463 or 00211484. Those cases stay as they are. Land: Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Leckwith Road, Llandough, later Church View Close. Applications: 89/01396/OUT (outline granted 13 March 1990) and 92/00671/RES. I already have, or have already asked for, the officer’s report, Policy H.2 text, Appendices C–E, the decision notices, and the general archaeological-condition papers. This request is confined to classes that those earlier requests did not name. Please disclose recorded information held, or confirm item by item if not held: 1. Section 52 / later section 106 / land charges Any agreement under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, any later section 106 instrument, any deed, undertaking or other agreement regulating the development or use of this land, and any corresponding entry on the local land charges register. Search legal, planning and land-charges holdings, not only the 2026 planning-file scan. If none is held, say so expressly. That is an open records question, not a conclusion that none existed. 2. Historic planning register The planning-register entries that the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 required the authority to keep for 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES: the applications, reserved-matters applications, plans and drawings, and relevant decision information. If the 2026 file disclosure is incomplete against that register, say what the register still lists and what is missing from the file. 3. Appendix B Appendix B to the officer’s report on 89/01396/OUT: the further GGAT comments after discussions with the Trust. Case 00211463 asked for C, D and E and for a list of annexes. It did not ask for B by that description. If B is not held, say when it left the file, under what retention rule, and whether any copy survives elsewhere. 4. Condition 16–18 chain Named papers, not a general search: (a) conditions 16, 17 and 18 as issued on the 13 March 1990 permission; (b) the Council’s October 1990 confirmation of condition 17; (c) GGAT’s archaeological warning of July 1992; (d) the September 1992 reserved-matters approval, and whether any further archaeological condition was attached; (e) the 1993–94 papers on whether condition 18 had been discharged, including GGAT’s December 1993 letters recommending a breach-of-condition notice. 5. Environmental assessment / screening Any preliminary environmental-assessment determination, screening opinion, or recorded decision that an environmental statement was or was not required for 89/01396/OUT. The application site is described as about 3.4 acres / 1.38 hectares. I am not asserting that an environmental statement was required. I am asking whether the Council made and recorded the determination at all. 6. Archaeological-interest consultation route Any record of the statutory consultation route actually used because the land was recorded in the county Sites and Monuments Record, or was treated as a “site of archaeological interest” under the 1988 Order. I am not asking you to treat SMR status as automatic proof of a particular duty. I am asking what route was used. 7. Application receipt date The Council’s receipt record for 89/01396/OUT. The application form is dated October 1989. The reconstructed planning record gives 8 November 1989 as receipt of the application and plans. Please supply the date-stamped receipt, validation or register entry. 8. 92/00671/RES completeness and applicant standing (a) A file list or register for 92/00671/RES showing what the reserved-matters file originally contained. (b) Any sale, option, conditional-contract or authority-to-apply paper on the planning files covering the change from BP Properties (1989 outline applicant) to Ideal Homes Wales (appearing on the 1992 reserved-matters trail), including the recorded BP-to-Ideal Homes transfer of 3 December 1993. This is a documentary interest/authority question. It is not an allegation that the 1992 application was invalid. If a record is not held, say so for that item. If it was destroyed, transferred or archived, give the date, the schedule, and any surviving catalogue. Search planning, legal, land charges and archived/scanned holdings. Please give a new reference and the 20 working-day date. Preserve anything in scope. The public evidence index is https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/ . I am not asking the Council to decide title. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Information Governance Team, *Case Ref 00210772 — internal review requested 7 July 2026* Thank you for your email of 11 September. You said that you would try to update me by the end of the following week with a clearer timeframe. I have not received that update. Under regulation 11(4) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, an internal review should be completed as soon as possible and no later than 40 working days after receipt of the request for reconsideration. On my calculation, that period expired on 2 September 2026. The review is therefore now overdue. I appreciate that further historical documentation has been located and that you may need to consult third parties. I am not asking you to compromise any proper consultation process. However, I ask that you now provide the following by *Tuesday 6 October 2026*: 1. *A firm date* by which the completed internal review decision will be issued. 2. *A non-disclosive description of the further documentation located*, including, so far as presently known: – its approximate date or date range; – who created or supplied it; – how it came into the Council’s possession; and – approximately how many documents are involved. I am asking for a description of the material and its provenance, rather than disclosure of its substantive contents. 3. *Confirmation that the newly located documentation is being preserved in its present form*, without alteration, destruction or disposal, while the internal review and any subsequent complaint to the Information Commissioner remain outstanding. 4. *Release now of any material that can properly be disclosed without awaiting third-party consultation*, where the Council has already established that no exemption or other restriction prevents disclosure. If I do not receive a substantive response by *6 October 2026*, I will refer the continuing delay to the Information Commissioner’s Office without further notice. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Requester, Diolch. I will indeed say a prayer and have already done so, Chris [quoted text trimmed]

Information Governance Team cc: Monitoring Officer; Data Protection Officer Case Ref 00210772 — Internal Review requested 7 July 2026 This is a formal chase of unanswered points already put to you. It is not a new request and must not be used to restart any clock. On 11 September 2026 you wrote that service areas had found further historical documentation, that you were still sifting it, and that because some of it is “not necessarily Council documentation but is nonetheless in the Council’s possession” you were considering whether to consult third parties. You said you would try to give a clearer timetable by the end of the following week (i.e. by 18 September 2026). On 30 September 2026 I asked, by Tuesday 6 October 2026, for: 1. A firm date by which the completed internal review decision will be issued; 2. A non-disclosive description of the further documentation located (date range, creator/supplier, how it came into the Council’s possession, approximate volume); 3. Confirmation that the newly located documentation is being preserved without alteration, destruction or disposal; and 4. Immediate release of any material that can properly be disclosed without awaiting third-party consultation. None of those four points has been answered. What you have not said You have not identified a single document found in the September sift. You have not named any third-party consultee class, the date any consultation was sent, or the date by which a reply was required. You have not stated whether the material is held under EIR or FOIA. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] You have not confirmed a preservation hold. Silence on each of these points is itself a recorded position. What is now required (unchanged from the unanswered requests) (a) Issue the internal review decision. On any view the ICO’s recommended maximum of 40 working days from the request for review (7 July 2026) has long passed. If you contend that EIR does not apply, say so expressly and identify the statutory basis for treating the request under FOIA alone. (b) Attach a schedule of every document found in the further search: date, description, format, holding service, whether Council or third-party record in the Council’s possession, and the decision on each (disclose / part-disclose / withhold with the precise regulation or section). (c) If any third-party consultation has occurred or is proposed, name the class of consultee, the date the consultation was sent, and the deadline set for reply. A consultee’s silence is not a ground to withhold. (d) Confirm in writing that every document in the sift, and every related planning, enforcement, legal, committee, land, finance and correspondence record (including predecessor-authority material), is under a formal preservation hold and will not be destroyed, weeded, transferred or disposed of while 00210772 and related requests remain open. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Treat the personal-data element also as a subject-access request under UK GDPR for Requester (child occupant in 1988). The 7 July 2026 answer treated the matter as a planning-register query. That was too narrow. The sift must cover the full list previously set out (planning files including unpublished appendices, enforcement, building control, environmental health, demolition, legal-services files, member/officer correspondence, land/estates files, finance records, and predecessor-authority transfers to Glamorgan Archives). Public-accountability questions (to be answered from the documents, including those found in September) 1. Was any Council or predecessor expenditure, fee, cost, grant or works associated with the occupation, demolition or redevelopment? 2. Was any Council or predecessor land, right, permission or undertaking involved? 3. Were officers or members told of anything that contradicted or qualified the ownership, occupation, heritage or demolition account then being used? 4. What accounting, audit, legal, planning, committee and correspondence records survive? 5. Was any irregularity, conflict, material error or control failure identified, reported, or formally accounted for? 6. If the Council’s position is that there is nothing to examine, state that expressly and identify the documents relied on. By return Within 5 working days: the document schedule, the preservation confirmation[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. Within 10 working days: the internal review decision with copies of everything you are able to disclose. This email records that the four points put to you on 30 September 2026 remain unanswered as of 6 October 2026. If no substantive response is received, the continuing failure to complete the internal review will be referred to the Information Commissioner without further notice. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear FOI Team, I refer to the partial disclosures already made and to the still-open requests concerning Great House Farm / Tý Mawr / Church View Close (including 00210772, 00211463, 00211483, 00211484 and 00211557). The planning report’s Appendices C, D and E remain missing. These form part of the public planning record for the site and are required for the completeness of the evidence library. Please: 1. Identify the three missing appendices by their original reference or description. 2. Either disclose them in full or state the precise exemption relied upon for each. 3. Confirm the statutory response date for FOI/EIR 00211557 remains on or about 26 October 2026. This is a chase of existing open requests for the public record. It does not ask the Council to determine private title or liability. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Democratic and Scrutiny Services Vale of Glamorgan Council [removed] cc: [removed] (for information only — this is not a new FOI request) Dear Democratic and Scrutiny Services, Scrutiny Topic Suggestion / request for a focused Task and Finish Review I am a resident with a long-standing family connection to Great House Farm (Tÿ Mawr), Llandough-juxta-Penarth. A public documentary archive of the site is maintained at:

Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr): The Williams–Buckler Dispute

I request that the Council consider a focused Scrutiny Topic Suggestion leading to a Task and Finish Review (or other appropriate scrutiny mechanism) concerning the Council-held planning, heritage, environmental and public-authority record relating to Great House Farm / Tÿ Mawr / Church View Close. Proposed scope (within the Council’s remit): • the Council-held planning, heritage, environmental and public-authority record relating to Great House Farm / Tÿ Mawr / Church View Close; • the chronology of Council decisions, records and responses from the mid-twentieth century onwards; • identification of missing, contradictory or unresolved Council-held records and, where appropriate, referral to the body with the relevant jurisdiction; • consideration of the site’s heritage and historical record[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]; and • recommendations within the Council’s powers, without asking the Council to determine private title, criminal liability or matters reserved to courts or other public bodies. This is an evidence-review and accountability route. It is not a request for the Council to decide private title or liability. I am happy to complete the online Scrutiny Topic Suggestion Form if preferred, or to supply any further information the Democratic Services team requires. Please acknowledge receipt and indicate the process and timescale for consideration. Kind regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester, Many thanks for your e-mail below and your request for Scrutiny to consider the topic suggested as part of it’s Task and Finish work. Unfortunately, on this occasion we will be unable to consider the request for several reasons: 1. The purpose of Task and Finish is to review existing policy Council considerations and identify areas for future policy direction at a strategic level impacting on a county wide basis. These topics are purposefully strategic in manner, and are based upon areas that Committees determine to have the most positive impact. 2. In addition to the above, the purpose of Scrutiny is not to review evidence related to individual historical decisions and make subsequent recommendations, particularly related to planning, which should be navigated through other channels. 3. We are aware through other correspondence to which you have copied us into that there are ongoing concerns being raised through a variety of channels including Welsh Government, CADW, MSs and MPs, and as such it would not be appropriate for a Scrutiny Task and Finish to add an additional layer of stakeholders and complexity in exploring the issues; notwithstanding points 1 and 2 raised. Kind Regards, James [quoted text trimmed]

Dear FOI Unit, This is the scheduled chase for internal review of FOI 00210772, requested on 7 July 2026 and still outstanding. Please confirm the review outcome or a firm date. I am also concerned that records relevant to Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough (1988 eviction, demolition, planning and Building Preservation Notice files) may be subject to routine disposal. Please suspend any disposal of those records pending the outcome of this review. Public working evidence catalogue: https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com Title and chronology index: https://dartboard.bucklerfamily.estate and https://bpvsbuckler.bucklerfamily.estate Long-term archive: https://wayback.bucklerfamily.estate Yours sincerely, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]