Subject: Re: Complaint – Failure to Respond / Failure to Deal Properly with Case – Cllr George Carroll (Llandough) – Great House Farm / Church View Close
From: Sion Buckler
Direction: sent
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 19:31 UTC
Institution: Vale of Glamorgan Council
Refs: none
Archive id: gm-1a03541b39b9a3ee
------------------------------------------------------------

Ms Davidson,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not the proposition I have advanced.

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

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

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

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

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

Please record the chronology accurately.

This was not:

five emails were sent and a councillor did not reply.

It was:

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

That is the conduct I asked you to assess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If there was another reason, please identify it.

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

I also wish to place one specific issue on record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I therefore ask you to identify that route.

Specifically, please confirm how I may:

   1.

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

   submit a petition or e-petition;
   3.

   seek consideration by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee;
   4.

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

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

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

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

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

I am not presently asserting that this proves deliberate concealment.

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

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

That makes the appropriate question one of transparency:

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

That is a straightforward public-record question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am asking a narrower and more reasonable question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persistence should not be confused with misconduct.

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

I accept the latter completely.

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

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

   1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The democratic question is much simpler:

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

That question remains unanswered.

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

Yours sincerely,

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

On Mon, 24 Aug 2026, 10:59 Davidson, Victoria, <
[email redacted]> wrote:

> Dear Mr Buckler,
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> I note your request for further clarification regarding my decision in my
> capacity as Monitoring Officer.
>
> The assessment I undertook was limited to considering whether the
> information provided disclosed evidence which, if established, could
> indicate a failure by the member to comply with the statutory Member’s Code
> of Conduct. As Monitoring Officer, I do not have formal investigatory
> powers equivalent to those of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales and I
> am not required to undertake an investigation or obtain representations
> from a member before deciding whether there is sufficient basis for a
> referral to be made. My role at this stage is to consider whether the
> information presented discloses evidence of conduct that appears capable of
> amounting to a breach of the Code.
>
> In reaching my view, I considered the information provided within your
> complaint, including the chronology you supplied regarding correspondence
> sent to Councillor Carroll between February and July 2026. The substance of
> the complaint was that you had not received substantive responses to a
> number of emails sent over that period.
>
> For completeness, I considered whether the conduct alleged could
> potentially engage any of the principal obligations contained within the
> Member's Code of Conduct. These include requirements that members show
> respect and consideration for others, do not engage in bullying, harassment
> or discriminatory behaviour, do not bring their office or authority into
> disrepute, do not improperly use their position to confer an advantage or
> disadvantage on any person, and do not misuse Council resources or
> confidential information.
>
> Whilst I appreciate that the absence of a response to correspondence may
> be frustrating, the information provided did not disclose evidence of
> disrespectful behaviour, bullying, harassment, misuse of position, misuse
> of Council resources, disclosure of confidential information, conduct
> bringing the office of member or the authority into disrepute, or any other
> behaviour which appeared capable of amounting to a breach of the Code. In
> reaching that view, I considered the nature of the conduct alleged, namely
> a failure to respond to correspondence, and whether that conduct engaged
> any provision of the Code.
>
> It is important to note that the Member’s Code of Conduct does not impose
> a general obligation on elected members to respond to all correspondence
> received from members of the public, nor does it prescribe timescales
> within which responses must be provided. The Code is concerned with
> standards of conduct rather than the quality, adequacy or timeliness of
> constituency casework. Consequently, a decision not to respond, or not to
> respond in the manner sought by a correspondent, does not of itself
> constitute evidence of a breach of the Code.
>
> Given that the information provided did not disclose evidence which
> appeared capable of amounting to a breach of the Code, I did not consider
> it necessary or proportionate to seek comments from Councillor Carroll
> before reaching that conclusion. My decision was therefore based upon the
> information contained within your complaint and whether that information,
> taken at its highest, indicated a potential breach of the Code warranting
> further action.
>
> For completeness, any person is entitled to submit a complaint directly to
> the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales if they believe a member has failed
> to comply with the Member’s Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman is independent
> of the Council and is responsible for determining whether a complaint
> should be investigated and, if so, whether any further action is
> appropriate.
>
> I trust this clarifies the basis of my decision. Having reviewed the
> information provided, my position remains that I have not identified
> evidence which would justify further action by me in my capacity as
> Monitoring Officer.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> Victoria Davidson
>
> Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal and Democratic Services / Swyddog
> Monitro / Pennaeth Gwasanaethau Cyfreithiol a Democrataidd
>
> Director's Office - Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr - Adnoddau
>
> Vale of Glamorgan Council / Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
>
> tel / ffôn: [phone redacted]
>
> mob / sym: [phone redacted]
>
> e-mail / e-bost: [email redacted]
>
>
>
> *Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you
> really need to.*
>
> *Ystyriwch yr amgylchedd. Peidiwch ag argraffu'r neges hon oni bai fod
> gwir angen.*
>
>
>
> Visit our Website at www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
>
> Ewch i'n gwefan yn www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk
>
>
>
> Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/valeofglamorgancouncil>
>
> Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/vogcouncil>
>
>
>
> Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y
> Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sion Buckler <[email redacted]>
> *Sent:* 13 August 2026 00:47
> *To:* Davidson, Victoria <[email redacted]>
> *Subject:* Re: Complaint – Failure to Respond / Failure to Deal Properly
> with Case – Cllr George Carroll (Llandough) – Great House Farm / Church
> View Close
>
>
>
> You don't often get email from [email redacted]. Learn why this
> is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>
> Ms Davidson,
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
> I accept the distinction you draw between the Council's Corporate Concerns
> and Complaints Policy and the separate statutory framework governing the
> conduct of elected members. I am not seeking to use the corporate
> complaints procedure as an appeal against historic planning, enforcement,
> land or judicial decisions.
>
> However, I do wish to clarify one important point concerning your decision
> in your capacity as Monitoring Officer.
>
> My complaint about Councillor George Carroll was not simply that the
> Council should revisit historic decisions concerning Great House Farm. The
> specific concern was his repeated failure to provide any substantive
> response to correspondence sent to him in his capacity as the elected
> councillor for Llandough, despite repeated approaches over a period of
> approximately five months and despite the correspondence setting out
> specific matters concerning his ward.
>
> The chronology supplied with my complaint records correspondence on:
>
>    - 16 February 2026;
>    - 4 May 2026;
>    - 7 June 2026;
>    - 25 June 2026; and
>    - 13 July 2026.
>
> My complaint therefore concerned the conduct and handling of that
> correspondence by an elected member, rather than asking the Monitoring
> Officer to determine the underlying historical ownership or planning
> dispute.
>
> You state:
>
> “Having reviewed the information you have provided, I have not identified
> evidence which would indicate a breach of the Members Code of Conduct.”
>
> I would therefore be grateful for clarification of the basis upon which
> that conclusion was reached.
>
> In particular, please confirm:
>
>    1. *Which specific provisions of the Members' Code of Conduct were
>    considered* in assessing my complaint.
>    2. *Whether the complete correspondence chronology and the underlying
>    emails and attachments were considered*, rather than merely my summary
>    of them.
>    3. *Whether Councillor Carroll was invited to provide an explanation
>    or response* concerning the repeated absence of any substantive
>    response to the correspondence.
>    4. If so, whether his response was taken into account in reaching your
>    conclusion.
>    5. If not, please explain how the Monitoring Officer was able to
>    determine that there was no evidence indicating a possible breach without
>    obtaining the member's account of the conduct complained of.
>    6. Please explain, in sufficient detail to enable me to understand the
>    decision, *why the documented pattern of conduct was considered
>    incapable of engaging any provision of the Members' Code of Conduct*.
>
> I appreciate that failure to answer correspondence does not, by itself,
> necessarily constitute a breach of the Code. I am not asserting that
> proposition. My concern is that the Monitoring Officer appears to have
> reached a definitive conclusion without identifying the relevant Code
> provisions, the evidence considered, or the reasoning by which that
> evidence was found insufficient.
>
> I would also ask you to clarify whether you consider that the matter
> should instead be referred to the *Public Services Ombudsman for Wales*
> for consideration under its jurisdiction concerning complaints about the
> conduct of elected members.
>
> I note that your response states that no further action will be taken by
> you as Monitoring Officer. I will therefore retain your letter, together
> with my original complaint and the complete correspondence record, for
> consideration of whether a complaint should be submitted to the Public
> Services Ombudsman for Wales.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking you to determine the
> historical merits of the Great House Farm dispute through the corporate
> complaints procedure. I am asking for the reasoning and evidential basis
> for the separate determination you have made concerning the conduct of an
> elected member.
>
> I would be grateful if you could therefore provide the above clarification
> and confirm the relevant Code provisions considered.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sion Hywel Buckler
> (Ret’d Sergeant)
> Royal Signals Cyber & Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member
>
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2026, 11:24 Davidson, Victoria, <
> [email redacted]> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr Buckler,
>
> Thank you for your email regarding Councillor George Carroll and for
> setting out the background to your concerns relating to Great House Farm
> (Ty Mawr), Llandough, now Church View Close.
>
> I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence and have carefully considered
> the matters you have raised.
>
> Having reviewed your complaint, I do not consider that it falls within the
> scope of the Vale of Glamorgan Council's Corporate Concerns and Complaints
> Policy. The substance of your correspondence relates to historic planning,
> enforcement, land ownership, heritage and record keeping matters dating
> back several decades, together with requests for review, explanation and
> further investigation of those matters.
>
> The Corporate Concerns and Complaints Policy is not intended to provide a
> mechanism for challenging or revisiting decisions where there is a separate
> statutory process or right of appeal; seeking changes to properly made
> decisions, policies or legislation; pursuing matters which are not the
> responsibility of the Council; promoting a particular cause or campaign; or
> addressing matters for which alternative legal or regulatory processes
> exist.
>
> You have also requested that the matter be considered by me as the
> Monitoring Officer as a potential breach of the Member’s Code of Conduct by
> Councillor Carroll.
>
> The role of the Monitoring Officer in this context is limited to
> considering whether there is evidence that a member has failed to comply
> with the statutory Members’s Code of Conduct. Having reviewed the
> information you have provided, I have not identified evidence which would
> indicate a breach of the Members Code of Conduct.
>
> Accordingly, the issues raised will not be progressed under the Council's
> Corporate Concerns and Complaints Policy as they fall outside the scope of
> that procedure. I do not consider there is sufficient evidence to justify
> referral of the matter for consideration under the Members’s Code of
> Conduct. No further action will therefore be taken by me in my capacity as
> the Council’s Monitoring Officer in relation to this complaint.
>
> I appreciate that this response may be disappointing. However, I trust it
> clarifies the Council's position and the limits of the Corporate Complaints
> Procedure and the Monitoring Officer's role in the context of the matters
> you raise.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
> Victoria Davidson
>
> Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal & Democratic Services / Rheolydd
> Gweithredol, Gwasanaethau Cyfreithiol
>
> Management Team - Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr - Adnoddau
>
> Vale of Glamorgan Council / Cyngor Bro Morgannwg
>
> tel / ffôn:
>
> mob / sym: [phone redacted]
>
> e-mail / e-bost: [email redacted]
>
>
>
>
>
> *Consider the environment.. Please don't print this e-mail unless you
> really need to.*
>
> *Ystyriwch yr amgylchedd. Peidiwch ag argraffu'r neges hon oni bai fod
> gwir angen.*
>
>
>
> Visit our Website at www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk
>
> Ewch i'n gwefan yn www.bromorgannwg.gov.uk
>
>
>
> Find us on Facebook / Cewch ddod o hyd i ni ar Facebook
> <http://en-gb.facebook.com/valeofglamorganlife>
>
> Follow us on Instagram / Dilynwch ni ar Instagram
> <https://www.instagram.com/vog_council>
>
> Follow us on LinkedIn / Dilynwch ni ar LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/vale-of-glamorgan-council>
>
>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sion Buckler <[email redacted]>
> *Sent:* 27 July 2026 22:22
> *To:* [email redacted]
> *Cc:* [email redacted]; [email redacted];
> Carroll, George D (Cllr) <[email redacted]>
> *Subject:* Complaint – Failure to Respond / Failure to Deal Properly with
> Case – Cllr George Carroll (Llandough) – Great House Farm / Church View
> Close
>
>
>
> You don't often get email from [email redacted]. Learn why this
> is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>
> 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 (
> [email redacted])
>
>
>
> | Date       | Subject / Key content
>                            | Response received |
>
>
> |------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|
>
> | 16 Feb 2026 | Potential gaps in Council planning/record-keeping for
> Great House Farm (demolished 1988); title fraud and procedural issues
> relating to Church View Close | None |
>
>
>
> | 4 May 2026  | Request regarding BP vs Buckler 1987; shared
> media/evidence; request for attention as Llandough councillor | None |
>
>
>
> | 7 Jun 2026  | “Church View Close, Llandough” – piecing together 1988
> events from public records, family testimony and media | None |
>
>
>
> | 25 Jun 2026 | “Great House Farm, Llandough” – enquiry whether prior
> concerns on family dispossession had been reviewed; request for any
> progress or discussion | None |
>
>
>
> | 13 Jul 2026 | “Great House Farm/ Church View Close” – formal follow-up
> listing the above timeline, restating legitimate interest (family roots
> since 1667), noting absence of replies, requesting detailed response within
> 10 working days, and raising the removed commemorative tree | None |
>
>
>
> ### Remedy sought
>
>
>
> 1. A full written response from Cllr Carroll addressing the points raised
> in the logged emails, within 10–15 working days.
>
>
>
> 2. Confirmation that this complaint has been logged under the Council’s
> corporate complaints procedure and/or referred to the Monitoring Officer /
> Standards Committee as appropriate for any potential breach of the
> councillor Code of Conduct (failure to respond / failure to deal properly
> with a case).
>
>
>
> 3. Written confirmation of the process and timescale for investigation and
> response.
>
>
>
> I have retained the full original emails and attachments and can supply
> them on request. Please acknowledge receipt of this formal complaint.
>
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
> Sion Hywel Buckler (Ret’d Sergeant)
>
> [address redacted], Dinas Powys, [postcode redacted]
> [map link redacted]
>
>
> [email redacted]
>
> [phone redacted]
>
>