Subject: Re: Escalation — Llandough ward member silence: Great House Farm / Church View Close and removal of commemorative tree From: Sion Buckler Direction: sent Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 16:23 UTC Institution: Vale of Glamorgan Council Refs: none Archive id: gm-1a0b55432e14a224 ------------------------------------------------------------ Ms Davidson, Thanks for your reply. Firstly see attached an actual image of my amputee, widow pensioner grandmother Mrs Williams, who's land I believe was stolen. Resulting in mine and my families inhumane dispossession by BP and local authories here, in 1988. I will save you images of the small army of her heirs and successors which have the interest in this land i.e. her 7 children and their many surviving children each. My grandmother died asserting her ownership. My father died asserting his ownership. We have never surrendered or conveyed or sold our ownership. Ignoring us, killing us, supressing/ concealing even destroying evidence has never changed the fabric of reality or changed our position on this matter. The thing with twisting reality to suite, in this case more concentration work camp houses, by stealing an indigenous disabled, widow pensioners family land and home of almost 4 centuries, is that reality always snaps back. Truth takes longer, but it does always come out. And you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. The land registry even explicitly wrote to me, not just the MP today, to me they stated they have never claimed we do not own our land parcel. Nor that evidence existed we don't own it. Nor has any court ever ruled we don't. Possession fell to BP due to their presentation to the court and lawfare. Our family fell for their theatrics as much as local authories. It doesn't change the fact the title chain of the possessors is defective and is based on a falsehood that our occupancy of our parcel was permissive. When in fact our undefeated title chain of our land parcel from 1928, is proceeded by Daniel Thomas & Son, before that Marquess of Bute, before that Vaughan family and the origin is a 1000 year freehold from Knight Sir Herbert of Swansea to Vaughan in the 1500's. BPs interest in our parcel was a 1969 purchase of interest in an unenforced (possible undeclaired) possession order, by Western Ground Rents, based on a 1955 order that, like in 1974, attempted to make our occupancy of our land parcel permissive. It said the order was for the "whole farm" and only excluded our parcel because of my nans "condition and resistence". Having just had her leg amputated. Firstly the whole farm was defined as the parcel they'd possessed to the east of ours, as per the 1939 agreement (see attached). It no longer included our parcel from the 1916 agricultral tenancy, because in 1928 our 1877 agreement with Daniel Thomas enacted when the last quarrying machine was removed. Our grandad even registered the land in our names in and around 1928 too. The 1939 revisal of the 1916 agricultural tenancy explicitly didn't include our land parcel. So the whole farm was not the same definition as the 1916 agricutural tenancy which was conveyed to Western Ground Rents in 1938. Secondly my nan wasn't just resisting moving due to having her leg amputated. She was asserting ownership. She also refused a previous attempt to make her occupancy permissive in 1949, by rejecting a WGR attempt to get her into a tenancy. Which she explicitly rejected due to asserting ownership. So you see my disabled, widow, pensioner grandmother, even until her conveniently timed death in 1983 , in the two week window she will have had to challenge BP registering our land in their names at the land registry (which she was never even made aware of, nor did BP disclose to land registry her ownership claim), even unto her dying breath she challenged permissive occupancy and asserted ownership. The land registry wrote back to the MP actually and is still trying to worm their way out of this. Them not admitting a mistake is even an audacity as it was clearly more than a mistake at the land registry in my estimation. They will have had to look at the 1974 court proceedings to see BP seeking possession, yet ownership wasn't determined in case 1 of 1974, it was ajourned. And the quashing of the posssession order in case 2 in 1974 is also dubious, as the case was quashed the same day my nan was notified of BPs offer. So she wasn't actually given ample time to respond. Furthermore the license letters were to a mrs buckler, my nan was a Mrs Williams. The land registry admitted to me in writing they will have used my nans 1935 marriage certificate to officiate BPs 1974 license letters to a Mrs Buckler. Furthemore the land registry cite the 1983 decision they made was fine as the 1987 court paperwork says so. Not that they could have known its outcome in 1983. And the 1987 case is based on the 1983 land registry. And they both depended on BPs attempt to make our occupancy of our 800 year home, and family home since 1667 - permissive, when we owned it since 1928. Furthmore, having never paid anything on our land since 1928, we will have qualified for adverse possession by 1940 in any case. The interruption of our adverse possession which is alleged to have begun in 1955, and was interrupted in 1962 and 1974, will have only been for the land parcel to the east of ours. Not the land parcel we were on. This is the problem with theatre, fraud, concentalment, government involvement (force), corporate manslaughter, suppression, lawfare etc. It is all short term gains. But without legitimacy, local authorities lack actual authority. The authority must derive from legitimacy. What I am alluding to may be rough edged and not meticulous, but its not before a court yet. Also what I alledge isn't entirely contrary to the official narrative. Both can be true simultaneously is the wild part of all this. The concern I raise, is more for local authories sakes, because a lot of actions were taken by the council, CADW, Police, which were based on fraud and BPs defective title. My mum was physically thrown over our garden gate to get her off the property, while pregnant, dislocating her collar bone in that process too. All she was doing was trying to get medicine from our occupied/ stolen home (since the 16th century), for my terminally ill dad who was in hospital. The press all labelled us "squatters being evicted". I am horrified at the local authories here who insist on my family of mostly women being a hostage prisoner of war class under terrorists. They're all afraid to even speak out or challenge the narrative as anyone in our family who has conveniently died. Myself, as a decorated war veteran warfare peofessional with tens of soldiers I've served with, do not negotatiate with terrorists as it is. We don't stand for this terroist/ hostage situationship. Much like us indigenous Briton welsh nationals on our ancestral birthland, accept our towns and cities being turned into ethnic cleansing concentration work camps. Marconi's stay with us is covered up. Even unto this day. Along with the Roman Villa, Monestry, Peerless Jims first fight in our barns. Even the 2,200 year old round house isn't mentioned. Why? Llandough has been turned into a concentration work camp. The town website history page doesn't even mention the half of this. Also all the campaigning to petition the housing development (on our land) in 1974 and affirm our home was a county treasure, was suppressed. When BP demolished our home in 1988 and went back to the Vale council for planning approval. The council never held BP to account for just demolishing our country treasure home. And even suppressed or down played any record it was ever a county treasure property. Or site of historic and archelogical signifcants. I am not just writing about my disappointment in the councillor. I know he's likely already been scolded by the aforementioned terrorists that outrank him, in the aftermath of rejecting being replaced and ethnically cleansed which resulted in him being ejected from a council meeting for challenging Cardiff being a city of Sanctuary. My motto is different in that I say "Bring Guns" and am fully aware everything comes down to guns and fire fights. So I will always need an actual gun to be fired at me or held to my head to make me even consider standing down. And even then the last 3 times firearms have been drawn on me I ended up disarming the aggressor. So I'm perhaps a different breed to the councillor or civilians alike. But I am bona fide. I left my military career with full honours. In any case, separately from the Councillor Carroll complaint which you closed today. This complaint concerns two connected matters: the custody and handling of Llandough Community Council records concerning Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough, and the completeness and treatment of Vale of Glamorgan Council's planning and heritage records relating to application 89/01396/OUT and the subsequent reserved-matters application. I appreciate that you do not employ the former Clerk, Mr Paul R. Egan. I am nevertheless raising the matter with you as Monitoring Officer because the underlying planning file is a Vale file, the Community Council's records form part of the local documentary record, and I need a clear written account of who now has responsibility for those records and what has happened to them. Everyone's also got a boss. Mine being God and my 56 British Soldier shareholders in my US based company private security group. So feel free to pass this up your ranks to your overlords if you can't or won't make sense of it or take any action. I also want to be precise about what I am, and am not, alleging. I do not have evidence that Mr Egan removed, altered or destroyed any document. Nor can I establish from the present evidence why he retired when he did. The fact that a long-serving Clerk retired during the period in which I was seeking these records is, however, a material chronology, particularly because he had initially adopted a position of not engaging beyond a statutory search. I therefore ask the Council to establish the facts rather than assume either that the matter is innocuous or that any wrongdoing occurred. 1. Llandough Community Council records In May and June 2026 I asked Mr Egan for Community Council records concerning Great House Farm, including material concerning the events surrounding my late father's involvement with the property in 1988. On 14 June 2026 Mr Egan stated that minute books from 1982 onwards had been deposited with Glamorgan Archives in 2002 and relied on section 21 FOIA. He subsequently retired. On the day of his retirement he directed me towards Leckwith records and the 1939 Western Ground Rents tenancy with my great-grandfather. That tenancy is significant because, on the documents I have examined, it appears to concern the eastern field rather than the House Plot containing the farmhouse and associated buildings. I therefore do not regard that reference as resolving the documentary position concerning Great House Farm itself. I need the Council to establish: - who is now Clerk and Proper Officer of Llandough Community Council; - who currently has custody of its historic minute books, correspondence and other records; - what records were handed over or inventoried when Mr Egan retired; - whether any search has been made specifically for Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr records, rather than relying solely on the general statement that minute books were deposited in 2002; and - whether any Community Council correspondence, consultation response or minute relating to 89/01396/OUT or the later reserved matters survives. If any part of this falls solely within the responsibility of Llandough Community Council or the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, please identify the appropriate authority and the person to whom I should address that part of the complaint. 2. What the existing evidence establishes This section turns from Community Council custody to the Vale's own planning and archaeological file for 89/01396/OUT. The points below are based on documents already in my possession and published archaeological material, and are separate from the matters in Section 1, where I am asking the Council to search its records. 1. Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr is recorded in the historic environment record as County Treasure, reference SMR/HER 2038s / GGAT02038s, at approximately ST 1681 7331. The 1990 GGAT assessment records that, because of an ownership dispute and the subsequent sudden destruction of the property in 1988, the building was incompletely understood. 2. Outline planning application 89/01396/OUT, submitted by BP Properties Ltd, followed the 1988 demolition by approximately a year. The application answers the relevant questions as follows: buildings to be demolished — "None"; site — "Disused"; previous use — "Not known". 3. The Vale officer material in my possession refers to an outline-stage indicative scheme of 18 dwellings. The subsequent reserved-matters scheme approved on 3 September 1992 is for 20 dwellings. 4. The 1990 evaluation recorded archaeological potential to the north of the churchyard and identified a medium-to-high potential area. What it does not establish by itself is the full extent of the archaeological remains subsequently encountered. 5. Cotswold Archaeology excavated at the same general location in 1994, immediately adjacent to St Dochdwy's Church. The published archaeological account records 1,026 burials from an excavated area of 0.22 hectares. I am relying on the excavators' published figure rather than the lower secondary figure of 858, which appears to conflate different phases of investigation. 6. PPG16 was issued in November 1990 and therefore post-dates the March 1990 outline decision, but was applicable by the time of the September 1992 reserved-matters decision. I am not presently asserting what archaeological conditions were imposed in 1992. The drawings I hold are stamped as approved on 3 September 1992, subject to compliance with conditions if any, but I do not hold the decision notice setting out the actual conditions. That decision notice is therefore a critical missing document. 7. I am also not treating the handwritten numbering on the surviving consultation material as conclusively establishing which sheet relates to which responding body. The underlying consultation responses remain relevant and should be located irrespective of that numbering issue. 8. The documentary gap that now needs explaining The sequence is straightforward. The historic farmhouse and associated buildings were demolished in December 1988. The subsequent 1989 outline application described the site as "Disused", stated that there were "None" buildings to be demolished, and gave the previous use as "Not known". The 1990 archaeological evaluation had already identified significant archaeological potential near the churchyard. The 1992 reserved-matters approval provided for 20 dwellings. The 1994 excavation subsequently recorded 1,026 burials from 0.22 hectares immediately adjacent to the church. What I cannot establish from the records presently available to me is how the archaeological excavation area relates spatially to the approved housing layout and retained areas. In particular, I need the 1994 excavation plan and the corresponding Ideal Homes layout so that the two can be compared accurately. I also need to understand how the 1989 application descriptions came to be accepted against the documentary and historic-environment information already available concerning the demolished farmhouse. I am not asking the Council to adopt my interpretation of these matters. I am asking it to establish what was known, what was checked, what was recorded, and what records still exist. 4. Specific information and records requested Please provide a substantive written response to each of the following: 1. Who is currently Clerk and Proper Officer of Llandough Community Council, and who has custody of its historic records? 2. Was Llandough Community Council consulted on application 89/01396/OUT and/or the subsequent reserved-matters application? If so, please provide the consultation requests, replies, minutes and associated correspondence, or confirm specifically that no such material is held. 3. Please provide the full planning decision notice dated 3 September 1992, including all conditions, rather than the approved drawings alone. 4. Please confirm whether Vale holds the 1994 Cotswold Archaeology site/excavation plans and the relevant Ideal Homes development layout plans. Please also confirm whether the Council has ever undertaken or commissioned a plan-to-plan comparison showing the excavation area against the approved development footprint. 5. Please identify the officer or officers responsible for assessing the 1989 application against the information then available concerning the 1988 demolition and HER/SMR record 2038s, including the entries "None", "Disused" and "Not known". 6. Please confirm what planning, enforcement, conservation/heritage, archaeological, consultation, photographic and correspondence records remain for the site and where they are presently held. 7. Given the issues raised by my FOI/EIR correspondence and the corporate complaint of 17 September 2026, please ensure that surviving records concerning Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, including Community Council records where they remain identifiable, are preserved pending resolution of these matters. I am particularly concerned that records should not disappear simply because responsibility has passed from one office-holder to another. 8. Please confirm whether there was a formal handover, inventory or records transfer when Mr Egan retired, and whether any such documentation records the location of material concerning Great House Farm, planning consultations, or the 1988 demolition. 9. Finally, if the Council considers that any aspect concerning Mr Egan's conduct as Community Council Clerk falls outside the Vale's jurisdiction, please identify the proper route and responsible body rather than simply closing that part of the complaint. I am deliberately separating evidence from inference. I am not alleging that Mr Egan's retirement was caused by my FOI requests, nor am I alleging that any individual deliberately concealed records. The timing, however, is sufficiently relevant that the Council should establish what happened to the records at the point responsibility changed. The immediate issue is capable of being answered objectively: what records exist, what was known to the authority, what checks were carried out, what decisions were made, and where the missing documents are now. Please treat this as a formal request for a written governance/records response and address each numbered question individually. It should be read alongside FOI/EIR reference 00210772 and my correspondence of 17–18 September 2026. Regards, Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant) Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member ------------------------------ Changes made: added the Re: line, opened Section 2 with a sentence flagging the shift from Community Council custody to the Vale's own file, and merged the two closing paragraphs to drop the repeated point. Everything else — including all the evidence/inference hedging — is untouched. Want it as a Word doc or PDF instead, or any further tweaks? On Fri, 18 Sept 2026, 15:01 Davidson, Victoria, < [email redacted]> wrote: > Dear Mr Buckler > > Thank you for your recent correspondence which I am responding to on > behalf of the Leader, concerning Great House Farm/Church View Close, the > removal of a commemorative tree and your communications with Councillor > Carroll. > > I have considered the matters you have raised. > > As you are aware, I have previously responded to your concerns regarding > Councillor Carroll's lack of response to your correspondence. Having > reviewed those concerns, I concluded that the matter did not fall within > the Council's Corporate Complaints Policy and I did not identify any basis > for further action under the Members' Code of Conduct process. The Council > has no mechanism by which it can compel an elected member to respond to > correspondence from a constituent and, accordingly, the Council's > consideration of that aspect of the matter is concluded. > > Please note that the Leader is not responsible for the conduct of Members > other than those with her own political group > > I note that your recent correspondence extends beyond the issue of > Councillor Carroll's responsiveness and raises a broader range of concerns > relating to historical land ownership, planning and heritage matters > associated with Great House Farm/Church View Close, together with a request > for information regarding the removal of a commemorative tree. > > In relation to the tree, I am making enquiries to establish whether the > Council holds any records which may assist in answering your question > regarding its removal. This is being dealt with by the Information > Governance Team, I have copied in the FOI unit email domain. If relevant > information is held by the Council, I will advise you accordingly. Equally, > if no such records are held, I will confirm that position. > > In respect of the wider matters raised in your correspondence, it is > important that I clarify the scope of the Council's role. The Council is > not able to determine disputed ownership of land, revisit historical legal > proceedings, adjudicate upon competing title claims, or investigate > allegations of fraud or other criminal conduct. Those matters fall within > the jurisdiction of the courts, HM Land Registry, the police and other > external bodies as appropriate. > > Whilst I appreciate the strength of feeling reflected in your > correspondence and recognise the significance that these matters have for > you and your family, the Council must limit its involvement to those issues > which fall within its statutory functions and responsibilities. Any > response provided by the Council will therefore be confined to matters upon > which it may properly comment and any information which it may hold. > > The FOI team will write to you further once enquiries regarding the tree > have been completed. > > Yours sincerely, > > > > > > Victoria Davidson > > Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal and Democratic Services / Swyddog > Monitro / Pennaeth Gwasanaethau Cyfreithiol a Democrataidd > > Director's Office - Resources / Swyddfa’r Cyfarwyddwr - Adnoddau > > Vale of Glamorgan Council / Cyngor Bro Morgannwg > > tel / ffôn: [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 > > > Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter > > > > > Correspondence is welcomed in Welsh or English / Croesewir Gohebiaeth yn y > Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg. > > > > *From:* Sion Buckler <[email redacted]> > *Sent:* 10 September 2026 15:23 > *To:* Burnett, Lis (Cllr) <[email redacted]>; Leader < > [email redacted]> > *Cc:* Carroll, George D (Cllr) <[email redacted]>; > Democratic <[email redacted]>; Davidson, Victoria < > [email redacted]> > *Subject:* Escalation — Llandough ward member silence: Great House Farm / > Church View Close and removal of commemorative tree > > > > 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 > [email redacted]. > 2. On 27 July 2026 I filed a formal complaint about that silence (copied > to him, Democratic Services and the Monitoring Officer). > 3. On 12 August 2026 Victoria Davidson, Monitoring Officer, wrote that the > matter fell outside the Corporate Concerns and Complaints Policy and that > she had not identified a Code of Conduct breach. That determination did not > require him to respond. It left the original questions unanswered. > 4. I followed up with the Monitoring Officer on 12 August, 21 August and > 24 August 2026. The position did not change. > 5. I copied Councillor Carroll again on 28 August 2026 (joint letter with > Stephen Doughty MP). Still no reply from him. > > The questions he has not answered include a simple, current, ward-level > one: who removed the tree my great-grandfather planted to mark the family’s > claim, as recorded in the Collection of Wales / archival image. That is a > local enquiry a ward member can signpost to Parks, Highways, Planning or > the landowner. It is not a request that he retry BP Properties Ltd v > Buckler. > > From his public output, Councillor Carroll appears to concentrate on > blocked drains, potholes and similar highway defects. Those matters matter. > The correspondence I sent him is of a different character: heritage, > planning and enforcement records, the 1988 demolition of Great House Farm > (Ty Mawr), now Church View Close, and the removal of a commemorative tree. > I accept that may be outside the type of casework he usually handles. That > is why a short, honest reply — even if only to say the questions sit with > named officers, and to pass the tree query to the correct department — > would have been sufficient. Silence is not. > > Recorded approaches to Councillor Carroll ( > [email redacted]) > > 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 > [email redacted]. That address bounced. Subsequent mail > used the correct gdcarroll@ address. > - 7 June 2026 — “Church View Close, Llandough”. 1988 events from public > records, family testimony and media. > - 25 June 2026 — “Great House Farm, Llandough”. Asked whether he had > reviewed the earlier concerns and whether any discussion was possible. > - 13 July 2026 — “Great House Farm / Church View Close”. Full timeline > restated. Ten-working-day request. Explicit question: who removed the tree > my great-grandfather planted to commemorate the ownership claim, as shown > in the Collection of Wales archive image. > - 27 July 2026 — formal complaint to [email redacted], > copied to Councillor Carroll, Democratic Services and the Monitoring > Officer. > - 28 August 2026 — further letter to Councillor Carroll and Stephen > Doughty MP on the same site. > > What I am asking you to do > > 1. Note that the ward member has not answered, and that the complaint > process produced no requirement that he do so. > > > 2. Ask Councillor Carroll, or the relevant Director, to provide a short > written reply on the tree: which department or landowner authorised or > carried out its removal, on what date, and under what power or works order > — or to confirm that the Council holds no such record. > > > 3. Identify the correct officer contact for heritage, trees and historic > planning records at Church View Close / former Great House Farm, so I am > not left circling a silent ward inbox. > > > 4. Confirm whether the Council will treat a documented family connection > to a demolished historic farmstead in the ward as a legitimate basis for a > reply, even where the correspondent is not presently resident in Llandough. > > > > The thesis of my concern is that the lawfare/ warfare that systematically > attempted to make our occupancy permissive as early as the 40's (with my > grandmothers statement of title being stolen, a failed attempt to get us > into a tenancy afterwards, and ambiguity in a 1955 order for another parcel > we leased and defaulted on, which later meant it was able to be > misinterpreted to make it appear our parcel of land (now Church View Close) > was part of theirs, like it was in 1916 - 1928) is a racket. The ownership > dispute was a problem created. The reaction followed and the solution was > to focus on possession. And so in 1987 BP were awarded possession with what > was a defective title chain. > > I do not expect you to reopen 1987 litigation. I do expect the authority, > once the ward member has been given months and a formal complaint, to > answer a factual question about a tree on land in that ward. Because that > tree was part of a long list of evidence supporting our ownership claim. > > I can supply the original emails and the 27 July complaint in full if > Democratic Services does not already have them. See attached the > aforementioned tree planting ceremy image. I also enclose a draft chancery > court allocation so you can understand the legal arguments. > > > > Due to a lot of suspicious and conveniently timed deaths in our family, > surrounding this case, like my grandmother dying in the 2 weeks she will > have had to challenge BP quietly registering our land parcel in their names > in 1983, without declaring our ownership claim, which was never > exstinguished as the first 1974 court case was ajourned. Or my fathers > death after his appeal of the 1987 ruling was dismissed on grounds of > "heads BP win, tails we lose". Followed by ECHR rejection citing BP own the > land, despite BP only seeking possession and never seeking or gaining > ownership. > > > > I have a trove of evidence and I am collecting more and investigating and > in talks with CPS and Fraud Police and MoJ and Land Registry. The initial > thing I would like from you is the record of the removal of the tree we > planted. The picture attached depicts its location. I'd like to know who > removed it and when it was removed? > > > Regards, > > Sion Hywel Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant) > > Royal Signals Cyber/ Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member > > [address redacted], [postcode redacted] > [map link redacted] > > >