Subject: Re: Great House Farm, Llandough – Request 00210772 – Internal Review – Formal Chase – unanswered points from 30 September and 11 September From: Sion Buckler Direction: sent Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2026 04:29 UTC Institution: Vale of Glamorgan Council Refs: 00210772 Archive id: gm-1a1149f606c1eb09 ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. You have not addressed the child / personal-data point previously raised. 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. (e) Address the child / personal-data point: if any record has been withheld or is being considered for withholding because it mentions a child, identify the record and the exemption. If no such withholding exists, say so expressly. Treat the personal-data element also as a subject-access request under UK GDPR for Sion Hywel Buckler (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, and either the child-exemption notice or a clear statement that none exists. 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, Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant) Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member