Subject: RE: Scrutiny Topic Suggestion / Task and Finish request — Council-held planning, heritage and public-authority record for Great House Farm / Tÿ Mawr, Llandough From: Langridge-Thomas, James Direction: received Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 09:28 UTC Institution: Vale of Glamorgan Council (Scrutiny) Refs: none Archive id: gm-1a162f0c37aaddcc ------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Mr Buckler, Many thanks for your e-mail below. I note your comments regarding the distinction between the specific circumstances of Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr) and the broader issue you have identified concerning the Council's arrangements for the retention, transfer, accessibility and disclosure of historic planning, land charges and heritage records. I also note your comments regarding the ongoing Environmental Information Regulations review process, which, as you acknowledge, is being pursued through the appropriate information-rights channels. In relation to the points raised: 1. County-wide and strategic considerations I acknowledge your view that the wider issue of how historic planning, land charges and heritage records are managed and made available is capable of being distinguished from the individual circumstances of any single site and may have broader relevance across the county. The decision not to progress the proposed Task and Finish review related to the proposal as submitted and reflected the assessment that the matters raised were closely connected to a specific historical planning case and ongoing information-rights processes. That said, a proposal focusing specifically on the Council's records management arrangements, access to historic planning information, and the handling of requests for such information could represent a broader issue of potential county-wide application and may be considered separately through the Council's Scrutiny work programming process in conjunction with the relevant Scrutiny Chair. However, for clarity sake, this would not reflect upon or review individual cases. 2. Alternative channels In response to your request for clarification regarding the alternative channels referred to in my previous correspondence: (a) Missing, incomplete or contradictory planning and heritage records The appropriate route will depend on the nature of the concern. Matters relating to planning records held by the Council would ordinarily be raised with the relevant service area in the first instance. Requests for recorded information are appropriately pursued through the Environmental Information Regulations or Freedom of Information processes where access to information is sought. Matters concerning records management may also be raised through the Council's corporate complaints process where the complaint relates to service delivery rather than the application of information-rights legislation. (b) The Council's handling of information requests Dissatisfaction with the handling of EIR or FOI requests should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory information-rights process, namely an internal review followed, where appropriate, by a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office. The corporate complaints process would not generally be used to challenge the outcome of an information request or an information-rights decision, as there are separate processes and policies underpinned by different legislation and regulators. Questions 1. Was the decision of 11 October taken by officers, or by the Chair or Chairs of the relevant Scrutiny Committee? Under which provision of the Council's Constitution or Scrutiny Procedure Rules was it taken? The correspondence of 11 October reflected my assessment of the proposal against the Council's established Scrutiny work programming principles and was not a formal decision of a Scrutiny Chair or Committee. In undertaking that assessment, I considered whether the proposal met the criteria normally applied when determining potential items for inclusion within a Scrutiny Committee work programme as outlined above. As I'm sure you will appreciate, we receive many correspondence through this channel relating to on-going case work type scenarios and requesting for Scrutiny which is not the appropriate route, it is not reasonably practicable for a Chair to be cited upon the specifics of operational matters which are addressed or resolved by other means. As the matter had not been referred to a Scrutiny Chair or Committee for determination, no formal decision was taken by a Committee under the Scrutiny Procedure Rules. 2. Will the narrower, county-wide topic be considered as a Scrutiny topic suggestion? Should you wish to submit a proposal focused specifically on the Council's arrangements for maintaining, managing and providing access to historic planning, land charges and heritage records, that may be considered as a Scrutiny topic suggestion in its own right. However, finally agreement is the responsibility of the Scrutiny Committee and Chair, and it should be noted and to manage expectation, that they currently do not currently have sufficient capacity to undertake another Task and Finish scrutiny as they are currently undertaking another piece of work. I would be happy to assist in directing such a proposal through the appropriate process. A separate topic suggestion can be submitted via the Council's website as below, but will be subject to the same considerations that have previously been mentioned and subject to agreement by the relevant Committee Chair - https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/en/our_council/Council-Structure/scrutiny/scrutiny.aspxDemocratic 3. Can a ward member refer the matter as a Councillor Call for Action, and if so, how? A ward member may request Scrutiny consideration of a matter of local concern. This would normally be pursued through the relevant Scrutiny Committee and Democratic and Scrutiny Services can provide guidance on the process should a ward member wish to pursue that route. It may be helpful to note that Scrutiny's role is generally to examine policies, services, performance, and matters of wider public interest rather than to investigate or determine individual cases which could be considered a Member's ward work. Consequently, any consideration by Scrutiny would be expected to focus on broader policy, governance, records management or service delivery issues that are currently operational with recommendations for enhancement (and not decisions for clarity sake) rather than the specific circumstances of an individual historic planning case. 4. Does the Council's corporate complaints procedure apply to the handling of records requests, as distinct from the information-rights routes? As a general principle and set out above, complaints concerning the handling of requests made under the Environmental Information Regulations, Freedom of Information Act or data protection legislation are expected to be addressed through the relevant statutory review and appeal mechanisms, namely an internal review followed, and thereafter, where appropriate, by a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office. The corporate complaints process would not generally be used to in relation to information requests handling, the outcome of an information request or an information-rights decision, as there are separate processes and policies underpinned by different legislation and regulations and a separate regulator. The corporate complaints procedure may, however, be relevant where a complaint concerns wider service standards or administrative matters that fall outside the scope of the statutory information-rights regime. Whether a matter falls within the corporate complaints process will depend on the specific nature of the complaint. I trust the above clarifies the position. Kind Regards, James -----Original Message----- From: Sion Buckler <[email redacted]> Sent: 21 October 2026 16:17 To: Langridge-Thomas, James <[email redacted]> Cc: Democratic <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Scrutiny Topic Suggestion / Task and Finish request — Council-held planning, heritage and public-authority record for Great House Farm / Tÿ Mawr, Llandough Dear James, Thank you for your email of 11 October 2026 explaining why Scrutiny will not take forward the Task and Finish suggestion for Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough. I accept that a Task and Finish review is not the place to re-examine an individual historical planning decision. I have three points in reply and four short questions. On your reasons: 1. County-wide and strategic. Part of the proposal does meet that test, and it can be put on its own: how the Council keeps, transfers and disposes of historic planning, land-charges and heritage records, and how it answers requests for them. That affects every resident who asks for an old planning file. It is not limited to one site. The Great House Farm requests show the problem: the internal review of EIR request 00210772, requested on 7 July 2026, still has no outcome, beyond the 40 working days set by regulation 11(4) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. And planning appendices C, D and E of the same file are still not supplied. 2. "Other channels". Your email says the matter should be "navigated through other channels" but does not say which ones. Please name the channel the Council considers correct for each of: (a) missing or contradictory Council-held planning and heritage records; (b) the Council's own handling of its records requests. 3. Other bodies involved. That Welsh Government, Cadw and elected members are also involved goes to how scrutiny is coordinated. With respect, it is not a reason the Council's own records cannot be looked at. Questions: 1. Was the decision of 11 October taken by officers, or by the Chair or Chairs of the relevant Scrutiny Committee? Under which provision of the Council's Constitution or Scrutiny procedure rules was it taken? 2. Will the narrower, county-wide topic in point 1 above be considered as a Scrutiny topic suggestion? If a form is needed, please send it or link to it and I will complete it. 3. Can a ward member refer the matter as a Councillor Call for Action, and if so, how? 4. Does the Council's corporate complaints procedure apply to the handling of records requests, as distinct from the information-rights routes? For clarity on where things stand: the information-rights routes (internal review, then a complaint to the Information Commissioner under section 50 FOIA and regulation 18 EIR) are being followed separately and are not repeated here. Routes not yet used are the corporate complaints procedure, a referral by a ward member, and then the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. I would rather the Council's own scrutiny process dealt with the county-wide records question first. A reply within 20 working days, by 18 November 2026, would be appreciated. Yours sincerely, Sion's Tab agent AI agent acting on behalf of Sion Buckler [email redacted]