Llandough Community Council — correspondence with the family (email)

Sir/Ma’am, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am writing to request your assistance in reviewing a historic legal matter involving my family: *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler (1987)*, relating to Great House Farm, Llandough. My family lived on, cared for and claimed to own that farm for generations. The events surrounding the 1987 case resulted in the loss of our home and land[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. Recent research I have undertaken has revealed significant procedural inconsistencies, historical irregularities, unanswered questions regarding corporate identity, unverified service of key documents, and heritage considerations relating to the site. I have attached a short report summarising SOME of these issues. I am requesting your help in identifying the appropriate bodies—legal, historical, or governmental—who may be able to independently review the historical record to ensure fairness, accuracy, and transparency. My interest is not solely personal; Great House Farm has a heritage significance to Wales, including documented accounts that Guglielmo Marconi stayed there while experimenting with early radio technology. I believe this should form part of our preserved historical record. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] My intention is simply to seek clarity, proper review, and justice where appropriate. I would be grateful for your guidance on the correct avenues to pursue. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, *Sion Buckler* [signature block trimmed]

Hi Sion, I regret to inform you that we are unable to assist with the matter you raise. Regards, Paul Paul R. Egan BA, Chartered MCIPD, CiLCA, F. Inst. LM, FIPSM Clerk to Llandough Community Council, [signature block trimmed]

Paul, I understand. Thanks for your reply nevertheless. Sion Buckler [removed] [quoted text trimmed]

Mr Egan, Further to my previous correspondence, I understand that matters concerning the property and family were discussed by Llandough Community Council in or around 1988 and that my late father William “Billy” Buckler addressed the Council. I am attempting to reconstruct the historical chain of occupation, ownership, administration and public record concerning the property, family and associated farm lands. https://bpvsbuckler.datro.xyz Accordingly, I request disclosure of all records held by Llandough Community Council, regardless of date, concerning: – Ty Mawr (Great House), Llandough; – the associated farm lands and any connected parcels; – the Williams family and successors in occupation; – Billy Buckler, Branwen Buckler and members of the Buckler family; – historical ownership, occupation, tenancy, possession, planning, access, acquisition, disposal, development, disputes or representations; – BP v Buckler and related matters; – any meetings in which Billy Buckler addressed the Council. This request includes, but is not limited to: – minute books; – agendas; – correspondence; – maps; – plans; – asset registers; – committee papers; – land schedules; – photographs; – memoranda; – clerk notes; – archived files; – transferred records; – records held by third-party archives on the Council’s behalf. If records predating the present Council are not held, please confirm: 1. Whether older records were transferred elsewhere; 2. The archive location; 3. Whether records were destroyed and under what retention policy; 4. The earliest records held concerning the property. My understanding is that family occupation and acquisition history extends substantially earlier, potentially to the seventeenth century, and I am seeking to establish the documentary chain. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] ITV also recently declassified and published coverage too: [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Kind regards, Sion Buckler Esq. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Sion, Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 18 May 2026 which I will respond to within the statutory time limit. Regards, Paul — Paul R. Egan BA, Chartered MCIPD, CiLCA, F. Inst. LM, FIPSM Clerk to Llandough Community Council, [removed] Website http://www.llandough-cc.co.uk [4] [signature/disclaimer block trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler, I have undertaken a reasonable search of our records and would advise you as follows: a) The minutes of all council minutes for the period in question were deposited in the Glamorgan Records Office in 2002. These cover the period from 1982 when Llandough Community Council was first formed. Prior to that time, the community of Llandough was included in the remit of Penarth Town Council. The relevant web-link which shows the information held is : perihttps://glamarchives.gov.uk/od b) You are able to visit the Glamorgan Records Office in Cardiff by appointment and the web-link to find details of their location is:

Home

Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is an absolute exemption that allows public authorities to refuse a request if the requested information is already reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means. This avoids duplicating effort and prevents authorities from acting as personal research services. c) I would suggest that you access the Llandough Community Council’s website for historical information about the community of Llandough – web-link is : https://www.llandough-cc.co.uk/Buildings_of_Significance_in_our_Community_25590.aspx Kind regards, Paul R. Egan BA, Chartered MCIPD, CiLCA, F. Inst. LM, FIPSM Clerk to Llandough Community Council, [signature block trimmed]

Mr Egan, Thank you for your response and for confirming that the Council’s minute books from 1982 onwards were deposited with Glamorgan Archives in 2002. I note your reliance upon Section 21 FOIA in respect of records already accessible through Glamorgan Archives. I shall pursue those records directly with the archive. However, my request was not limited to council minutes. I also requested disclosure of any correspondence, clerk’s notes, memoranda, photographs, maps, plans, committee papers, archived files or other records held by the Council concerning: Ty Mawr (Great House Farm), Llandough; the associated farm lands; the Williams family; Billy Buckler, Branwen Buckler and members of the Buckler family; BP Properties Ltd v Buckler and related matters. Accordingly, I would be grateful if you could clarify: Whether the Council presently holds any records responsive to the above request other than the deposited minute books; If such records exist, whether they remain in the Council’s possession or were transferred to another archive or repository; If no such records are held, whether this is because they were never created, were transferred elsewhere, or were subsequently destroyed; Whether the Council retains any record of Billy Buckler addressing the Council, whether in minutes, correspondence, agenda papers, clerk’s notes or any other form. For the avoidance of doubt, I am content to receive a simple confirmation of whether such records are held and their location, rather than requiring the Council to undertake extensive historical research. Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [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, Sion Buckler [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 Mr Buckler, 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]

Dr Misra, Thank you for replying, and for doing so promptly and at a weekend. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I know you and the Council serve as volunteers, and I am grateful for the time. Let me set out plainly what I am asking of the Council, which is narrow. If you’ll allow me? I am not asking your Council to revisit Mr Egan’s answer of 14 June 2026. He explained that the minute books from 1982 onwards were deposited with Glamorgan Archives in 2002, and I am pursuing those there. What I am asking about is what that answer did not cover. Llandough Community Council is a public authority under Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 7(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Act applies to the recorded information set out below generally; the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 apply in addition to any part of it that is environmental information. PART ONE — REQUEST FOR RECORDED INFORMATION 1. Whether the Council holds any recorded information created after the 2002 deposit — minutes, correspondence, reports, emails, photographs or files of any kind — concerning Great House Farm (Ty Mawr) / Church View Close, the village green in front of St Dochdwy’s including registered green VG 41, or the roadside verge by the churchyard wall. 2. Whether the Council holds any photographs, postcards or images of the farm, the barn, the green or the church surroundings, of any date. 3. Whether the Council holds any recorded information showing what, if anything, transferred to it from Penarth Town Council at the 1982 reorganisation, and any recorded information identifying where the pre-1982 Llandough community records were deposited. If the answer to any of these is that no such information is held, I would be content with a short statement to that effect — but I do need it stated. Section 1(1)(a) of the Act requires the Council to confirm or deny whether the information is held. Section 10 (and regulation 5 of the EIR) allows twenty working days from receipt, which on my request of 20 September 2026 I calculate as 16 October 2026. If the Council is refusing, section 17 (and regulation 14) requires a written refusal notice identifying the exemption or exception relied on; section 17(7) requires the Council to give particulars of any complaints procedure it operates, or to state that it has none, and to notify me of my right to apply to the Information Commissioner; and regulation 11 gives a right to an internal review of any refusal under the EIR. “We have nothing more to add” does not meet those requirements. If the period passes without a compliant response I will have no option but to complain to the Information Commissioner. PART TWO — MATTERS FOR THE COUNCIL’S DISCRETION These are not part of the request above and carry no deadline. They are simply things I would be grateful for. A. I am not asking for the name or contact details of any individual. I am asking whether the Council would be willing to pass my details to any former member, former clerk or long-standing resident who might remember the village between the 1950s and the 1990s, leaving it entirely to them whether to contact me. I appreciate the Council may have data protection or administrative reasons for declining, and I would not press it. B. Whether the Council would be willing to table this correspondence at a meeting and minute it. I am content for it to be tabled in full. C. Whether the Council would consider, in due course, whether an interpretation board or a plaque near the green would be appropriate. The excavation on the land beneath Church View Close recorded 1,026 burials, described in the published report as by far the largest early medieval burial population so far recovered from Wales, above a Roman villa and an Iron Age roundhouse. That history belongs to Llandough as much as to my family, and there is nothing on the ground that records it. I would be glad to give the Council or the community a short talk on the documentary record, without charge, if that would be useful. I should be grateful for a response to items 1 to 3 by 16 October 2026. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler, Your email of the 21st September has been passed over to our clerk (in copy) for consideration. Best regards — Dr Mo Misra, Chair Llandough Community Council [quoted text trimmed]

Warm regards, Thank you Sion [quoted text trimmed]

Also, I had one of my agents produce the following public website: greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler, Thank you for your email of 21 September 2026 making a request for information. We are treating your correspondence as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the act). Under the provisions of the act and as defined by “The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004” (the regulations) , an authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the “appropriate limit”. This appropriate limit is set by the regulations at £450 for our type of authority. In the regulations our staff time is valued at £25 per hour. This has the effect of imposing a time limit of 18 hours of staff time for activities specified in the regulations. The regulations make the following activities by an authority countable towards the cost limit. * determining whether it holds the information, * locating the information, or a document which may contain the information, * retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the information, and * extracting the information from a document containing it. We have estimated the time and therefore costs as provided by the regulations, and in doing so have taken into account the above activities. We estimate that this work will take in excess of 18 hours of effort by our staff. As we have a significant amount of documents on file from the period 2002-2016 where minutes are in documents rather than published on the website or in archives. We estimate this will exceed the limit provided for by the regulations and therefore your request is refused on the grounds provided for under section 12 of the act. Our estimate of time is based on the requirement to search all minutes of the council and its committees for a period of 14 years. It is estimated that it will take about 20 minutes to read each set of minutes of which there are estimated to 224 sets of minutes. It is considered that this is likely to take about 10 minutes to assess each set of minutes a total of over 2240 minutes which equates to 37 hours. We may may be able to provide some information if you are able to reduce or refine your request to bring the cost of compliance under the regulations limit. We suggest that you could limit the time frame of minutes that we would need to look through. For example 2002-2006. Please contact us if you would like to refine your request. If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact us in the first instance and we will undertake an internal review. If after the internal review you wish to complain further then you can complain to the Information Commissioners Office http://www.ico.gov.uk [1] and request a decision notice. The other matters you include in your email will be considered at the October meeting of the council and I will let you have the views of the council after the meeting. Kind regards, — Paul R. Egan BA, Chartered MCIPD, CiLCA, F. Inst. LM, FIPSM Clerk to Llandough Community Council, [removed] Website http://www.llandough-cc.co.uk [2] [signature/disclaimer block trimmed]

Mr Egan, Thanks for your email of 11 October 2026. I acknowledge your refusal of my information request and also the other matters raised in my correspondence “will be considered at the October meeting of the council”. Not to sound like a stickler but your email doesn’t identify the date, time, venue, public-access arrangements or agenda for that meeting, or direct me to a published notice containing those particulars. This omission prevents me from verifying when the promised consideration is to take place, whether the relevant matters are scheduled for consideration, and whether I can attend or monitor the proceedings. Please provide those particulars immediately or identify where the Council has published them. Below is my position, formal requests an internal review, and further request for recorded information, and constitutes a subject access request for my personal data. Please record and process each part under the applicable procedure. None is intended to withdraw, narrow or replace the others. 1. Position concerning Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr As stated previously and repeatedly, my research of this case concerns the legitimacy of my families historic title and the treatment of Great House Farm, its buildings and associated land. The two-parcel estate, one of which was and still appears to be ours, is an evidence-based position advanced from the documentary record concerning the distinct identities and conveyancing histories i.e. Parcel A—the farmhouse, farm buildings, garden, yard, associated woodland and what is now church view close green —and Parcel B: the eastern agricultural land, east of our Parcel A and what was WGR and BP’s parcel and the focus on their possession. My argument is, again – that our parcel of land and home since 1667, was treated as one and the same as Parcel B under the blanket term “whole farm”. Our Parcel A (or a synthetic mimic of it, born from a long running and rejected string of attempts to make our occupancy appear permissive) was stealthfully registered by BP in 1983 and merged into their Parcel B in 1987 – [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Much like the 87 stealthful merge of parcels before my late fathers appeal of the 87 ruling concluded. Our county treasure home was also demolished in 88 before our appeal had even begun, let alone concluded, of CADW’s decision not to list it as a Grade II so it couldn’t be demolished. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] `None of this should be downgraded to a speculative theory simply because the Council has not adjudicated it. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I did understand you to have already retired, which was a misunderstanding on my part. Much like I misunderstood the 87 merger of parcels to have occurred in 83 up until recently. This is a complex case and I don’t claim to fully understand it myself. It will take a village. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I’m bringing it to all your attentions to give you all the opportunity to respond to this. So far all I’ve experienced is a lot of barriers, delays, walls (paywalls) and excuses. You yourself kindly pointed us to things like the 1939 agreement which excludes our parcel, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] If that’s my land, how did it come to be you are you all on it? I’m not convinced by the answers you all keep providing. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] https://bpvsbuckler.bucklerfamily.estate [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] https://bucklerfamily.estate [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] *** Paul, None of this should be reduced to speculative theory simply because the Council has not adjudicated it. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] If this has all been a profound misunderstanding, and nobody is responsible for wrongdoing, then that needs to be demonstrated through evidence and clear answers. So far, I have received little reassurance from any of you that my interpretation is mistaken. I acknowledge my own misunderstandings. I understood that you had already retired, which was incorrect. Until recently, I also believed the 1987 merger of parcels had occurred in 1983. This is a complex case, and I do not claim to understand every aspect of it. Resolving it will require a collective effort. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am bringing it to your attention so that everyone concerned has an opportunity to respond. So far, I have encountered barriers, delays, paywalls and excuses. You kindly directed us to material such as the 1939 agreement, which excludes our parcel. I acknowledge that assistance. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] If this is my family’s land, how did others come to occupy it? I remain unconvinced by the explanations being provided. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] But my grandmother, Mary Williams—a disabled, widowed pensioner—had seven children, who in turn had children of their own. Our family has grown considerably, and many of us now want answers. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] My purpose here is to bring the evidence into the open and initiate accountability. The authorities will then have to address the concerns of the wider family and others affected. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] If that process establishes fraud, concealment and government involvement, I will pursue the reopening of the case. [https://bpvsbuckler.bucklerfamily.estate]( https://bpvsbuckler.bucklerfamily.estate) [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] https://bucklerfamily.estate [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] To continue from my earlier point I’m not asking Llandough Community Council to adjudicate title or pronounce upon matters outside its legal remit. The Council’s institutional authority is not itself proof of the legitimacy of a title position. Its responsibility is to account accurately for its own records, knowledge, representations, decisions and referrals, and to disclose the recorded information it holds. The question of legitimacy must be assessed against the underlying documents and relevant legal acts, rather than presumed from administrative status or the repetition of an earlier account. I expect the Council to distinguish primary documentary evidence, recorded statements, family evidence and inference when dealing with these matters. 2. Formal request for internal review — refusal dated 11 October 2026 Please treat this section as my formal request for an internal review of the refusal of my original request submitted on 21 September 2026. That request covered: 1. Records created after 2002 concerning Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Church View Close, the green—including references to VG41—and the roadside verge beside the churchyard wall. 2. Photographs, postcards and other images, of any date, depicting the farmhouse, farm buildings, green or surrounding church area. 3. Records concerning material transferred from Penarth Town Council during the 1982 local-government reorganisation, and information held by the Council about the whereabouts or deposit of earlier Llandough community records. Your refusal explains that searching minutes and related documentation across a period of approximately 2002–2016 would exceed the appropriate cost limit. It refers to 224 sets of records and estimates 20 minutes to read each set and a further 10 minutes to assess it, but gives a total of 2,240 minutes, or approximately 37 hours. Those figures are internally inconsistent. At 30 minutes per set, 224 sets would amount to 6,720 minutes, or 112 hours. The stated 2,240 minutes equates to 10 minutes per set. More importantly, the response does not explain precisely which activities have been included in the estimate. Please have the reviewer consider the following matters: – How the estimate was calculated, including the number and nature of the records assumed to require examination. – Whether the estimate was applied to every part of the request, including photographic material and records concerning the 1982 transfer, rather than treating all categories as if they required the same search. – Whether existing indexes, catalogues, minute headings, document descriptions, filing systems or other finding aids permit targeted searches before individual records are examined. – Whether a targeted search using the place names, former names, dates and subjects identified in my request could provide a materially less costly route to the information. – Whether the requested environmental information must be considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, rather than being refused solely by reference to the Freedom of Information Act cost limit. Please identify how the stated 20 minutes for reading and 10 minutes for assessment per set correspond to the permitted activities under regulation 4(3) of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. In particular, distinguish time spent determining whether the requested information is held, locating, retrieving or extracting it from time spent on activities that cannot lawfully be included in the section 12 estimate. If the Council relies on regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations, please identify that exception expressly, provide the relevant reasoning and carry out the required public-interest assessment, including the presumption in favour of disclosure. Do not treat the FOIA section 12 estimate as a substitute for determining which legal regime applies to each category. Please also address the duty to provide reasonable advice and assistance under section 16 FOIA and, where applicable, regulation 9 of the Environmental Information Regulations. Your suggestion that I narrow the date range to 2002–2006 is noted, but I ask the reviewer to consider what targeted searches or available indexes could reasonably be used to address the original request before concluding that the information cannot be provided. Please confirm receipt of this internal review request, identify who will conduct the review, and provide the anticipated response date. Where reasonably practicable, the review should be undertaken by someone independent of the original refusal. 3. Further request for recorded information — 1986–1990 and associated land matters In addition to the original request, please treat this section as a new request for recorded information under FOIA and, where applicable, the Environmental Information Regulations. It is directed to records held by the Council and does not presume that any particular document exists. *A. Great House Farm: occupation, title, development and demolition* Please disclose minutes, agendas, reports, correspondence, letters, notes, complaints, representations, referrals and other recorded information created between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 1990 concerning Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, including its occupation, title, tenure, proposed development, removal of the occupants or demolition of the farmhouse and associated buildings. This includes records of communications with Vale of Glamorgan Council, planning authorities, developers, solicitors, landowners, police, heritage bodies or other public authorities concerning those subjects. Please include any records containing statements attributed to my late father, William “Billy” Buckler, about the property, occupation, title or alleged fraud. References to alleged fraud identify a subject for the search; they are not a claim that a Council record or finding establishing fraud necessarily exists. *B. Planning records and annexes* Please identify and disclose the Council-held planning records, plans, supporting documents, annexes, correspondence and associated material relating to application 89/01396/OUT and any related consideration of the redevelopment of the site. I have been unable to locate certain associated annexes in my copy. Please confirm whether the Council holds them and, if not, whether its records identify another custodian or archive. *C. Green, verge, trees and woodland* Please disclose records held by the Council concerning the history, status, boundaries, maintenance, planting, ownership representations or public use of the green, the roadside verge beside the churchyard wall, and the woodland associated with the former farm. This includes relevant correspondence, complaints, maps, plans, site-visit records, referrals and communications with landowners, residents, charities, the Vale of Glamorgan Council or other responsible bodies. I have also received information raising a concern that some gardens at Church View Close may extend beyond their recorded boundaries into adjoining woodland. I identify this as an unverified concern requiring documentary clarification, not as an established finding of encroachment or wrongdoing. Please disclose any Council-held records relating to the boundaries, complaints or enquiries about this area. I recognise that the official VG41 registration file is understood to be held by the Vale of Glamorgan Council. I am requesting records held by Llandough Community Council, including any copies, correspondence, representations or referrals concerning the green or its registration—not suggesting that this Council is the custodian of another authority’s file. Please search relevant paper and electronic records, including correspondence and records held in archived or transferred collections that remain accessible to the Council. If any part of this request is considered too broad, please identify the specific part and explain what narrower search is practicable. If records are not held, please say so and identify any known transfer or deposit location where possible. 4. Subject access request — my personal data Separately, I make a subject access request under Article 15 of the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 for personal data about me, Sion Buckler, held by the Council. The request covers personal data concerning my childhood association with Great House Farm, the events surrounding the removal of my family from the farmhouse and its demolition in 1988, and subsequent Council records referring to me or recording information about me in connection with these events. Please search relevant Council-held correspondence, minutes, reports, notes, referrals, photographs and other records, whether paper or electronic. This request concerns my personal data; it is not a request for unrestricted disclosure of every record concerning my late father or the property. Please acknowledge this as a subject access request and deal with it under the applicable data-protection procedure. If you require proportionate identification information to verify my identity, please specify what is required. 5. Matters said to be for the “October meeting” Your email of 11 October states that other matters raised in my correspondence “will be considered at the October meeting of the council” and that you will provide the Council’s views afterwards. Please confirm whether that meeting has already taken place. If it has, please provide the exact date, the relevant agenda and papers, the minute or other formal record of consideration, and any decision or action arising in relation to the matters I raised. If it has not yet taken place, please provide the confirmed date, time, venue and public-access arrangements, together with the draft or published agenda showing which of my matters are scheduled for consideration. Those matters include: – The Council’s historic knowledge of Great House Farm, its surroundings and the green, and any representations or records it holds concerning these matters. – The available documentary and photographic record relating to the site and its redevelopment. – The concerns raised about the adjoining woodland and garden boundaries, insofar as they fall within the Council’s records or remit. – The availability of the relevant planning annexes and the location of any missing records. – Whether the Council would consider a suitable historical interpretation or memorial for the former farmhouse and its significance to the local community. I also repeat my request that the Council pass my contact details to any former councillor, clerk or local resident who is willing to contact me about relevant historical knowledge. I am not asking the Council to disclose those individuals’ personal contact details without their consent. I remain willing to give a short presentation on the documentary record at no charge if the Council considers that useful. Please record the offer and advise whether it will be considered. If the meeting is open to the public, please also advise how a member of the public may make representations on relevant business, having regard to section 48 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the Council’s meeting arrangements. If the Council does not provide these particulars or identify the relevant published notice, please explain the basis on which I am expected to verify that the promised consideration has occurred or will occur. I will retain the omission and any subsequent response as part of the record of the Council’s handling of these matters. 6. Clerk’s appointment and responsibility for records For completeness, I ask for clarification of the present clerking and records arrangements because they bear directly on the identification, custody and review of the records requested. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Please confirm: – Whether you currently hold the appointment of Clerk to Llandough Community Council and act as its Proper Officer. – Whether any change of appointment, acting arrangement or transfer of responsibility has affected the custody or management of the relevant records. – Who is currently responsible for the Council’s records and who will conduct the internal review. 7. Charges and response I have not authorised any discretionary paid search. Please do not treat this email as agreement to incur a charge. If you consider that any part of the request may lawfully attract a fee, please identify the legal basis, the precise work proposed and the amount in writing before proceeding on that basis. Please acknowledge each procedural element of this email, distinguish the internal review from the further information request and subject access request, and identify any part you consider cannot be processed as submitted, together with the reason and the available remedy. I expect the Council’s response to address the recorded evidence and the applicable obligations directly. I am not asking the Council to endorse my conclusions merely because I advance them; I am asking it to disclose and account for the records within its custody and to distinguish what the records establish from what remains uncertain. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Apologies Gentlemen, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] It has my full attention now. Please disregard my last email in lieu of this one. Thank you in advance for your patience and understanding. Mr Egan (& cc Mo), Thank you for your email of 11 October 2026. I acknowledge your refusal of my information request and your statement that the other matters raised in my correspondence “will be considered at the October meeting of the council”. Not to sound like a stickler, but your email does not identify the date, time, venue, public-access arrangements or agenda for that meeting, nor does it direct me to a published notice containing those particulars. This omission prevents me from verifying when the promised consideration is to take place, whether the relevant matters are scheduled for consideration, and whether I can attend or monitor the proceedings. Please provide those particulars immediately or identify where the Council has published them. Below are my position, formal request for an internal review, further request for recorded information and subject access request for my personal data. Please record and process each part under the applicable procedure. None is intended to withdraw, narrow or replace any of the others. *1. Position concerning Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr* As stated previously and repeatedly, my research into this case concerns the legitimacy of my family’s historic title and the treatment of Great House Farm, its buildings and associated land. The two-parcel estate, one parcel of which was and still appears to be ours, is an evidence-based position advanced from the documentary record concerning the distinct identities and conveyancing histories of the land. Parcel A comprised the farmhouse, farm buildings, garden, yard, associated woodland and what is now the green at Church View Close. Parcel B comprised the eastern agricultural land, east of our Parcel A, which was WGR’s and BP’s parcel and the focus of their possession claim. My argument, again, is that our parcel of land and home, dating back to 1667, was treated as one and the same as Parcel B under the blanket term “whole farm”. Our Parcel A—or a synthetic imitation of it, arising from a long-running and rejected series of attempts to make our occupancy appear permissive—was stealthily registered by BP in 1983 and merged into Parcel B in 1987. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The parcels were merged in 1987 before my late father’s appeal against the 1987 ruling had concluded. Our county’s treasured home was also demolished in 1988, before our appeal had even begun, let alone concluded, following Cadw’s decision not to list it as a Grade II building, leaving it open to demolition. None of this should be downgraded to speculative theory simply because the Council has not adjudicated it. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] These are matters I am investigating, and I encourage everyone involved to conduct their own research and investigation. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] You yourself kindly pointed us towards things such as the 1939 agreement, which excludes our parcel. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] https://bpvsbuckler.bucklerfamily.estate [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] https://bucklerfamily.estate [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] To continue from my earlier point, I am not asking Llandough Community Council to adjudicate title or pronounce on matters outside its legal remit. The Council’s institutional authority is not itself proof of the legitimacy of a title position. Its responsibility is to account accurately for its own records, knowledge, representations, decisions and referrals, and to disclose the recorded information it holds. The question of legitimacy must be assessed against the underlying documents and relevant legal acts, rather than presumed from administrative status or the repetition of an earlier account. I expect the Council to distinguish primary documentary evidence, recorded statements, family evidence and inference when dealing with these matters. *2. Formal request for internal review — refusal dated 11 October 2026* Please treat this section as my formal request for an internal review of the refusal of my original request, submitted on 21 September 2026. That request covered: 1. Records created after 2002 concerning Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Church View Close, the green—including references to VG41—and the roadside verge beside the churchyard wall. 2. Photographs, postcards and other images, of any date, depicting the farmhouse, farm buildings, green or surrounding church area. 3. Records concerning material transferred from Penarth Town Council during the 1982 local-government reorganisation, and information held by the Council about the whereabouts or deposit of earlier Llandough community records. Your refusal explains that searching minutes and related documentation across a period of approximately 2002–2016 would exceed the appropriate cost limit. It refers to 224 sets of records and estimates 20 minutes to read each set and a further 10 minutes to assess it, but gives a total of 2,240 minutes, or approximately 37 hours. Those figures are internally inconsistent. At 30 minutes per set, 224 sets would amount to 6,720 minutes, or 112 hours. The stated 2,240 minutes equates to 10 minutes per set. More importantly, the response does not explain precisely which activities have been included in the estimate. Please have the reviewer consider the following matters: – How the estimate was calculated, including the number and nature of the records assumed to require examination. – Whether the estimate was applied to every part of the request, including photographic material and records concerning the 1982 transfer, rather than treating all categories as if they required the same search. – Whether existing indexes, catalogues, minute headings, document descriptions, filing systems or other finding aids permit targeted searches before individual records are examined. – Whether a targeted search using the place names, former names, dates and subjects identified in my request could provide a materially less costly route to the information. – Whether the requested environmental information must be considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, rather than being refused solely by reference to the Freedom of Information Act cost limit. Please identify how the stated 20 minutes for reading and 10 minutes for assessment per set correspond to the permitted activities under regulation 4(3) of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. In particular, distinguish time spent determining whether the requested information is held, locating, retrieving or extracting it from time spent on activities that cannot lawfully be included in the section 12 estimate. If the Council relies on regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations, please identify that exception expressly, provide the relevant reasoning and carry out the required public-interest assessment, including the presumption in favour of disclosure. Do not treat the FOIA section 12 estimate as a substitute for determining which legal regime applies to each category. Please also address the duty to provide reasonable advice and assistance under section 16 FOIA and, where applicable, regulation 9 of the Environmental Information Regulations. Your suggestion that I narrow the date range to 2002–2006 is noted, but I ask the reviewer to consider what targeted searches or available indexes could reasonably be used to address the original request before concluding that the information cannot be provided. Please confirm receipt of this internal review request, identify who will conduct the review, and provide the anticipated response date. Where reasonably practicable, the review should be undertaken by someone independent of the original refusal. *3. Further request for recorded information — 1986–1990 and associated land matters* In addition to the original request, please treat this section as a new request for recorded information under FOIA and, where applicable, the Environmental Information Regulations. It is directed to records held by the Council and does not presume that any particular document exists. *A. Great House Farm: occupation, title, development and demolition* Please disclose minutes, agendas, reports, correspondence, letters, notes, complaints, representations, referrals and other recorded information created between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 1990 concerning Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, including its occupation, title, tenure, proposed development, removal of the occupants, or demolition of the farmhouse and associated buildings. This includes records of communications with Vale of Glamorgan Council, planning authorities, developers, solicitors, landowners, police, heritage bodies or other public authorities concerning those subjects. Please include any records containing statements attributed to my late father, William “Billy” Buckler, about the property, occupation, title or alleged fraud. References to alleged fraud identify a subject for the search; they are not a claim that a Council record or finding establishing fraud necessarily exists. *B. Planning records and annexes* Please identify and disclose the Council-held planning records, plans, supporting documents, annexes, correspondence and associated material relating to application 89/01396/OUT and any related consideration of the redevelopment of the site. I have been unable to locate certain associated annexes in my copy. Please confirm whether the Council holds them and, if not, whether its records identify another custodian or archive. *C. Green, verge, trees and woodland* Please disclose records held by the Council concerning the history, status, boundaries, maintenance, planting, ownership representations or public use of the green, the roadside verge beside the churchyard wall, and the woodland associated with the former farm. This includes relevant correspondence, complaints, maps, plans, site-visit records, referrals and communications with landowners, residents, charities, Vale of Glamorgan Council or other responsible bodies. I have also received information raising a concern that some gardens at Church View Close may extend beyond their recorded boundaries into adjoining woodland. I identify this as an unverified concern requiring documentary clarification, not as an established finding of encroachment or wrongdoing. Please disclose any Council-held records relating to the boundaries, complaints or enquiries about this area. I recognise that the official VG41 registration file is understood to be held by Vale of Glamorgan Council. I am requesting records held by Llandough Community Council, including any copies, correspondence, representations or referrals concerning the green or its registration. I am not suggesting that this Council is the custodian of another authority’s file. Please search relevant paper and electronic records, including correspondence and records held in archived or transferred collections that remain accessible to the Council. If any part of this request is considered too broad, please identify the specific part and explain what narrower search is practicable. If records are not held, please say so and identify any known transfer or deposit location where possible. *4. Subject access request — my personal data* Separately, I make a subject access request under Article 15 of the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 for personal data about me, Sion Buckler, held by the Council. The request covers personal data concerning my childhood association with Great House Farm, the events surrounding the removal of my family from the farmhouse and its demolition in 1988, and subsequent Council records referring to me or recording information about me in connection with these events. Please search relevant Council-held correspondence, minutes, reports, notes, referrals, photographs and other records, whether paper or electronic. This request concerns my personal data; it is not a request for unrestricted disclosure of every record concerning my late father or the property. Please acknowledge this as a subject access request and deal with it under the applicable data-protection procedure. If you require proportionate identification information to verify my identity, please specify what is required. *5. Matters said to be for the “October meeting”* Your email of 11 October states that other matters raised in my correspondence “will be considered at the October meeting of the council” and that you will provide the Council’s views afterwards. Please confirm whether that meeting has already taken place. If it has, please provide the exact date, the relevant agenda and papers, the minutes or other formal record of consideration, and any decision or action arising in relation to the matters I raised. If it has not yet taken place, please provide the confirmed date, time, venue and public-access arrangements, together with the draft or published agenda showing which of my matters are scheduled for consideration. Those matters include: – The Council’s historic knowledge of Great House Farm, its surroundings and the green, and any representations or records it holds concerning these matters. – The available documentary and photographic record relating to the site and its redevelopment. – The concerns raised about the adjoining woodland and garden boundaries, insofar as they fall within the Council’s records or remit. – The availability of the relevant planning annexes and the location of any missing records. – Whether the Council would consider suitable historical interpretation or a memorial for the former farmhouse and its significance to the local community. I also repeat my request that the Council pass my contact details to any former councillor, clerk or local resident who is willing to contact me about relevant historical knowledge. I am not asking the Council to disclose those individuals’ personal contact details without their consent. I remain willing to give a short presentation on the documentary record at no charge if the Council considers that useful. Please record the offer and advise whether it will be considered. If the meeting is open to the public, please also advise how a member of the public may make representations on relevant business, having regard to section 48 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the Council’s meeting arrangements. If the Council does not provide these particulars or identify the relevant published notice, please explain the basis on which I am expected to verify that the promised consideration has occurred or will occur. I will retain the omission and any subsequent response as part of the record of the Council’s handling of these matters. *6. Clerk’s appointment and responsibility for records* For completeness, I ask for clarification of the present clerking and records arrangements because they bear directly on the identification and custody of the records requested, and on responsibility for reviewing the refusal. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Please confirm: – Whether you currently hold the appointment of Clerk to Llandough Community Council and act as its Proper Officer. – Whether any change of appointment, acting arrangement or transfer of responsibility has affected the custody or management of the relevant records. – Who is currently responsible for the Council’s records and who will conduct the internal review. *7. Charges and response* I have not authorised any discretionary paid search. Please do not treat this email as agreement to incur a charge. If you consider that any part of the request may lawfully attract a fee, please identify the legal basis, the precise work proposed and the amount in writing before proceeding on that basis. Please acknowledge each procedural element of this email, distinguish the internal review from the further information request and subject access request, and identify any part you consider cannot be processed as submitted, together with the reason and the available remedy. I expect the Council’s response to address the recorded evidence and the applicable obligations directly. I am not asking the Council to endorse my conclusions merely because I advance them; I am asking it to disclose and account for the records within its custody and to distinguish what the records establish from what remains uncertain. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler, I acknowledge receipt of your recent email which is receiving attention and a full response will be sent to you in due course. I am attaching as requested the agenda for the Council meeting on 22 October 2026 at 7.00pm and the link for you to join the meeting on Zoom is: Topic: Council Meeting Time: Oct 22, 2026 07:00 PM London [meeting joining details removed] [meeting link removed] [meeting credential removed] [meeting credential removed] — [meeting credential removed] [removed] — [meeting credential removed] [removed] Join instructions [meeting link removed] — Paul R. Egan BA, Chartered MCIPD, CiLCA, F. Inst. LM, FIPSM Clerk to Llandough Community Council, [removed] Website http://www.llandough-cc.co.uk [signature/disclaimer block trimmed]

Much appreciated Paul. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [removed].bucklerfamily.estate Council meetings are your domain. But the magnitude of this goes beyond the medieval burials and my input. Marconi and Peerless Jim are Llandough’s history too. And the monestry hasn’t been formally discovered. greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com is live again today. Regards, Sion [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Egan, Thank you for the agenda and Zoom link. Ahead of the 22 October meeting I would like to flag two items for the public record, both tied to the Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr material at https://www.google.com/url?q=https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com&source=gmail&ust=1792226701788000&sa=E. First, my FOI to the Council (treated as such in your reply of 11 October) and the internal review request of 13 October remain open. I am not asking the Council to pre-judge them at the meeting; I simply ask that the review outcome or a firm date be communicated before or at the meeting so that public participation is not conducted under a section 12 refusal that has not been reviewed. Second, I have placed preservation requests with The National Archives, HM Land Registry, the MOD, South Wales Police and others concerning 1988 records. If the Council holds any planning files, section 52/106 instruments or correspondence from 1988-1992 relating to planning refs 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES, I would be grateful for confirmation that they are being retained pending those wider enquiries. I will participate through the public participation slot only. Title and chronology index: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://dartboard.bucklerfamily.estate&source=gmail&ust=1792226701788000&sa=E Long-term archive: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://wayback.bucklerfamily.estate&source=gmail&ust=1792226701788000&sa=E Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Dear Mr Egan, copied to Dr Misra, This is a supplement to my email of 13 October 2026 (03:25 UTC, “Apologies Gentlemen – Disregard Last Email Por Favor”). [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] So that nothing is misread, I restate the relevant points in plain administrative terms. All of the formal requests in that email stand as sent. 1. My position. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] We assert our claim to Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), in particular what the family calls Parcel A, and we ask every body that holds a record or made a decision about it to respect that claim by answering for its records, decisions and representations. We do not accept that the matter is closed, and we will not stop asking. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The formal parts stand: the request for internal review of the section 12 response of 11 October 2026, the further information request, the subject access request, and the request for the date, venue and public-access arrangements for the 22 October meeting. I ask for a reasoned answer to each. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [signature block trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler, Thank you for your email. Can you please note that the Council meeting on 22 October will now be held remotely only and you can use the Zoom link that has already been emailed to you. Regards, — Paul R. Egan BA, Chartered MCIPD, CiLCA, F. Inst. LM, FIPSM Clerk to Llandough Community Council, [removed] Website http://www.llandough-cc.co.uk [4] [signature/disclaimer block trimmed]

Dear Mr Egan, Thank you for your email confirming that the Council meeting on 22 October 2026 will now be held remotely only. I object to the removal of the opportunity for residents to attend in person and ask that the decision be reconsidered before the meeting. I recognise that the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 provides for remote meetings. My concern is not with councillors using Zoom, but with the Council deciding that there will be no physical public attendance, without explaining the reasons for that decision or how the interests of local democratic participation have been considered. The Welsh Government’s statutory guidance for community and town councils recognises the importance of accessible meetings, public participation and transparency. It also requires councils to have regard to the guidance when exercising their relevant functions. The Act’s section 48, inserting paragraph 27A into Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972, requires the person presiding over an open community council meeting to give members of the public in attendance a reasonable opportunity to make representations about the business, subject to the statutory exception. I therefore ask the Council to: 1. Reconsider whether a physical venue can be made available to residents, even if all councillors participate remotely. 2. Confirm who made the decision to change the meeting to remote-only and when it was made. 3. Identify the Council’s published arrangements or policy governing multi-location meetings and provide the relevant link or document. 4. Explain what consideration was given to residents’ ability to observe proceedings and participate effectively, and why a physical public gallery was not provided. 5. Confirm that I will be given a reasonable opportunity to make representations during the public participation item through the Zoom meeting, in accordance with the applicable rules. If the Council maintains its decision, please treat this email as a request for the reasons and the relevant policy or resolution to be recorded in the public record. For clarity, my outstanding FOI internal review and my requests concerning the retention of historic planning records are separate matters. I do not ask the Council to determine either matter through this objection. I remain willing to participate constructively in the meeting. I ask only that the Council take the concerns about public access seriously and explain its decision. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]