Llandough Community Council — Forensic Institutional Review

This material now lives at https://fcg.bucklerfamily.estate/case/llandough-community-council-forensic-institutional-review.

About this page type → Read the Docs

Timeline scope — 12 October 2026: The graph aligns the Council’s documented appearances with the parcel history and HMLR title histories. It distinguishes parcel identity from registered-title administration. The 2 February 1987 amalgamation is a recorded register event; it does not itself settle the root-title dispute.

Forensic Assessment — Llandough Community Council

Scope: local community-council records and representations.

Role

The Community Council is relevant principally to local representations, heritage/community knowledge and later public discussion. It did not adjudicate the private title dispute.

Paul Egan — documented role and casework assessment

Current public status (checked 18 October 2026). The Council’s own Contact Us page continues to name Paul Egan as Clerk to the Council. The Council’s 11 October 2026 Section 12 refusal is signed “Paul R. Egan … Clerk to Llandough Community Council” (GHF-E183, 11 October entry). A public procurement notice posted in January 2026 also names Paul Egan as the Council contact. These are evidence that he was publicly listed and signing in the Clerk role at the respective dates; they do not independently establish uninterrupted tenure or a formal start/end date.

Historical public-role record. Paul Egan / Paul R. Egan is identified as representing Llandough Community Council in Welsh Government’s 2018 local-government reform consultation response documents. The Council’s own 2018 newsletter and Winter 2023 newsletter also identify him as Clerk. These are dated snapshots, not proof of uninterrupted service between them. A family understanding in June 2026 that he might be retiring was explicitly unconfirmed and arose from a public social-media post; the present Council contact listing and 11 October signature show that he was still publicly listed/signing as Clerk at those later dates. The source reviewed here does not include a Council notice establishing the effective date of any retirement, reappointment, locum arrangement, handover or records-custody change.

Assessment boundary. The following comparison scores the usefulness of the response and the assistance offered in this particular record set. They are reviewer-assigned scores shown in the public Clerk insights dashboard, not official Council ratings, objective measures of every aspect of an officer’s work, or findings of misconduct. Response speed is treated separately from response quality. A lawful refusal is not automatically a poor response; the evaluation looks at whether the reply explains the position, addresses separate request categories, describes searches, offers workable refinement and identifies useful next steps.

Key comparison. On the two scored 2026 FOI responses, the Clerk / Council mean is 1.5/5 usefulness and 1.5/5 facilitation. The selected peer-group means in the dashboard are 3.8/5 usefulness and 4.0/5 facilitation. The dashboard describes most peer response bands as within a broad 10–20 working-day window; the sideways chart position of an unmeasured peer is illustrative, not an exact day-count. The 11 October letter is dated on a Sunday; the dashboard’s calculation records 14 working days elapsed by Friday 9 October from the request dated 21 September, with the response still inside the 20-working-day period when measured against the working-day calendar used in that analysis. The 14 June response is assessed at 18 working days when the late-May bank holiday is excluded (19 if counted); the original source is not separately recovered.

Scope of the comparison. These are the comparator bodies/groups presently named in the dashboard, not a census of every associated person, employee, organisation or party involved in the wider Great House Farm dispute. The peer groups are aggregated, not individual staff appraisals. Scores are issue-specific editorial judgements based on the correspondence as reviewed, not an official league table. Their purpose is to make the differences in the sampled correspondence legible, not to infer motive or general personal competence.

Thread and chronology links. The September and October correspondence, revised family messages and source-status notes are set out in the dedicated GHF-E183 email evidence page, with individual anchors for the 28 September Chair’s reply, 11 October refusal signed by Egan, 13 October 03:25 UTC revised family email and 13 October 20:09 UTC Clerk acknowledgement source-status entry. See also the correspondence chronology.

Forensic control test

Identify minutes, correspondence, petitions, planning representations and referrals concerning Great House Farm/Tŷ Mawr and later site development. Record what was actually known to the Council at each date.

Current finding

No adverse institutional finding is established.

Note on clerkship status statements (June–October 2026).
On 14 June 2026 the researcher emailed Paul Egan stating an understanding that he was leaving, based on a public Facebook post by Cllr George Carroll. That post described the fete as “the last village fete that Paul Egan is organising before he retires as the clerk” (i.e. future retirement, not a completed departure). No reply correcting or clarifying the status of the clerkship was received. For the subsequent correspondence trail, including the 11 October 2026 reply still signed as Clerk, see the Llandough Community Council — Correspondence Chronology and the linked GHF-E170 / GHF-E106-R55 records.

Human action

Request a targeted minute-book and correspondence search for the relevant 1980s and later planning/heritage periods, and cross-reference representations to the Council’s parent planning authority records.

Acceptance: complete search statement and copies/refs of relevant local records.

Llandough Community Council — events aligned with parcel and title history

The graph places the Council’s dated appearances against the same calendar axis as the Parcel A/Parcel B reconstruction and the WA231076, WA240304 and WA735527 title histories. The red track marks recorded Council-related events; its dotted connector is a chronological guide, not evidence of continuous activity. Each event links to its fuller source record.

Reading the join: WA231076 and WA240304 are separate registration tracks in 1982–83. The WA240304 farmhouse-and-garden line ends at the recorded 2 February 1987 amalgamation into WA231076. Parcel A and Parcel B are land-identity/research tracks, not judicial findings of ownership. WA735527 is shown separately because its source strands and parcel relationship require independent review.

Dated events and source links

Attribution boundary and current finding

GHF-E171 — Vale of Glamorgan ward representations and complaint route concerns ward-representation correspondence and the Vale of Glamorgan Council Monitoring Officer process. It is not an act by Llandough Community Council and is linked only to keep institutional attribution clear: GHF-E171 · Vale of Glamorgan Council forensic assessment.

Current finding: no adverse institutional finding is established. The 1990 report documents involvement in redevelopment/archaeology; the 2025–26 pages document later records-access and correspondence. The reviewed record does not establish that the Community Council adjudicated the private title dispute or had proven knowledge of the family’s root-title case. A targeted search of relevant minutes, correspondence, planning/heritage representations and referrals remains outstanding.

Related records: Llandough Community Council correspondence chronology · Records Access Chronology · FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register · Source Conflicts Register · Institutional Involvement Roadmap · Land Registry Titles.

Site-wide hypothesis: see the Cedwyn Estate Working Theory (HYPOTHESIS).

Response Friction Score — linked message assessments

The Council’s 20 September wording, the 28 September forwarding reply and the 11 October section 12 refusal are scored separately. The quote-only status of the 20 September wording and the section 12 estimate-method question are explicitly recorded; no finding of unlawful refusal or deliberate concealment is made from the score alone. Read the score, source limits and follow-up tests.