Cadw / Welsh Government — correspondence with the family (email)

Sirs/Ma’am, I am writing regarding farmland formerly belonging to my family, which later formed part of the litigation known as BP v Buckler (1987). [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The evidential threshold I now hold, if correct, would meet the reopening conditions described under s.23 of the Limitation Act 1980 – meaning that litigation, rectification and title recovery proceedings may be legitimately initiated. However, before progressing litigation, I wish to formally offer the UK Government the opportunity to resolve this matter via public law tools rather than adversarial reopening. Specifically: I would like to enquire whether an acquiring authority could lawfully consider using compulsory purchase powers to acquire the 23 properties that now sit on this former farmland, and transfer title / beneficial ownership back to my family, where this could be framed as a public interest rectification measure rather than a private benefit case. Could you please: – confirm which acquiring authority would be competent jurisdictionally for this scenario, – outline which statutory route would be the correct CPO framework to assess this under, and – confirm any preliminary information requirements you would need from me (title data, timeline, evidential index etc) if this was to be scoped and reviewed. I am willing to provide a full indexed evidence pack for confidential review. Kind regards, Sion Buckler [signature block trimmed]

Good morning, PEDW’s role is providing an impartial appeals service, we are not the correct department to comment or provide any advice. As there is no appeal before us, it is not in our jurisdiction. For planning advice you can go on Planning Aid Wales website which is https://planningaidwales.org.uk/ I am sorry we cannot be of further help. Kind regards, Lyndsey Dennis Swddog Gweinyddu Busnes / Business Administration Officer Penderfyniadau Cynllunio a’r Amgylchedd / Planning & Environment Decisions Wales Llywodraeth Cymru / Welsh Government [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Sirs/ Ma’am, I am writing to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. At your earliest convenience please would you provide me copies of all information held by Cadw relating to Great House Farm, formerly occupied by my Buckler / Williams family, which was subject to a refusal to list and subsequent demolition in or around the late 1980s. Specifically, I request disclosure of the following: 1. All records, assessments, reports, site visit notes, photographs, desk-based evaluations, or recommendations produced by or for Cadw in relation to Great House Farm, including any material connected to decisions not to list the building. 2. All internal correspondence (including letters, memoranda, emails, and briefing notes) held by Cadw that relate to: The heritage significance of Great House Farm 3. The decision not to list the building Any consideration of archaeological, historical, or associative significance Any communications between Cadw and third parties (including local authorities, developers, landowners, or commercial entities) concerning Great House Farm prior to demolition 4. Records of any archaeological notifications, alerts, or discoveries associated with Great House Farm, whether before or after demolition, including references to artefacts later recovered during excavations in the early 1990s. 5. Any documentation referring to historical associations between Great House Farm and early radio or wireless experimentation, including any mention of Guglielmo Marconi or related activity in the Cardiff Bay / Lavernock / surrounding area that may have been considered or dismissed. 6. Policy or guidance documents in force at the time (1980s) that governed Cadw’s criteria for listing historic farmhouses or buildings with associative historical value. 7. If any information is withheld, please specify the exemption relied upon and provide the reasoning as required under the Act. I would prefer to receive the information electronically, by email. Please confirm receipt of this request too. I understand that under the Freedom of Information Act you’re required to respond within 20 working days. It’s not that urgent so please take the time you need, within reason, and keep me updated where possible. And if you have any questions, queries or concerns please feel free to reach out to me too. Regards, Sion Buckler [signature block trimmed]

Aelodau Anrhydeddus y Senedd, Rwy’n ysgrifennu atoch i dynnu eich sylw at yr hyn yr wyf yn ei ystyried yn anghyfiawnder hanesyddol difrifol, yn ymwneud â’m teulu, y Bucklers, a dinistr Great House Farm yn Llandough — safle fferm a chartref o dros 800 mlynedd o hanes, gan gynnwys cysylltiadau mynachaidd a chysylltiad uniongyrchol â Guglielmo Marconi yn ystod datblygiad cynnar radio. Mae’r mater hwn yn codi cwestiynau difrifol ynghylch hawliau tir, gweithdrefnau cyfreithiol, cofrestru tir, a hawliau dynol yng Nghymru. Er enghraifft, mewn datganiad i’r wasg yn 1974, dywedodd fy nain yn gyhoeddus: *“It’s my home.”* Mae’r datganiad hwn, sydd yn fater o gofnod cyhoeddus, yn gwrth-ddweud yn uniongyrchol ganfyddiad Llys Apêl 1987 yn *BP v Buckler*, lle dywedwyd ei bod wedi bod yn “ddistaw” ac wedi derbyn trwydded BP a gyhoeddwyd yn 1974. Yn yr un achos, gwrthodwyd apêl fy nhad ar y sail bod BP Pension Trust Ltd a BP Properties Ltd yn “effeithiol yr un cwmni”. Fodd bynnag, yn y dyfarniad yr oedd yn ei herio, nododd y barnwr nad oedd ymatebion fy nain i BP Pension Trust Ltd yn cyfrif gan mai BP Properties Ltd oedd yr hawlydd, ac mai cwmnïau ar wahân oeddent. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Ar y sail hon, rwy’n gofyn yn ffurfiol am *Ddeiseb i sefydlu Ymchwiliad Cyhoeddus* i’r achos hwn, fel mater o ddwyn tir hanesyddol ac o dorri hawliau dynol yng Nghymru. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Ceir honiadau bod sylw sylweddol yn y wasg yn 1974 o blaid fy nain a’n teulu, ynghyd â deiseb o tua 1,700 o bobl yn ceisio atal dymchwel y fferm. Ymhellach, mae’n ymddangos bod CADW wedi methu ag ymyrryd lle dylai’r safle fod wedi cael statws Adeilad Rhestredig Gradd II. Nid wyf yn sicr a gofnodwyd erioed yn briodol yn y Gofrestrfa Tir fod y tir — a gofrestrwyd gan BP yn 1982 — dan anghydfod. Yn fy nealltwriaeth i, cafodd ei drin fel pe na bai mewn anghydfod o gwbl. Nid oes unrhyw lys wedi penderfynu’n derfynol mai BP oedd perchnogion cyfreithiol y tir; cafodd hynny ei honni yn hytrach na’i brofi. Mae hefyd fater pwysig o hanes diwylliannol. Arhosodd Marconi gyda’n teulu yn y fferm wrth iddo ddatblygu radio. Mae cynghorwyr a’r plwyf yn Llandough yn gwrthod cydnabod hyn. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Gofynnaf i’r Senedd gymryd y mater hwn o ddifrif, ac ystyried sefydlu Ymchwiliad Cyhoeddus llawn, tryloyw ac annibynnol. Nid er budd fy nheulu yn unig y mae hyn, ond er uniondeb hanes, cyfiawnder tir, a hawliau dynol yng Nghymru. Yn gywir, *Sion Hywel Buckler* *—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-* Sirs/Ma’am, I am writing to you regarding a significant historical injustice involving my family, the Bucklers, and the destruction of Great House Farm (an 800-year-old site of monastic and Marconi history). For example, in a 1974 press statement my grandmother said publically ‘It’s my home’—that directly contradicts the 1987 Court of Appeal ruling that she was ‘silent’ and accepted of BP license issued in 1974. My dad’s appeal for the BP vs Buckler 1987 case also got dismissed on grounds both BP Pension Trust Ltd and BP Properties Ltd were effectively the same company. But in the ruling he was appealing, the judge said that my nans replies to BP Pensions Trust Ltd didn’t count as BP Properties Ltd were the claimant, and the two were seperate companies. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am requesting a *Petition for a Public Inquiry* into this case as a matter of historical land theft and human rights violations in Wales. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There was allegedly press covering the 74 case and supporting my nan and family and farm. There was a petition of 1700 people trying to defend us and the farm from demolishment. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I’m not even sure the land registry recorded that our land, being registered in 1982 by BP , was in dispute. I believe it was treated as if it wasn’t dispited. No court actually definitively determined that BP were the landowners. It was just asserted. Marconi stayed with our family at our farm when inventing radio. The councillors and parish at Llandough won’t even acknowledge this. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] But please do not let history be rewritten here. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There’s tens of counts of fraud and concealment from what I can gather. Which means the statute of limitation doesn’t apply in this instance. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I look forward to your reply, Regards, Sion Hywel Buckler

*To whom it may concern,* I am writing to formally report a long-standing and systemic case of what I suspect may be dispossession, fraudulent misrepresentation, and archaeological suppression concerning my family’s ancestral land, Great House Farm (historically Tŷ Mawr/Cedfin), Llandough. I am the descendant of the Williams/Buckler family, who held de facto possession [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] of this land from 1667 until our forced displacement in 1988. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] *The core of this report involves the following suspicions I have of concealment and fraud (see attached for my timeline and notes):* 1. *Archaeological Suppression:* In 1888, my family discovered a Roman soldier in full armor beneath the living room floorboards. This discovery provided “actual notice” of the site’s national significance a century before its demolition. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 2. *Fraudulent Misrepresentation in Planning:* During the 1987 planning process, the 13th-century fortified manor was described by developers as a “dilapidated utility building” or “ruined barn” to secure a demolition permit that would have otherwise been denied under heritage protection laws. 3. *Legal Identity Falsification:* In 1974, BP Pension Trust issued a “unilateral license” intended to bypass our possessory title. This correspondence was falsely addressed to “Mrs. Buckler” to bind my grandmother to her deceased husband’s name and legal status, despite her public rejection of their claim. She used her maiden name Williams and her husband Bucklers’ intent to accept license died with him. My nan also alledgedly didn’t expressly deny the offer and so accepted through her silence. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] And to have responded to license to Mrs Buckler would have been identify fraud as she was Mrs Williams. And she did in fact reject BPs license offer and advanced, countless times, but publically. I believe these objections were suppressed too. There’s allegedly news coverage from October 30th 1974 but I’m yet to find the evidence. But see attached a 1978 article I unearthed. My nan clearly maintains her position “It’s my home”. 4. You’ll also see in landmark legal case BP Vs Buckler 1987 the judge says that she might have responded to BP, but to BP Pension Trust, but the claimant was BP Properties Ltd which were two separate companies. But in my dads appeal when he challenges that BP Pension Trust Ltd should have been the claimant the same judge dismissed his appeal citing both BP companies are effectively the same. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 5. *Missing Evidence:* Critical title deeds and Bute Estate records from our families deal with Daniel Thomas, for title after quarrying completed, in exchange for our permission to quarry, also disappeared from the loft of our home and the Cardiff Library according to what members of my family have told me [wording updated at the author’s request, 19 Oct 2026], precisely when they were needed to support our ownership claim in the Court of Appeal. Regardless we should have still remained on grounds we’d been there since 1667, and failing that on grounds of adverse possession. 6. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The confirmation in 1994 of a high-status Roman villa and over 1,000 burials on the exact site of our demolished home proves that the “official narrative” used to evict us was predicated on the concealment of known facts. Under *Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980*, the limitation period for action does not begin until such fraud or concealment is discovered. As the heir to this possessory title, I am seeking a formal investigation into the institutional failures that permitted this dispossession and the destruction of a national monument. I have compiled my account and understanding of these events in timeline order and I’m prepared to provide further testimony and evidence. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I’m open to the fact my account and understanding may not be perfect. But if even a single other person or group looked into this too, even briefly, I’m sure you’ll agree there’s merrit to the concerns I’m raising with all of this. I look forward to your response regarding the appropriate next steps for investigation and restitution. I do ask for some small sense of urgency in that justice delayed is justice denied. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] My family never surrendered. Never relinquished claim to that land. We we’re in honour in that we weren’t there with force, stealth/ secrecy or license. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Sion Buckler

Dear Sion, Thank you for your email regarding Great House Farm, Llandough. However, I must inform you that much of the content in your correspondence falls outside the scope of Cadw’s work. In relation to the claim of ‘archaeological suppression’ involving the discovery of a Roman soldier in full armour in 1888, any such find would typically have been reported in the antiquarian press at either the national or local level. It is possible that records of this nature may be held by local museums. It is worth noting that the first Ancient Monuments Act was passed in 1882, focusing solely on bringing threatened ancient monuments into guardianship. The legal recognition of nationally important archaeology did not come about until the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act of 1913. Upon reviewing the Cof Cymru database, I found that there are no designated historic assets relevant to this topic. However, Archwilio contains two records that document the involvement of the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT): 1. Great House Farm HER site entry – GGAT03586s 2. Land at Great House Farm HER event entry – GGATE003872, which includes GGAT’s 1990 archaeological assessment report commissioned by BP Properties Ltd. Any advice or correspondence that Cadw may have provided should be preserved in the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (RCAHMW) National Monuments Record of Wales (NMRW). I recommend you contact the NMRW to access any relevant documents. Additionally, you may want to reach out to Heneb and the Vale of Glamorgan Local Planning Authority (LPA) to explore what records they might hold concerning this matter. Kind regards, Jenna Arnold ] Jenna Arnold Arolygiaeth yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol / Historic Environment Inspectorate [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

To whom it may concern, I am writing as the child of Branwen and William (“Billy”) Buckler regarding the destruction of Great House Farm, Llandough, and the long-running dispute surrounding BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987]. I have compiled a substantial historical archive, including newspaper reports, court references, testimony from family members [wording updated at the author’s request, 19 Oct 2026], archaeological material, estate history, and public records relating to Great House Farm (“Ty Mawr”), a site associated with medieval, monastic, and Roman occupation. The archive is currently being made into a website at: bpvsbuckler.datro.xyz The material raises serious unresolved questions regarding: • The treatment of us Williams/Buckler family’s longstanding occupation and asserted ownership claims. • The repeated use of possession proceedings without a full adjudication of superior title. • Missing or allegedly suppressed title documentation connected to Bute estate transfers and later transactions. • The demolition of an allegedly medieval structure during an active heritage controversy. • Whether the archaeological significance of the site was fully disclosed during planning and demolition processes. • The wider public interest and cultural significance of the site and its destruction. It’s looking to me like my family actually did obtain fee simple absolute and manorial title. Then it was stolen and attempts were made by the possessor of the stolen title, to make my family lessee’s / tenants as we were when we were on the virtual freehold (999 year lease) aquired in 1667. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Contemporaneous newspaper coverage from the 1970s and 1980s demonstrates that these concerns were publicly known at the time, including heritage objections, petitions, and public claims of ancestral ownership. I am requesting: 1. Review and preservation consideration of all surviving records connected to Great House Farm. 2. Clarification as to whether any formal heritage review or investigation into the demolition process was ever completed. 3. Guidance regarding access to archival and planning materials relevant to the site. 4. Consideration of whether this matter warrants renewed historical or heritage examination. I appreciate that some claims remain disputed or unproven, and I am not asking recipients to accept every allegation as established fact. However, I believe the totality of the historical material warrants serious review rather than dismissal. I would be grateful for acknowledgement of receipt and guidance on the appropriate next steps. Kind regards, Sion Buckler Esq. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

I have all my evidence. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] All I’m asking is you cooperate to find out what really happened in this case. I’m putting together the timeline and all evidence as I believe its in the public interest and I have reason to suspect fraud. More so I believe my family have the rightful superior claim and manorial title. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Fraud unravels all. And the limitation clock only begins from discovery not occurance of fraud. Which is this year. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Also consider this a freedom of information request. I require of CADW answers. Records. All you hold concerning my family and estate. Without further delay. Regards, Sion Buckler Esq. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] bpvsbuckler.datro.xyz [quoted text trimmed]

Good afternoon Mr Buckler, Thank you for your email of 17 May regarding Great House Farm, Llandough, and also for your email of 20 May. I have searched our electronic records relating to Great House Farm and Barn and I can confirm they were assessed and rejected for listing in the 1988 community survey of Llandough. I have attached two photos, dated 29 July 1988. The “YYY” marking on the rear of the photo indicates that the buildings were considered marginally below the bar for listing. We hold no other electronic records. I note the SW Echo report suggesting that Cadw inspectors would visit again in December 1988, but I can find no record (as-yet) of this. The one paper file we have located, dated 2002, makes no mention of Great House Farm. I have asked a colleague to search for other related paper files, including the Welsh Office files, and I will write to you again when I have the result of the search. This may take a couple of weeks, and I must advise that is quite likely that at least some of these files will have been destroyed, but I will seek to disclose any records we recover to you. In the meantime, would suggest contacting the following archives services, if you haven’t already done so, as they may hold relevant records or be able to offer further assistance – Glamorgan Archives<https://glamarchives.gov.uk/&gt; National Library of Wales<https://www.library.wales/catalogues-searching/about-our-collections/archives&gt; The Royal Commission on the Ancient & Historical Monuments of Wales<https://coflein.gov.uk/en/contact&gt;, including their Coflein<https://coflein.gov.uk/en/&gt; catalogue of historic buildings. These mapping services may also be of use to you: Tithe Maps of Wales<https://places.library.wales/&gt; (1840s) Historic Ordnance Survey Maps<[meeting link removed] (1820s-1960s) The following research guide may too also be of interest – Land ownership records and deeds: an overview – The National Archives<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/land-ownership-records-and-deeds-an-overview/&gt;. And finally for your records, you may wish to note this record about Great House Farm, held by the Royal Commission (Details | 20182 | Sites | Coflein<https://coflein.gov.uk/en/sites/20182&gt;), this Historic Environment Record (GGAT02038s<https://archwilio.org.uk/her/chi3/report/page.php?watprn=GGAT02038s&dbname=ggat&tbname=core&sessid=CHI4idg6jee&queryid=Q528087001779371396&gt;), and the attached Welsh Archaeological Trust report. Yours Sincerely, Mike Weatherhead Arweinydd Tîm Gwaith Achosion / Casework Team Leader Polisi a Gwarchod / Policy and Protection Arolygiaeth yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol / Historic Environment Inspectorate [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Thank you Mike, Very decent reply. [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Freedom of Information Officer, I am requesting information held by the Welsh Government and/or Cadw concerning Great House Farm (also known as Great House or Ty Mawr), Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan, prior to its demolition in 1988. I request copies of any recorded information held relating to: 1. Any consideration of the property for statutory listing. 2. Any listing assessments, surveys, inspections, recommendations or reports concerning the building. 3. Any correspondence between Cadw, Welsh Office officials, local authorities, conservation bodies, archaeological organisations or owners concerning the historic significance, preservation, demolition or protection of the property. 4. Any records explaining why the building was not added to the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. 5. Any records discussing the age, architectural significance, archaeological significance or surviving historic fabric of the building. 6. Any records concerning emergency listing, spot-listing, preservation notices or other forms of protection considered for the property. 7. Any records held relating to public campaigns, petitions or representations seeking preservation of the building. 8. Any photographs, plans, surveys or architectural records held by Cadw or the Welsh Government relating to Great House Farm. For the avoidance of doubt, I am seeking recorded information rather than an explanation or opinion created for the purpose of this request. If any of the requested information is held by another public authority, I would be grateful if you could advise which authority is likely to hold the records. I would prefer the information in electronic form. Yours faithfully, Sion Buckler Esq. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. Heir & Successors of Mary Williams, Great House Farm, Llandough

Freedom of Information Officer, I am requesting information held by the Welsh Government and/or Cadw concerning Great House Farm (also known as Great House or Ty Mawr), Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan, prior to its demolition in 1988. I request copies of any recorded information held relating to: 1. Any consideration of the property for statutory listing. 2. Any listing assessments, surveys, inspections, recommendations or reports concerning the building. 3. Any correspondence between Cadw, Welsh Office officials, local authorities, conservation bodies, archaeological organisations or owners concerning the historic significance, preservation, demolition or protection of the property. 4. Any records explaining why the building was not added to the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. 5. Any records discussing the age, architectural significance, archaeological significance or surviving historic fabric of the building. 6. Any records concerning emergency listing, spot-listing, preservation notices or other forms of protection considered for the property. 7. Any records held relating to public campaigns, petitions or representations seeking preservation of the building. 8. Any photographs, plans, surveys or architectural records held by Cadw or the Welsh Government relating to Great House Farm. For the avoidance of doubt, I am seeking recorded information rather than an explanation or opinion created for the purpose of this request. If any of the requested information is held by another public authority, I would be grateful if you could advise which authority is likely to hold the records. I would prefer the information in electronic form. Yours faithfully, Sion Buckler Esq. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. Heir & Successors of Mary Williams, Great House Farm, Llandough

[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] *[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] You are under a strict legal duty to preserve all physical and electronic records, metadata, correspondence, maps, and erased files relating to this site. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]* Dear Freedom of Information Officer, RE: Information Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 I am writing to request access to historical records, internal correspondence, planning briefs, and assessments held by your organization regarding Great House Farm, Llandough, near Penarth/Cardiff (demolished December 1988), and the historical occupancy of the Buckler family. Statutory Mandate on Accessibility & Charging Fees: I am aware that previous attempts to locate this data have resulted in directives to visit physical archives in person or use paywalled, commercial third-party web portals. Please be advised of the following statutory obligations: 1. Under EIR Regulation 8, fees cannot act as an unreasonable barrier or deterrent to access. Because my family was historically displaced from this site and I am executing this request remotely, forcing physical attendance or demanding payment constitutes an unlawful obstacle. 2. Public authorities are required to supply information in the format requested. I require all documents to be delivered digitally via email attachment or secure electronic download link, free of charge, as specified by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidelines for data already held electronically. Please provide all recorded information matching the following points: 1. Tenant/Ownership Identification and the 1880 Report – Any documents, archival notes, or registry indexes citing the William/ Buckler family line (who occupied and farmed the house across four generations). – Clarification on whether my family members were formally cited as the legal owners, long-term tenants, or registered reporters of the 1880 discovery under the dining room floor. – Any explicit records indicating gaps, deleted metadata, or missing volumes in your authority’s archive concerning the tenancy, land-dispute maps, or agricultural heritage of Great House Farm between 1950 and 1989. 2. Statutory Protection and Cadw’s Assessments – Given that the site’s extreme archaeological value (a 1st-to-4th-century Roman precursor villa and a massive early medieval monastic settlement) was verified by rescue operations as early as 1979, what are the recorded reasons why Cadw failed to place a statutory Schedule or Protection Order on the standing fabric of Great House Farm before its demolition? – All internal correspondence, risk assessments, or ministerial briefs evaluating the preservation value of the sub-medieval direct-entry farmhouse core before it was levelled. 3. Planning Approvals and Local Authority Governance – All minutes, planning committee files, and consultation responses from the local authority that granted planning permission and housing development rights on this specific acreage. – Direct information explaining how the council approved planning permission for a private housing development in light of the documented historical evidence surrounding the immediate parish boundary. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – Records showing exactly where and at what stage of the planning process this archaeological evidence should have been brought up but was not, which ultimately allowed developers and public bodies to claim they were unaware of the land’s deep significance until after the farmhouse was destroyed and housing development began. – Any environmental impact assessments, historic environment register (HER) lookups, or developer briefs filed between 1980 and 1990 regarding the footprint of Great House Farm. If any part of this request is refused under the guise of commercial sensitivity or archival limitations, you are required by law to state the exact statutory exemption applied and provide a formal internal review pathway. I expect your response within the statutory 20-working-day timeframe. Kind regards, *Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Mr Buckler, Great House Farm, Llandough Thank you for your request which I received on 1 June 2026. You asked for: 1. Any consideration of the property for statutory listing. 2. Any listing assessments, surveys, inspections, recommendations or reports concerning the building. 3. Any correspondence between Cadw, Welsh Office officials, local authorities, conservation bodies, archaeological organisations or owners concerning the historic significance, preservation, demolition or protection of the property. 4. Any records explaining why the building was not added to the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. 5. Any records discussing the age, architectural significance, archaeological significance or surviving historic fabric of the building. 6. Any records concerning emergency listing, spot-listing, preservation notices or other forms of protection considered for the property. 7. Any records held relating to public campaigns, petitions or representations seeking preservation of the building. 8. Any photographs, plans, surveys or architectural records held by Cadw or the Welsh Government relating to Great House Farm. You will receive a response by 25 June 2026. If you have any queries about this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future correspondence (ATISN 27021). The request you sent me contains personal information about you – for example, your name and address. The Welsh Government will be the data processor for this information and, in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation, it will be processed in order to fulfil our public task and meet our legal obligations under the Act to provide you with a response. We will only use this personal information to deal with your request and any matters which arise as a result of it. We will keep your personal information and all other information relating to your request for three years from the date on which your request is finally closed. Your personal information will then be disposed of securely. Under data protection legislation, you have the right: * to be informed of the personal data we hold about you and to access it * to require us to rectify inaccuracies in that data * to (in certain circumstances) object to or restrict processing * for (in certain circumstances) your data to be ‘erased’ * to (in certain circumstances) data portability * to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who is our independent regulator for data protection For further information about the information which the Welsh Government holds and its use, or if you wish to exercise your rights under the GDPR, please see contact details below: Data Protection Officer Welsh Government [address removed] The contact details for the Information Commissioner’s Office are: [address removed] Any information released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or Environmental Information Regulations 2004 will be listed in the Welsh Government’s Disclosure Log (at https://gov.wales/about/open-government/freedom-of-information/responses/?lang=en). Yours sincerely, Mike Weatherhead Arweinydd Tîm Gwaith Achosion / Casework Team Leader Polisi a Gwarchod / Policy and Protection Arolygiaeth yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol / Historic Environment Inspectorate [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Good morning Sion, My name is Mike Weatherhead. My details are at the end of the below email. Thanks -Mike [quoted text trimmed]

Hi Mike, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Thank you for your email and for confirming receipt and handling of ATISN 27021. For the avoidance of doubt, I would be grateful if searches include both digital and archived/historical records held by Cadw, the Welsh Government, and any predecessor bodies or contracted advisors. I look forward to your response by 25 June 2026. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Sir/Madam, Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and, where applicable, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, I request copies of records relating to Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough, near Cardiff. I am specifically seeking: 1. Planning applications, permissions, refusals, conditions, appeals, and related correspondence concerning the demolition of Great House Farm and subsequent residential development. 2. Any archaeological assessments, surveys, reports, briefs, watching briefs, excavation reports, or heritage impact assessments relating to the site. 3. Any correspondence between the Council, Cadw, BP Properties, BP, developers, archaeologists, the Royal Commission, or other public bodies concerning: – Great House Farm; – its historic significance; – archaeological discoveries; – listing or scheduling considerations; – demolition proposals. 4. Any records discussing reported Roman remains, medieval remains, monastic remains, burials, architectural fragments, or other archaeological features associated with the site. 5. Any records relating to emergency listing, spot-listing, preservation, or protection measures considered for Great House Farm during the 1980s. 6. Any committee minutes, officer reports, recommendations, or briefing papers relating to planning decisions affecting the site. If some records are held in archives or under a different authority, please advise where they may be located. I would prefer the information in electronic format. Yours faithfully, Sion Buckler [signature block trimmed]

Dear Cadw Team / Mr Michael Weatherhead / Listed Buildings Team, Thank you for your assistance to date with my enquiries regarding Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough, including the heritage assessment materials provided on 21 May 2026. This is a matter of profound personal and historic importance to the Williams/Buckler family descendants. Mary Williams maintained until her death in 1983 that the family held ownership of the house following arrangements with Daniel Thomas involving the quarry on the land, with the surrounding farmland subject to a lease that defaulted. The family had occupied the property for centuries, with strong local and press recognition of their longstanding connection. I attach a copy of a contemporary newspaper article from the *South Wales Echo* dated 3 December 1988 (“History fight to save farm” by Peter Bibby). It reports that officials from Cadw were actively considering an appeal to the Secretary of State for Wales to protect the farmhouse as a listed building. A Cadw spokeswoman is quoted on evaluating spot-listing and emergency procedures due to its historic significance (parts potentially dating to the 12th-13th century), with plans for an inspector’s site visit and discussion with the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments. This occurred amid the family’s legal battle and imminent demolition. In light of this clear evidence of Cadw’s involvement at the critical time, I would be most grateful for a thorough review and full disclosure of *all* held records, correspondence, assessments, site notes, photographs, internal memos, or communications relating to Great House Farm / Ty Mawr from the 1970s to 1990s. This includes any listing considerations, heritage evaluations, interactions with the Vale of Glamorgan Council, BP Properties, or the family, and details of any records transferred to other archives (such as RCAHMW or Glamorgan Archives). I appreciate Cadw’s focused remit on the historic environment and kindly request that searches extend across all relevant teams and archives to ensure nothing is overlooked. This would greatly assist our efforts to document and substantiate the family’s historic position in this sensitive matter. Thank you once again for your understanding and support. I look forward to your substantive response at the earliest opportunity, and remain available for any clarification that may assist. Kind regards, behalf of the Williams / Buckler family descendants)

Dear Mr Buckler, Thank you for your request which I received on 1 June 2026, and your follow-up request received on 8 June 2026. Please see attached response and documents. Thank you, Mike Weatherhead Arweinydd Tîm Gwaith Achosion / Casework Team Leader Polisi a Gwarchod / Policy and Protection Arolygiaeth yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol / Historic Environment Inspectorate [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Hi Mike, Appreciate the reply. I kindly request an internal review of the response provided under ATISN 27021. I am grateful for the release of the two inspection photographs dated 29 July 1988. However, I am not satisfied that the searches undertaken were sufficient to establish that no other relevant records are held or can be accounted for. The response states that Great House Farm was visited and assessed for listing by Cadw inspectors, but that the only surviving records are two photographs. It further states that any associated records may have been transferred to the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales or destroyed under the Public Records Act 1958. I respectfully submit that this conclusion appears difficult to reconcile with the contemporary evidence. Contemporary newspaper reports from December 1988 record that: Cadw was actively considering emergency listing (“spot-listing”) procedures in relation to Great House Farm; Cadw inspectors visited the site; Cadw assessed the architectural and archaeological significance of the property; Cadw communicated a decision that the building did not warrant statutory protection. These activities would ordinarily be expected to generate records such as inspection notes, recommendations, assessments, correspondence, memoranda, listing files, briefing notes, internal communications, or decision records. In addition, a surviving family witness who was present during the inspection recalls that a written assessment was produced and supplied to the family. The witness recalls that the assessment concluded that, although the site was old, the building had undergone substantial alteration over the centuries and was therefore not considered sufficiently significant for listing. This recollection appears broadly consistent with the reasoning attributed to Cadw in contemporary press reports. I therefore request clarification of the following: Were searches undertaken for inspection notes, site notes, assessment reports, recommendations, listing files, briefing papers, internal memoranda, correspondence, and decision records relating to Great House Farm? Were accession records, transfer schedules, disposal schedules, or archive catalogues searched to determine whether such records once existed? If records were transferred to RCAHMW, please identify any transfer references, accession numbers, file references, or other metadata recording that transfer. If records were destroyed, please identify the disposal authority, retention schedule, and date of destruction. If no written assessment, recommendation, report, or decision record ever existed, please explain how Cadw reached and communicated conclusions regarding the architectural and archaeological significance of the property. I am not seeking reconsideration of the 1988 listing decision itself. Rather, I seek clarification regarding the apparent absence of records relating to a matter that was publicly reported at the time as being under active consideration by Cadw and which resulted in a communicated decision. Thank you for undertaking an internal review. Yours faithfully, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler Many thanks for your email requesting an internal review of you EOI request, I will be the case officer dealing with the review, please see the attached acknowledgement letter with key dates. Any questions, please let me know and I will do my best to help. Kind Regards Amy [signature block trimmed]

Ms Longford, Thank you for the acknowledgement letter and for handling the internal review. For the record, my communications with Cadw have been enquiries and requests for information under FOI/EIR (ATISN 27021), specifically regarding the statutory listing history, assessments and related records (including the 1988 inspection photographs) for the building known as Great House Farm / Ty Mawr / Church View Close. I subsequently requested an internal review of the response provided. This was not framed or intended as a formal complaint. I would therefore be grateful if the matter could be treated and recorded as an information request and internal review under FOI/EIR, rather than as a complaint. My enquiries concern Cadw’s functions in relation to the listing and assessment of the building only. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler, Many thanks for the quick response and for confirming your position. I totally understand and whilst the letters may appear formal, there are set templates to use for a review, I will bear this in mind whilst taking this forward. Just to let you know, I have had initial conversations internally which I will continue. I will keep you updated as best as I can. Kind Regards Amy [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler Please see attached my review of your request noted ATISN 27021. Please let me know if you have any questions or queries. Kind Regards Amy Longford [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Ms Longford, Thank you for your letter of 2 July 2026 responding to the internal review of my Freedom of Information request (ATISN 27021) concerning Great House Farm, Llandough. I appreciate the additional searches undertaken during the review and the explanation provided regarding the physical record series examined. However, having considered both the original response of 11 June 2026 and the outcome of the internal review, I would be be grateful if you could clarify a number of points which appear to remain unresolved. *1. Documentary basis of the original response* The original response stated that Great House Farm was visited and assessed by Cadw inspectors and that the building did not satisfy the statutory listing criteria. The internal review now confirms that no assessment, report or case file relating to that decision has been located and further states that any relevant file may have been destroyed before being entered onto the electronic records system. Please therefore identify the documentary basis upon which the original response concluded that the property was assessed and found not to meet the listing criteria. Specifically: – Is that conclusion derived from a surviving record? – If so, please identify that record. – If not, please explain how that conclusion was reached. *2. The inspection of 29 July 1988* The original disclosure included two photographs dated 29 July 1988. Please confirm: – whether those photographs were taken as part of a formal listing inspection; – whether they formed part of a wider inspection file; – whether any inspection notes, recommendation forms, field notebooks, photographic registers or other associated records were created; and – if such records once existed, whether they are now believed to have been destroyed. *3. Basis for the statement that records may have been destroyed* The review states that it is possible documentation dating from around 1988 was destroyed before being entered onto the electronic records system. Please clarify whether that statement is based upon: – documentary evidence relating specifically to Great House Farm; – records management documentation such as retention schedules, destruction registers or disposal logs; or – a general understanding of historic records management practices. If no destruction records exist for the relevant file series, please confirm this. *4. Scope of the searches* Please confirm whether searches extended beyond the registered listing files to include, where appropriate: – ministerial correspondence; – senior officials’ correspondence; – legal files; – inspector’s working papers; – site visit records; – archaeological or conservation files; – policy records; and – correspondence with external organisations, including the Vale of Glamorgan Council, the former Welsh Office and other heritage bodies. If any of these categories were not searched, I would be grateful if you could identify which. *5. Welsh Government’s position* Finally, I would be appreciate clarification of the Welsh Government’s position regarding Great House Farm. Does the Welsh Government’s position now amount to one of the following: – that Great House Farm was never considered for statutory protection; – that it was considered, but the records no longer survive; or – that it is no longer possible to determine whether consideration took place because the relevant records are unavailable? If none of those accurately reflects your position, I would be grateful if you could explain what the Welsh Government’s position is. These questions arise directly from the original response and the internal review and are intended to clarify the historical record rather than seek the creation of new information. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler, Many thanks for the email. This is a courtesy response to say that I will review your questions below and aim to get a response back to you by the 17th July. Kind Regards Amy [quoted text trimmed]

👍🏻 [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler Many thanks for the below email and follow up questions, for clarity I have responded to each in turn. I hope this helps provide the clarity you are looking for. 1. Documentary basis of the original response The two photographs illustrate that the building was inspected for listing and ‘yyy’ reference on the reverse of the photograph was the coding at the time to signify that the building did not met the criteria to be listed. 1. The inspection of 29th July 1988 The photographs are dated 29/07/1988 and would have been taken as part of the listing assessment. The practice was to keep all photographs separate from the official file in a cabinet. No official file containing additional information has been located and the Records Department have indicated that the documentation from 1988 has, most likely, been destroyed. 1. Basis for the statement that records may have been destroyed. No destruction record exists. An official in the Records Department provided this advice based on their experience and understanding of the records within their management. 1. Scope of the searches I can confirm that the searches included all 8 categories 1. Welsh Government’s position. I can confirm that the building was considered for listing, however other than the 2 photographs provided, no other records survive. Kind Regards Amy [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Ms Longford, Thank you for your response and for the time taken to clarify Cadw’s current position regarding ATISN 27021. I note your confirmation that: Great House Farm was inspected for statutory listing on 29 July 1988; the two photographs formed part of that listing assessment; the “YYY” code on the reverse of the photographs indicated that the building did not meet the listing criteria; no official listing file has been located; and apart from the two photographs, no further records have been identified. I am grateful for those clarifications. As this request is being considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (and, where applicable, the Freedom of Information Act 2000), and bearing in mind the EIR’s presumption in favour of disclosure, I would be grateful for one further clarification regarding the scope of the searches undertaken. Contemporary newspaper reports from December 1988 indicate that Cadw was actively engaged with a number of parties during its consideration of Great House Farm. These reports refer to: Cadw considering emergency (“spot”) listing; discussions with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales; comments made by a Cadw spokesperson explaining why the building did not satisfy the listing criteria; and public statements regarding the architectural and archaeological significance of the site. Given those contemporary reports, could you please confirm whether the searches undertaken for ATISN 27021 specifically included records such as: internal memoranda; inspector-to-management correspondence; briefing notes; file notes and telephone notes; meeting records; press office files, media briefings or press releases; correspondence with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales; correspondence with the Welsh Office; correspondence with the local planning authority, conservation officers or other public bodies; ministerial submissions or briefing papers; and any other correspondence, whether internal or external, relating to the consideration of Great House Farm for statutory listing. The public interest in ensuring that all environmental information has been identified is considerable. Great House Farm was a site with a recorded history extending over approximately 800 years, associated with the historic manor of Llandough, incorporating significant historic fabric including the coach house and outbuildings, and lying within the wider context of the Marconi wireless experiments at Lavernock. It had also been the subject of a 1974 public petition concerning its preservation and, as confirmed by Cadw, was sufficiently significant in 1988 to warrant consideration for emergency (“spot”) listing. These factors underline the importance of establishing whether any additional environmental information relating to Cadw’s assessment survives. Finally, if the official listing file and/or any associated correspondence once existed but are no longer held, I would be grateful if you could clarify Cadw’s records management position by confirming: whether any retention schedule applied to those records; whether any authorised destruction took place; whether any destruction certificate, disposal log or other records management documentation exists; if no such documentation exists, whether this is because no destruction record was created or because any such record is itself no longer held. My intention is simply to establish whether any further environmental information relating to Cadw’s consideration of Great House Farm survives beyond the two inspection photographs already disclosed. Thank you again for your assistance, and I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [quoted text trimmed]

Ms Longford, Before responding to my earlier email, please may I add the following to my enquiry, even if you require addition time to respond due to this addition to my enquiry; In addition to my email of 2 July, there are a small number of further points which I would be grateful if you could address as they arise directly from comparing the original response with the internal review. The original response of 11 June 2026 stated: “Any other associated records would have been either transferred to the Royal Commission on the Ancient & Historical Monuments of Wales for permanent preservation, or destroyed under the Public Record Act 1958.” However, the internal review of 2 July 2026 states instead that: “There is also no evidence that any relevant files have been transferred to the RCAHMW.” and “It is possible that the file was destroyed before it was ever updated on our electronic filing system.” These appear to be materially different positions. Accordingly, I would be grateful if you could clarify the following: 1. What evidence supported the original statement that any associated records would have been transferred to the RCAHMW or destroyed under the Public Records Act 1958? 2. Following the internal review, does Welsh Government now accept that there is no evidence that any relevant records were transferred to the RCAHMW? 3. Does Welsh Government hold any transfer lists, accession records, archive schedules or other documentation recording whether records relating to Great House Farm were ever transferred to the RCAHMW? 4. If no such documentation exists, on what evidential basis was the original statement regarding transfer to the RCAHMW made? 5. Likewise, if there is no destruction register, disposal log or audit trail relating to the relevant file, on what evidential basis has destruction been suggested? Finally, the original response stated as fact that Great House Farm was visited by Cadw inspectors and did not meet the statutory listing criteria. The internal review, however, confirms that no assessment, report or case file has been located. Could you therefore identify the documentary evidence upon which that conclusion was based, or alternatively confirm whether the statement in the original response was an inference drawn from the existence of the two photographs rather than from any surviving assessment records. These points are intended simply to clarify the historical record and to reconcile what appear to be two materially different explanations contained within the original response and the internal review. Thank you again for your assistance, and I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler Many thanks for your email, apologies for the delay in responding I have been on annual leave. To answer your queries I must refer you back to my previous emails of the 10th 3rd and 2nd July. I appreciate your concerns and desires to find the information. However, I can confirm that all records were checked for the information you requested and we hold no further information or a record of the destruction. Cadw’s inspector advised, based on his experience, that he understood the practice was to either transfer records to the RCAHMW or destroy them under the Public Records Act 1958. We have no record of any transfer lists, accession records, archive schedules or other documentation recording whether records relating to Great House Farm were ever transferred to the RCAHMW. The photograph provides the only documentary evidence that Great House Farm was visited by Cadw and did not meet the criteria as it was not included on the list. To be clear, we do not have any further information which would help with your search for the relevant information. If you remain dissatisfied with this response you have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: [address removed] Kind Regards Amy [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Ms Longford, Thank you for your email. I note your confirmation that Cadw holds no transfer lists, accession records, archive schedules or other documentation recording whether records relating to Great House Farm were transferred to the RCAHMW, and that Cadw also holds no record of their destruction. I also note that the suggestion that records may have been transferred or destroyed is based upon an inspector’s understanding of historic practice rather than documentary evidence relating to this case. However, there remain a small number of points on which I would be grateful for clarification. 1. The original response of 11 June stated that associated records “would have been either transferred to the RCAHMW or destroyed under the Public Records Act 1958”. As no transfer or destruction documentation has been identified, on what evidential basis was that statement made? 2. Does the Welsh Government now accept that it holds no documentary evidence that any records relating to Great House Farm were transferred to the RCAHMW? 3. Contemporary press reports concerning the proposed protection of Great House Farm referred to consultation with other departments and bodies before a decision was reached. During this correspondence I therefore asked whether searches extended to correspondence with other departments, external bodies and related records. Although you have confirmed wider searches were undertaken, no such records have been identified. Could you therefore confirm whether the Welsh Government’s position is that it holds no surviving correspondence, memoranda, consultation records or other documents relating to any such consultations concerning Great House Farm? 4. Is the Welsh Government’s position therefore that, apart from the two photographs dated 29 July 1988, no inspection report, recommendation, consultation correspondence, assessment, case file or associated documentation relating to the 1988 consideration of Great House Farm survives? These questions are intended solely to clarify the historical record and to reconcile the original response with the findings of the internal review. Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to your reply. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [quoted text trimmed]

Sirs/Ma’ams, I write on behalf of my household; the Williams / Buckler Family of what once was Great House in Llandough, Cardiff. I formally submit the attached forensic review dated 9 August 2026 concerning Cadw’s 1988 assessment of Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough, the subsequent demolition, and the near-total absence of contemporary decision records confirmed in ATISN 27021. The report sets out the surviving documentary evidence, the compressed emergency process of December 1988, the independent professional record (including the H.J. Thomas RCAHMW survey and post-demolition notes), and twenty specific questions arising from Cadw’s own disclosures. It does not assert criminal wrongdoing; it identifies material evidential gaps and requests administrative accountability. I respectfully request that the addressed bodies: Provide a full account of the 1988 processes, answering the questions in Section 8 of the report so far as records and institutional knowledge permit. Confirm whether the H.J. Thomas RCAHMW survey was held, accessed or considered. Issue a public statement acknowledging the record-keeping gap for an irreversible heritage decision. Consider formal administrative acknowledgement of process deficiencies and appropriate annotation of the National Heritage List / Coflein / HER entries. Preserve and accession remaining material, including the two July 1988 photographs. I ask Vale of Glamorgan Council to disclose any surviving records relating to Building Preservation Notice consideration in November–December 1988, and RCAHMW / HER custodians to update the relevant entries to reflect the independent professional evidence and the missing Cadw assessment record. I look forward to your substantive response within a reasonable timeframe. Please cooperate in this matter. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Having already taken it to ECHR all avenues for recourse appeared to have expired. That was until I discovered, what I believe to be, fraud and consealment. Which is why I am calling for this case to be reopened, revisted and investigated by local authorities as a matter of public interest. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I seek in good faith to remedy this entire matter so that it can be put behind us all. And so that the account of what happened at that location, is accurate and no longer remains so inaccuracte, fragmented and concealsed. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Sirs/Ma’ams, I write further to my email of 9 August 2026 submitting a review concerning Cadw’s 1988 assessment of Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough. Please find attached (and linked below) a revised edition of the report, dated 10 August 2026. This version has been carefully restructured to present the same evidence in a more measured and administratively focused form. It is offered as a request for historical record correction, archival explanation, and administrative acknowledgement rather than as a forensic challenge. The revised document: • Clearly states what it is and is not; • Sets out the surviving independent evidence (principally the H.J. Thomas RCAHMW survey of 1974); • Notes the near-total absence of Cadw’s 1988 working papers confirmed in ATISN 27021; • Asks only for realistic, achievable administrative steps: explanation of the archival position, reflection of the surviving evidence in the Historic Environment Record, acknowledgement of the records gap, and consideration of a local heritage marker. It does not claim unlawfulness, seek compensation from Cadw, or demand a public inquiry. I hope this revised presentation is more palatable and will assist the relevant bodies in providing a constructive response. I look forward to your substantive response. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler, Thank you for the email, we shall use this revised report (10th August 26) instead of the previous version. I am just checking with colleagues and will collate a response. However, given annual leave (including my own) a response may have a slight delay. On my return to work, I will endeavour to respond by Friday 28th August. Kind Regards Amy Longford [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler Thank you for your latest correspondence dated 10th August in relation to your initial freedom of Information request (ATISN 27021) submitted in June 2026, which has been escalated to me for response. As stated by my colleagues, I can confirm that all records we hold have been released to you. We do not hold any further records relating to the content or disposal of the historic records you have requested. To confirm, colleagues in the records office have clarified the historic retention position to the best of their knowledge. Given that the issue relates to an historic record retention policy, and that no records regarding this are available, it is not possible to say exactly what CADW’s retention arrangements were over 38 years ago. However, based on their knowledge of the systems in place at the time, current colleagues have advised that it is likely that records of unsuccessful listings were only retained for a short period, usually about 3 years. This has since changed and current retention policy in relation to unsuccessful listings is to retain the files indefinitely, reviewed every 5 years. In relation to your question ‘Did Cadw’s 1988 assessment of Great House Farm fully account for the independent professional evidence then available- particularly the H.J. Thomas RCAHMW survey of 1974- and if not why not?’. As stated, all of the records we hold have been released to you under the FOI and are now a public record. As the release consists of only two photographs we are unable to determine whether or not the 1974 survey was taken into account at the time. In relation to question A, please see our previous emails of 2nd, 3rd, 10th and 29th July, together with the above explanation of the historic and current retention policies. In relation to question B, content of the HER is managed by Heneb. Please contact http://www.heneb.org.uk&lt;http://www.heneb.org.uk/&gt; in relation to adding information to the HER. In relation to question C, please refer to the FOI response provided on the 11th June 2026 which is a matter of public record and confirms Cadw’s position. In relation to question D, noted above. In relation to question E, Cadw are unable to require or facilitate the installation of a heritage marker at the site. Yours sincerely, Andy Wigley ] Dr Andy Wigley [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Dr Wigley, Thank you for your response and for the further clarification concerning the surviving Cadw records and the historic retention arrangements. Having considered your response alongside the evidence set out in my report of 10 August, I think it is important to distinguish between two quite separate propositions: 1. *Cadw has released all records concerning the 1988 assessment which it can now locate*; and 2. *the surviving records establish the evidential and administrative basis upon which the December 1988 decision was made.* Your response appears to establish the first, but not the second. That distinction is important because the surviving evidence is exceptionally limited: two photographs. The absence of the underlying assessment papers means that a number of historically significant questions cannot now be answered from Cadw’s records. I am therefore asking for clarification of the position rather than asking Cadw to recreate records which no longer exist. 1. What the surviving record establishes Could Cadw please confirm whether the following is an accurate description of the present evidential position: *Cadw’s surviving records do not establish the evidential or administrative basis of the December 1988 decision not to list Great House Farm. In particular, the surviving records do not establish what evidence was considered by the inspector or decision-maker, whether the H.J. Thomas RCAHMW survey of 26 April 1974 was considered, whether the relevant SMR/GGAT archaeological material was considered, what inspection findings were recorded in December 1988, or whether any internal recommendation or consultation took place.* If that is correct, I would be grateful if Cadw would confirm it expressly. I am not suggesting that the absence of records proves that those matters did not occur. Equally, however, the absence of records means that Cadw cannot now establish that they did occur. That is the central evidential limitation created by the loss of the 1988 working papers. 2. The 1974 H.J. Thomas RCAHMW survey Your response says: “we are unable to determine whether or not the 1974 survey was taken into account at the time.” That is a particularly important clarification. The RCAHMW survey was not a document subsequently created in response to the dispute. It was a professional survey undertaken on 26 April 1974 and recorded architectural features including the late-17th-century construction, Type A sub-medieval cross-passage plan, substantial timber framing and the barrel-vaulted cellar. I therefore ask Cadw to confirm simply: *Cadw cannot now establish from its surviving records whether the inspector or decision-maker responsible for the December 1988 assessment had considered the H.J. Thomas survey before concluding that Great House Farm was “not of sufficient architectural merit”.* If that is Cadw’s position, I will record it as such. 3. The archaeological evidence The same issue appears to arise in relation to the archaeological assessment. My report identifies evidence predating December 1988 concerning Roman, Iron Age and medieval activity at the site, including the recorded SMR material and the 1978–80 archaeological investigations. I appreciate that the later 1994 excavation cannot simply be projected backwards and treated as evidence which Cadw necessarily possessed in 1988. The relevant question is narrower: *Can Cadw now establish, from any surviving record, what archaeological information was actually considered when the December 1988 conclusion was reached that the site was “not of sufficient archaeological interest”?* If it cannot, please confirm that this cannot now be established. This would avoid conflating the later archaeological discoveries with the separate question of what information was available to Cadw in 1988. 4. The July “YYY” coding There remains an important unresolved point concerning the July 1988 photographs. Cadw has previously explained that the “YYY” coding indicated that the building did not meet the listing criteria. The photographs were taken on 29 July 1988. The contemporary press report of 3 December 1988, however, records Cadw as saying that it was then “considering” asking the Secretary of State to protect Great House Farm as a listed building and that an inspector would visit that weekend. I appreciate that the records necessary to resolve this may no longer exist. Nevertheless, could Cadw confirm whether it can establish: – what “YYY” specifically represented within the July 1988 process; – whether it was a final assessment or provisional coding; – whether it was applied by the July inspector; – whether the July assessment was subsequently reviewed in December; and – whether the December inspector had access to the July photographs or any associated assessment. If none of these matters can now be established, I would be grateful for that to be confirmed rather than inferred. 5. Identity of the December decision-maker One further factual gap remains. Can Cadw establish the identity of: – the inspector who undertook the December 1988 inspection; and – the person who made or authorised the decision communicated on 5 December 1988 that Great House Farm was not of sufficient architectural merit and archaeological interest? If the relevant individual(s) cannot now be identified from surviving records, please confirm that. This is not a request for personal information beyond what would ordinarily form part of the historical administrative record. It is simply an attempt to establish whether the decision itself can still be attributed to an identifiable office-holder. 6. The retention explanation I also wish to clarify an important qualification in your latest response. You state that current colleagues have advised that, based on their knowledge of the systems then in place, unsuccessful listing files were *”likely”* to have been retained for approximately three years. I understand that this is necessarily a reconstruction of historic practice because the relevant records no longer exist. Could you therefore confirm whether Cadw has located: – a 1980s retention schedule; – a disposal or destruction policy applicable to the relevant records; – a disposal schedule; – a destruction certificate or log; – a transfer/accession record to RCAHMW or another repository; or – any other contemporaneous record showing what happened to the Great House Farm material. If none has been located, I would be grateful if Cadw could state expressly that *the approximately three-year retention period is an account of the general historic practice as presently understood by current staff, and not documentary evidence establishing that the Great House Farm records were actually destroyed after three years.* That is an important distinction for the historical record. 7. What I am seeking from Cadw I am not asking Cadw to speculate about matters for which the documentary evidence has disappeared. Indeed, the purpose of my report was deliberately to separate: *what is established; what is a reasonable inference; and what can no longer be verified because the records do not survive.* Your latest response is helpful in establishing the third category. I would therefore be grateful if Cadw could confirm, insofar as its records permit, the following concise position: *The surviving Cadw records relating to the December 1988 Great House Farm assessment consist of two photographs. Cadw cannot now establish from surviving records the detailed evidential or administrative basis of the decision, including whether the 1974 H.J. Thomas RCAHMW survey or relevant archaeological records were considered. Cadw has not located records establishing the disposal or transfer of the missing assessment material, and the approximately three-year retention period represents the best present understanding of historic practice rather than documentary evidence concerning the disposal of this particular file.* If that accurately reflects Cadw’s position, I would regard that clarification as extremely useful. 8. Historical record and next steps I will separately approach Heneb concerning the Historic Environment Record, as you have advised, and will pursue the question of any appropriate heritage interpretation or marker with the relevant local authority. I also appreciate your clarification that Cadw cannot require or facilitate installation of a marker. My purpose in continuing this correspondence is therefore narrower than seeking to reopen the FOI request. I am seeking to ensure that the historical record does not inadvertently suggest that the absence of surviving records means that the basis of the 1988 decision has been established. On the evidence presently available, the more accurate position appears to be that *the decision is documented, but its underlying evidential and administrative reasoning is no longer recoverable from Cadw’s surviving records.* That is a significant historical finding in its own right. Thank you again for your assistance. I would be grateful for confirmation of the above points, particularly the status of the 1974 survey, the July “YYY” coding, the identity of the December decision-maker, and the evidential basis (if any) for the disposal of the missing records. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dr Wigley, One further point has arisen from my continuing examination of the archival material which I would like to place on the record before you respond to my previous correspondence. I was recently directed to material held at Glamorgan Archives to *Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT) planning papers concerning Great House Farm*. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The references state that the property had previously been described as a *“county treasure”* and that this was recorded in GGAT documentation in connection with the development process. I am presently tracing the underlying GGAT document so that I can establish its precise file reference, author and date before relying upon the wording as a primary citation. I therefore do *not* ask Cadw to accept the “county treasure” description as an established fact at this stage. The significance of the material is instead that it identifies another potentially important body of *professional archaeological documentation concerning Great House Farm which appears to pre-date, or be contemporaneous with, the demolition and development process*. This is relevant to the question I raised in my previous email: *Can Cadw establish from its surviving records what pre-existing archaeological information concerning Great House Farm was actually considered in reaching the December 1988 conclusion that the site was “not of sufficient archaeological interest”?* I appreciate that Cadw may now be unable to answer that question. If so, that inability should be distinguished from evidence that the information was not available or was not considered. I also wish to make one clarification concerning the additional Llandough material I mentioned previously. I am *not* seeking to bring the architectural or listing status of St Dochdwy’s Church within the scope of my Great House Farm enquiry. The church is relevant only insofar as the archaeological evidence concerning the wider Llandough site may assist in understanding the archaeological context in which Great House Farm was assessed. The focus remains exclusively on *Great House Farm and the December 1988 spot-listing decision concerning that building*. The evidential position I am attempting to establish is therefore increasingly precise: 1. What professional architectural and archaeological evidence concerning Great House Farm existed before December 1988? 2. What of that evidence can Cadw establish was considered by the 1988 inspector or decision-maker? 3. Where Cadw cannot establish this because the assessment records no longer survive, can that evidential limitation be expressly acknowledged? I will continue separately with Glamorgan Archives/Heneb to identify the underlying GGAT “county treasure” reference and will provide the precise citation once established. Please treat this email as a further supplementary note to my existing submission rather than as a new FOI request. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Sirs/Ma’am, Further to my last two emails this week, and in response to yours, which is appreciated, please see the attached documents. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] While CADW may ultimately have played what could appear to be a relatively small part in the wider circumstances surrounding my family’s dispossession of our home and land, I want that part to be fully understood, accurately recorded and, where necessary, properly scrutinised. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am not approaching this simply to apportion blame[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. I am trying to establish, as honestly and completely as I can, what happened, what was known at the time, what was recorded, what decisions were made, and whether proper care was exercised when it mattered. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. This may ultimately develop into a formal complaint, and if it does, CADW will of course be given a fair opportunity to respond to the concerns we identify. At this stage, however, I am trying to understand the full scope of what happened before reaching those conclusions. As my research continues, I may also be in a position to provide CADW with records concerning your own involvement which may not presently be readily apparent from your current records or understanding of the matter. I hope that, if that happens, they will be received in the same spirit in which I am providing them: to establish the historical truth. In the much wider context of my family’s grievances concerning BP and the local authorities, and the eventual destruction of what had been described as a “county treasure”, CADW may prove to be only a small part of the overall story. Nevertheless, I have also attached a draft Chancery Court application so that you can see the wider context of our grievance and understand where CADW’s involvement sits within it. I believe that context is important. For 38 years, my family has lived with the consequences of what happened in 1988. We were portrayed publicly as little more than “squatters being evicted”[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] It was, in fact, the first time we had been off our land — land which we may even still own — since the 16th century, having acquired the estate in 1667. It remains a theory, but it is possible that an alternate, untold story is yet to be told, including that Llandough was once called Cedwyn Estate, and that the 1,000-year freehold for it, with 640 years left on that agreement, passed from Sir Herbert of Swansea to the Vaughan family and onto us, not Bute. Given that we occupied the manorial house for so many centuries, it is entirely plausible that we are the rightful holders of the freehold — and that the heirlooms Bute purchased from the last heirs of the Vaughan family did not actually include Cedwyn Estate. He nevertheless acted as though he did, dividing the land parcels. Developing his houses and the town etc. And I note things like the 1824 David Stewart survey in which our estate, being reduced to a home on the parcel it occupied, was recorded as Great House alias “Cedfin”. Elsewhere Ked fin. And other variations. The same method used in 1974 with BP’s licence letters was also used in 1955 (rendering our owner/occupier status merely permissive), and this may have occurred on multiple other land parcels prior to this [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. The council also absorbed our “playing fields” and so forth: a sort of eminent domain without our family receiving proper reparations (except once, in 1878). [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Despite that injunction, the house was ultimately destroyed and our possessions removed, including all our furniture, which came from Cardiff Castle, £30,000 of goods, a stone Roman-villa-type pillar, and so forth. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] his ECHR claim was rejected, and his appeal of the 1987 ruling was dismissed — on the grounds that BP’s companies were treated as one and the same. Yet in the ruling itself, BP’s companies were considered separately, meaning our challenge to one would not have affected the other. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The same judge also went out of his way to say my nan “conceived the notion she owned” and said the unajudicated ownership dispute, set aside to award BP possession of our land, was final. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] In 1974 the ownership hearing was ajourned. Ownership to this day has never been properly adjudicated. For us, this was not simply a “squatters being evicted” case, as was falsely reported in the news. It was the loss of our family home since 1667, and the forceful and prolonged seperation and severing of our connection to that land, which our family had maintained for generations and owned, and still appear to own in spite of who awarded themselves possession of it or occupy it — and perhaps not just the parcel we were on, but half the town of Llandough, by birthright. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] All the while the occupiers operate from defective title. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I therefore hope that CADW will understand why I am asking you to approach this matter with some care and humanity, as well as with the proper historical and professional scrutiny that it deserves. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Application of Property Law, did in this case, result in an inhumane outcome in my estimation. It may need to be petitioned to be rectified. I am not asking CADW to accept my conclusions simply because I have reached them. I am asking you to look at the evidence, to consider what your own records show, and to be willing to acknowledge anything that may have been overlooked, misunderstood, or inadequately dealt with at the time. If mistakes were made, I would much rather see them acknowledged and properly understood than defended simply because they are now part of an institutional record. I trust you will now appreciate the importance, significance and magnitude of this matter for my family. I will continue to provide the material I uncover, and I sincerely hope that CADW will continue to give it the proper care and attention it deserves. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Good evening Sion,Thank you for contacting Cadw. I have passed your information on to the relevant team, who will be in touch.Kind regards,Sara [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler, Thank you for your further emails of 27, 28 and 29 August. I am sending this email as a single reply to all three of these emails. I appreciate the importance of this issue to you and your family, and we have therefore provided all the records that we hold regarding the 1988 listing decision to assist with your research. However, we have now provided all the information that we hold, which taken together with our previous emails, I consider to be self-explanatory. There is nothing further that I can add to our previous replies, and it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on the events around the listing assessment without our own contemporary evidence being available to me to substantiate precisely what occurred. I am sorry that this final reply could not be more helpful to you. If you remain dissatisfied with the way Cadw has dealt with this matter following this email please find a link to the WG Complaints process How to make a complaint about Welsh Government [HTML] | GOV.WALES<https://www.gov.wales/how-make-complaint-about-welsh-government-html&gt; Yours sincerely, Andy Wigley ] Dr Andy Wigley [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Thank you Andy, Regards, Sion [quoted text trimmed]

Mr Wigley, I am writing to make a *formal complaint to Cadw* concerning the handling and substantive response to my correspondence regarding Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough, and particularly Cadw’s 1988 consideration of whether the building should be protected by listing. I am making this complaint directly to Cadw at this stage because I consider that Cadw should be given a proper opportunity to review and address the matters before any escalation to the wider Welsh Government complaints process. For the avoidance of doubt, I am *not making a further Freedom of Information request* and I am not simply asking Cadw to produce records which it has already said no longer exist. I accept that Cadw has stated that all records it currently holds concerning the 1988 listing decision have been released. My complaint concerns what can properly be established from the surviving evidence, whether the responses I have received have adequately addressed that evidence, and whether the historical record can now be described accurately where the underlying file has been lost. 1. The newly identified 1982 evidence I have now identified a 1 October 1982 consultation letter from the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust concerning the East Vale Local Plan and the proposed Ty Maw Farm site, identified as *H2.1*. The letter states: “Ty Maw Farm (H2.1) is designated as a three-acre residential site. As you will see from the enclosed information the settlement at Llandough developed considerably from farming and fishing… Recent excavations at Llandough by the Trust revealed early occupation, part of the villa and medieval grange buildings. There remains a possibility that occupation continues to the north of the church; provision should be made, therefore, for thorough investigative work prior to the development.” I do not suggest that this document, by itself, establishes that the standing farmhouse was required to be listed. Its significance is narrower and more demonstrable: *six years before the 1988 demolition, the archaeological and planning system already contained site-specific information identifying Ty Maw Farm as a proposed development site and recording substantial archaeological sensitivity in the immediate Llandough area, including possible continued occupation north of the church.* That materially affects the historical context in which Cadw’s 1988 assessment needs to be understood. I therefore ask Cadw to address: 1. Whether this 1982 information was held by, available to, or capable of being obtained by Cadw in the period leading to the 1988 decision. 2. Whether Cadw has any surviving evidence showing what archaeological, planning or historic-building information was available to the inspectors or decision-makers in 1988. 3. Whether there was communication between Cadw and the relevant planning/archaeological authorities concerning the proposed development of Ty Maw Farm and the need for investigation or protection. 4. If it is no longer possible to establish whether this evidence was actually considered, whether Cadw will expressly acknowledge that uncertainty rather than treating the absence of the historic file as evidence that the relevant information was absent. 2. The 1974 RCAHMW survey I have previously drawn Cadw’s attention to the 26 April 1974 Royal Commission survey by H.J. Thomas at ST16817331. That survey recorded Great House Farm as a historic building, including features such as the late seventeenth-century character of the house, its cross-passage arrangement, adze-worked beams, ogee stops and barrel-vaulted cellar. Cadw has stated that only two photographs from its relevant historic material survive and that it cannot now establish whether the 1974 survey was taken into account in the 1988 listing consideration. I accept that this may now be incapable of being proved from the surviving file. However, there is an important distinction between: *“Cadw cannot now establish whether the information was considered”* and *“there is no evidence that the information was available or relevant.”* The surviving RCAHMW material demonstrates that professional historic-building recording existed well before the 1988 decision. I therefore ask Cadw to address specifically whether that material was available to Cadw through the inter-agency heritage system at the time and, if so, what can now be established about its availability. 3. Cadw’s own evidence that listing was actively being considered in 1988 The surviving contemporary material indicates that in December 1988 Cadw was actively considering emergency protection/spot-listing of Great House Farm, including inspection and consultation concerning the building’s historic significance. That is important because it demonstrates that this was not retrospectively invented as a heritage issue decades later. Cadw itself was considering protection immediately before the building was demolished. Cadw’s present position is that the historical listing file no longer survives and that its retention arrangements at the time cannot now be established with certainty. I am not asking Cadw to speculate about what a destroyed file contained. I am asking Cadw to distinguish clearly between: – what the surviving evidence positively establishes; – what information was demonstrably available by 1988; – what actions by Cadw in 1988 can still be established; – what cannot now be established because the historic record has been lost; and – any conclusions Cadw considers cannot responsibly be drawn. That distinction is particularly important when assessing whether the surviving record provides a sufficiently reliable account of what happened. 4. The planning authority and temporary protection I also wish to clarify the position concerning temporary protection. I am not suggesting that Cadw itself necessarily possessed the statutory power to serve a Building Preservation Notice. I understand that such protection was a matter for the relevant local planning authority under the legislation then in force. The question for Cadw is therefore whether, during the 1988 consideration, *Cadw advised, discussed or communicated with the relevant planning authority concerning any available temporary protection mechanism or the need to prevent demolition pending consideration of listing.* If Cadw cannot establish what was discussed because the records no longer survive, that should be stated expressly. 5. The later description of Great House Farm as “a listed building” I have also identified later archaeological/planning documentation in which the former site is described in terms including: “The site formerly contained Great House Farm (a listed building).” I am not asserting that this wording conclusively proves that Great House Farm was formally listed at that time. I am asking Cadw to explain, insofar as the surviving evidence permits, whether there is any known provenance for that description and whether Cadw considers it accurate, erroneous, or simply impossible now to determine. This is relevant because it illustrates the existence of potentially conflicting historical accounts concerning the building’s protection status. 6. The significance of the loss of the 1988 record Cadw has understandably stated that the historic file cannot now be produced. However, the loss of that file creates a historical evidential limitation; it should not automatically resolve questions arising from the surviving evidence in Cadw’s favour. The appropriate conclusion may simply be that some aspects of the 1988 decision *cannot now be reconstructed with certainty*. I would therefore like Cadw to consider whether its previous responses have drawn that distinction sufficiently clearly. 7. What I am asking Cadw to do I am asking Cadw to treat this as a formal complaint and provide a substantive response addressing the following: *A.* Whether the newly identified 1982 GGAT evidence materially changes Cadw’s understanding of the information environment surrounding Ty Maw Farm before the 1988 demolition. *B.* Whether Cadw can establish that the 1974 RCAHMW survey was available to it in 1988. *C.* Whether Cadw can establish what archaeological, planning and historic-building information was available to its officers when the building was being considered for protection. *D.* What can now be established about Cadw’s communications with the local planning authority and other heritage bodies during the 1988 listing consideration. *E.* Whether temporary protection was discussed or advised upon and, if not capable of being established, whether Cadw will state that plainly. *F.* What can be established about the inspection of Great House Farm and the ultimate listing decision. *G.* Whether Cadw accepts that the loss of the historic file means that some aspects of the 1988 decision can no longer be reconstructed reliably. *H.* Whether Cadw considers the surviving documentary evidence, including the 1974 survey and 1982 archaeological/planning evidence, should be reflected in any relevant contemporary heritage record or historical account. *I.* Whether Cadw can explain the provenance, insofar as it is capable of doing so, of the later description of the former site as containing “a listed building.” *J.* Whether Cadw considers that its previous responses have adequately distinguished between the absence of surviving evidence and evidence that something did not happen. 8. Scope of this complaint I want to be clear that I am not asking Cadw to determine my family’s wider property or title claims, nor am I asking Cadw to reach a predetermined conclusion about the historical ownership of the land. Those matters are separate. This complaint is confined to *Cadw’s own heritage-related role, the 1988 protection/listing process, the information that can now be established as having existed, and the adequacy and accuracy of Cadw’s present explanation of that history.* I am also not asking Cadw to speculate about missing documents. On the contrary, I ask that the absence of those documents be treated as an evidential limitation and expressly identified as such. 9. Requested outcome I would like Cadw to: 1. Register this as a formal complaint and provide a complaint reference. 2. Have the matter reviewed by an appropriate person who has not simply repeated the previous FOI position. 3. Provide a point-by-point response to the matters above, taking account of the newly identified 1982 evidence. 4. Correct or clarify any part of Cadw’s previous correspondence that is found to have been incomplete, inaccurate or insufficiently qualified. 5. State clearly which matters can now be established, which cannot, and which remain uncertain because the historical records no longer survive. I regard that as a proportionate and reasonable opportunity for Cadw to address the matter directly before I consider whether escalation through the Welsh Government complaints process is necessary. Yours sincerely, *Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Hi Sion Thank you for your email.We have forwarded your complaint to our complaints manager.Kind regardsColin. [quoted text trimmed]

Wigley, I sent you the formal complaint below on 17 September 2026. I have since established that it never reached you. recorded “message blocked… the address couldn’t be found or is unable to domain having been decommissioned. The only addresses that accepted it were [removed] and [removed]. The latter is Cadw’s visitor-services contact centre operated by Transport for Wales, which replied on 18 September under reference #628635887 to say it had been passed to their complaints manager. That is plainly not the right destination for a complaint about a 1988 listing assessment, and I do not want it pursued there. I would be grateful if that reference could be closed. I should add that [removed] has now rejected correspondence from me on three separate occasions — 23 January, 29 August and 17 September 2026. If that address is still published anywhere as a contact point for Cadw, it may be worth someone looking at. I am therefore re-serving the complaint on you directly, unchanged. The text below is exactly as sent on 17 September. Please treat it as received today, and please let me have a complaint reference. Two points of clarification, so that nothing is misread. First, this is not a further Freedom of Information request. I accept your email of 4 September, in which you confirmed that Cadw has released all the records it holds concerning the 1988 listing decision, and I am not asking you to produce documents you have already said no longer survive. I am conscious that I have made requests to Cadw and to the Welsh Government Information Rights Unit since May of this year and that they have been answered. My complaint is not that records are being withheld. It is about what can properly be established from the evidence that does survive, and about whether Cadw’s account distinguishes clearly enough between “we cannot now establish this” and “this did not happen.” Second, I am treating this as stage one of the Welsh Government complaints process, not stage two. You directed me to that process on 4 September. I have copied the Complaints Advice Team so that the complaint is logged and dated, but I am not asking for a formal investigation yet. I would rather Cadw had the first opportunity to answer it. I will only escalate if the stage one response does not engage with the ten matters set out at section 7 below. One further matter, which I raise in the hope it is useful rather than as part of the complaint. Cadw’s 1988 file is lost, but Cadw did not correspond with itself. Any letters Cadw wrote in 1988 about this building were received by the Royal Commission, by Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council, and by the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust, and copies may survive in their files even though yours have gone. I have requests with the Royal Commission and with Heneb which cover exactly that. If either produces Cadw correspondence you no longer hold, I will send it to you, as I said I would in August. I would rather Cadw’s own record of this was complete than score a point off its being incomplete. I look forward to a complaint reference and to a substantive reply. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dr Wigley, This is a supplement to the complaint re-served on 20 September, not a chaser. I do not expect a reply before the stage-one response. It adds seven matters under the existing headings at section 7, and one addition to the outcomes at section 9, set out at the end. The public interest is engaged alongside my family’s. Great House Farm stood beside the Grade I church at Llandough, was recorded by the Royal Commission in 1974, sat within a known archaeological site, and was described in the post-demolition planning record as a “county treasure”. I do not ask Cadw to treat the 1994 discoveries as knowledge it had in 1988. They show what was lost; the pre-1988 record is the measure of Cadw’s process. On what my family members recall [wording updated at the author’s request, 19 Oct 2026] and the contemporary press report, protection was being sought in the first days of December 1988 and the house was demolished almost immediately afterwards. I do not ask Cadw to determine responsibility for the demolition. The grievance is narrower: protection was sought at the critical moment, and Cadw cannot now show what it considered. 1. The adopted development plan (matter A) The planning officer’s report on application 89/01396/OUT records that the supporting information to Policy H.2 of the East Vale Local Plan “states that buildings on the site should be retained, however were unfortunately demolished a little while ago.” I do not say this bound Cadw or required listing. I ask: (a) was Cadw aware of it in December 1988; (b) did the planning authority draw it to Cadw’s attention; and (c) if neither can be established, will Cadw say so expressly. 2. The search undertaken on 21 May (matters D and F) Mr Weatherhead wrote that he had asked a colleague to search other paper files, “including the Welsh Office files”, and would write again with the result, while fairly warning that some files had quite likely been destroyed. I have not received that letter. Please confirm whether the search was carried out, which series were searched, what was found, and whether Cadw regards the ATISN 27021 response of 11 June as its report of that search. 3. The meaning of “YYY” (matter J) Cadw has given two accounts of the marking — that the buildings were “marginally below the bar for listing” (21 May) and that the building did not meet the criteria (10 July) — and one inference, that it did not meet the criteria “as it was not included on the list” (29 July). I ask for one settled meaning, the documentary source for it, and, if there is none, a statement to that effect. 4. The retention period (matter J) Your email of 27 August said that no records of the historic retention arrangements are available, and that the three-year period is what current colleagues advised from their knowledge of the systems then in place. I ask only that the complaint response confirm expressly that this is an account of general practice, not evidence that the Great House Farm file was in fact destroyed after three years. 5. Professional archaeological knowledge of this site before December 1988 (matter C) On 22 September 2026 Amgueddfa Cymru disclosed to me, under FOI 2026-032, its collections records for two accessions from this site. The first, 82.44H, is the material from the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust’s excavation of 1979 on land formerly part of Great House Farm, carried out in advance of housing development. The museum’s records give the findspot as ST 168 733, the donor as Wales & West Housing Association Ltd, and the published report as Owen-John 1988. The accession runs to several hundred entries and includes Roman coins, samian, glass, a bone scabbard slide and querns, together with medieval pottery and ironwork. This is not archaeology discovered after the event. By the time Cadw considered this building, the site had been professionally excavated, the finds had been accessioned by the national museum under a 1982 accession number, and the excavation report had been published. I therefore ask, as an addition to matter C: (a) whether Cadw held, or had access to, the 1979 excavation record or its published report when it considered the buildings in 1988; (b) whether that material was drawn to its attention by GGAT, the planning authority or the Royal Commission; and (c) if neither can now be established, that Cadw say so in terms. I do not say this material required the building to be listed. I say that the conclusion recorded in December 1988, that the site was not of sufficient archaeological interest, was reached against a professional record that already existed and is still held by the national museum today. 6. The National Museum attribution (matter H) The GGAT assessment of August 1990, which Cadw supplied to me on 21 May, states that “it is likely that some medieval ironwork which is held by the National Museum of Wales was discovered under the rear wing c 1880 (RCAHMW 1988).” The museum’s disclosure allows that sentence to be tested, and the position is more precise than either of us has previously put it. The museum does hold medieval ironwork from this site — knife blades, arrowheads, a buckle and a pair of compasses within accession 82.44H — but as excavated material from 1979, not as an 1880 discovery beneath the rear wing. Its searches found no accession, donation or deposit answering the c.1880 provenance at all. The museum’s own explanation, given in its disclosure, is that objects recorded as found at Church Farm, Llandough in 1858 and donated in 1963 under accession 63.24 “could well be the basis for such a local story/tradition”. I therefore no longer ask Cadw to accept that the attribution is uncorroborated in the round. I ask, more narrowly, whether Cadw holds anything supporting the c.1880 rear-wing provenance beyond the GGAT sentence it forwarded, and whether it will ask that the derived record note the museum’s findings rather than continue to carry the 1880 attribution unqualified. 7. Correcting the record (matter H) You directed me to Heneb as manager of the HER, which was reasonable. The only substantive reply I have had from Heneb is its statement of 22 May that it is not subject to FOI as a limited company; a schedule I sent on 19 September remains outstanding. The museum’s disclosure now gives a firm anchor for what the record should show. Accession 95.56H comprises the material from the Cotswold Archaeological Trust excavation of 1994, donated by Ideal Homes Wales Ltd, and its locality is recorded in the museum’s own collections database as “Great House Farm Llandough” at ST 1681 7331 — the grid reference carried by the historic environment record for this site. That accession runs to several hundred sets of early medieval human remains from this ground. As the statutory duty to keep historic environment records rests with the Welsh Ministers, I ask: (a) which body is responsible for correcting an inaccurate or incomplete historic environment record; (b) what Cadw’s own role is where the record is managed by Heneb; and (c) what Cadw will do if the entry for this site (GGAT02038s) is not corrected to reflect the 1979 and 1994 excavations and the accessions arising from them. Correction to my letter of 20 September I said [removed] had rejected my correspondence on three occasions. Having checked properly, it rejected messages on at least eight occasions between January and September 2026: 23 January; 9 May (twice); 17 May; 10 August; 11 August; 29 August; and 17 September. Separate failures on 29 August and 17 September came from the retired address [removed]. I correct this because I have asked Cadw to distinguish what is established from what is inferred, and the same standard applies to me. Addition to the outcomes at section 9 6. A written acknowledgement that the 21 May undertaking was not reported on, and that Cadw’s accounts of the 1988 assessment have varied. 7. A single statement of what can and cannot now be established about the 1988 decisions, which my family can rely on and cite. 8. That Cadw write to Heneb and the Royal Commission asking that their records for this site reflect that statement and the museum’s accession records. 9. Consideration, under the Welsh Government complaints policy, of redress for the time and trouble my family has spent since May pursuing questions that Cadw’s own records could not answer. I am content to supply the museum’s disclosure to Cadw if that would assist, and my offer of 20 September stands: any 1988 Cadw correspondence recovered from the Royal Commission or Heneb will be sent to you. I remain grateful for the courtesy you and your colleagues have shown me. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dydd da,Diolch yn fawr am eich e-bost. Mae hwn yn gadarnhad ein bod wedi’i dderbyn, ac mae wedi’i anfon ymlaen at yr adran berthnasol er mwyn iddynt ei ystyried.Diolch,LloydAelod o Dîm Ymholiadau E-bost CadwMember of the Cadw Email Enquiry TeamGood day,Thank you for your email. This is to confirm that it has been received and has been forwarded to the relevant department for their attention.DiolchLloydAelod o Dîm Ymholiadau E-bost CadwMember of the Cadw Email Enquiry Team [quoted text trimmed]

To each recipient, in your own capacity as holder or likely holder of records. Please do not treat this as a joint reply. Answer only for your own holdings. Sirs/Madam, This is a preservation notice. It is not a claim form and not service of proceedings. It does not replace any FOI, review or subject access request already with you. Land: Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, adjoining St Dochdwy’s. Titles WA231076, WA240304 (closed), WA513690, WA735527, and any related title. Planning refs 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES. Please preserve, and do not destroy, transfer out of your custody without a written receipt, or dispose of, any file, plan, photograph, tape or electronic record in your possession, custody or control relating to: 1. The 1877 split, the 1916 and 1939 tenancies, and the 1938 Bute to Western Ground Rents conveyance. 2. The 1955 and 1962 possession orders, the 1974 proceedings, and BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2. 3. First registration: WA231076 application 30 November 1982; WA240304 application 23 February 1983; later amalgamation. 4. The 1988 possession (29 November) and demolition (begun 6 December), including listing, planning, police and any liaison papers. 5. Mary Doreen Williams (died 26 March 1983) and William Buckler, so far as your file concerns this land. Also preserve, if you hold them, the following planning and land-charge classes. Absence from a 2026 file disclosure is not proof they never existed: 6. Any section 52 Town and Country Planning Act 1971 agreement, later section 106 instrument, deed, undertaking or other agreement regulating the development or use of this land, and any corresponding local-land-charge entry. 7. The historic planning-register entries required by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 for 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES (applications, reserved matters, plans and drawings, and decision information). 8. The officer’s report annexes to 89/01396/OUT, including Appendix B (further GGAT comments after discussions with the Trust), and Appendices C–E. 9. The condition chain on 89/01396/OUT: conditions 16–18; the Council’s October 1990 confirmation of condition 17; GGAT’s July 1992 archaeological warning; the September 1992 reserved-matters approval; and the 1993–94 papers on whether condition 18 had been discharged. 10. Any preliminary environmental-assessment / screening determination for the outline application (site described as about 3.4 acres / 1.38 ha). 11. Any record of the statutory consultation route used because the land was, or was treated as, a site of archaeological interest / SMR entry under the 1988 Order. 12. The complete 92/00671/RES file, and any sale, option, conditional-contract or transfer paper on the planning files covering BP Properties to Ideal Homes Wales, including the recorded transfer of 3 December 1993. 13. The application-receipt record for 89/01396/OUT (form dated October 1989; reconstructed Council receipt 8 November 1989). Please stop routine deletion, including archived mailboxes, for anything in that scope. The public evidence index is / . The investigation distinguishes the farmhouse parcel from the eastern fields. The 1987 Court of Appeal decided possession, limitation and the October 1974 letters. It did not decide the documentary root of the farmhouse parcel. These records go to that question. This notice is not a finding against any of you. Please acknowledge, name the officer responsible for the hold, and say what you hold in scope. If you hold nothing, say what you searched. Nothing in this letter abandons any claim concerning title, registration, concealment, limitation, reopening or alteration of the register. Yours faithfully, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Freedom of Information Welsh Government [removed] cc: [removed] — so 26FOI 103 stays on the same fact Sirs/Madam, Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Requester: Sion Buckler. Wales Office, in 26FOI 103 dated 22 September 2026, said historic Welsh Office / Cadw listing papers for this house sit with you. This is that request. I am not asking you to decide title. Please disclose recorded information held by the Welsh Government or by Cadw as part of it concerning: 1. Any consideration, between 1 July and 31 December 1988, of listing, spot-listing or emergency listing of Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, adjoining St Dochdwy’s (approx. ST 168 733). 2. Any inspection, photograph, minute or note of the building, or of its demolition, in that period. Possession was taken on 29 November 1988. Demolition of the farmhouse began on 6 December 1988. 3. Any transfer, destruction or disposal of those files, with the schedule used and the date. If nothing is held, please say what was searched, including Cadw listing files, Welsh Office inherited files, and any index of destroyed building records. The public evidence index is / . The investigation distinguishes Parcel A (farmhouse, garden, buildings and yard — the family’s maintained freehold) from Parcel B (eastern fields — not presently disputed). The 1987 Court of Appeal decided possession, limitation and the October 1974 letters. It did not decide whether the documentary root of Parcel A was ever established. These papers go to that question. They are not a finding against Cadw. Please confirm the reference and the 20 working-day date, and preserve anything in scope. Nothing in this letter abandons any claim concerning title, registration, concealment, limitation or reopening. This is not a claim form. Yours faithfully, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Dr Wigley / Cadw Complaints Manager, This is not a new complaint and not a chase. It is notice for the stage-one complaint already opened under ticket #628635887: complaint of 17 September rejected, with a supplement sent on 22 September. The complaint is that Cadw’s 1988 assessment of Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough-juxta-Penarth (approximately ST 1681 7331; later HER GGAT02038s), did not adequately address the historic fabric, archaeological context and information then available, and that the building was demolished in December 1988 before any listing protection was secured. I am not asking Cadw to determine title. I am asking Cadw to answer for its own role, decisions and professional handling of the 1988 assessment. What I seek from this complaint, if Cadw is willing to resolve it without referral to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, is: 1. A written stage-one decision on whether Cadw’s 1988 assessment was adequate having regard to the material then available and the criteria and process applicable at the time, including the relevant 1979 GGAT excavation record concerning the Roman villa and associated early-medieval archaeology on land formerly within the farm holding. 2. If Cadw concludes that the assessment was inadequate, a written acknowledgement of that finding, confined to Cadw’s own role and without determination of title or third-party liability. 3. Cadw’s confirmation of whether it will ask Heneb to review HER entry GGAT02038s and, where necessary, correct or supplement the entry so that the relevant excavated archaeology is accurately recorded, rather than leaving the site classified simply as “POST MEDIEVAL – Farm” where that description is incomplete. 4. Confirmation of what records from the 1988 assessment Cadw still holds, what material was destroyed, disposed of or not retained, and the applicable retention schedule or rule governing the 1988 file. I do not expect Cadw to rebuild the house or determine the separate title dispute involving HM Land Registry or any successor in title. Those matters belong to other processes. I will await the stage-one response. I will not add further correspondence to this complaint unless Cadw asks a question or the published response timescale expires. Please treat ticket #628635887 together with the emails of 17, 20 and 22 September 2026 as the complaint. This letter adds no new grounds. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Cabinet Minister for Culture and Sport, This is a short supplement to my letter of 20 September 2026 on the historic environment record for Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough (NPRN 20182; HER GGAT02038s). It does not replace that letter. It does not ask you to adjudicate title. Three corrections to the letter of 20 September 1. A sentence in the middle of that letter was left unfinished. Please disregard it. Nothing in the requests depends on it. 2. The HM Land Registry letter forwarded by the constituency MP was dated 18 September 2026, not “yesterday”. On 27 September I wrote separately to HM Land Registry to correct a year I had used in earlier correspondence about titles WA231076 and WA240304. That correction is not a request to you. 3. I asked whether guidance under section 196 had been issued. Cadw’s published page now states that Historic Environment Records in Wales: Compilation and Use (2017) is issued as statutory guidance under section 196 of the 2023 Act. What I still need is confirmation whether that 2017 text has been substantively reviewed since sections 194 to 196 came into force on 4 November 2024, and the date on which the current guidance was issued under section 196 and laid before Senedd Cymru. I would also be grateful for confirmation whether the current guidance addresses primary classification of records and the behaviour of the public interface. What has happened since 20 September, relevant to the duties On 27 September I made a formal complaint to Heneb concerning the HER identifiers, classification and the 1978–1995 record. Steven Foulston acknowledged it on 29 September as investigating officer, with a five-week target. That is Heneb’s own process. It does not discharge the Ministers’ duties under sections 194 and 195. On 29 September the Royal Commission (RC26-0375) supplied the core description it says is used for GGAT02038s on Archwilio. That description is of a post-medieval farmhouse and barn. It records medieval finds, the 1974 survey and the demolition of 6 December 1988. The live HER also links the site to the separate 1994 excavation event, GGATE003875, which contains the excavation details and findings. The adequacy question in my letter of 20 September can therefore be put more precisely: whether the HER, taken as a whole, provides the details of relevant investigations and their findings required by section 194(2)(j), and whether the way those records are classified, linked and presented publicly is sufficient for that purpose. Cadw’s stage-one complaint on the 1988 listing decision remains open (ticket #628635887). That is a separate file. I mention it only so the two are not confused. The latest position is that the complaints investigation has commenced. The five requests in the letter of 20 September stand. The one that can be tested immediately remains the Archwilio silent-substitution question: whether an unresolved HER reference can silently resolve to a different record without warning. I will work to the published seventeen-working-day response aim from 20 September. If a substantive response will take longer, I would be grateful simply to be told. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Good morning Mr Buckler, Your correspondence has been received by the Welsh Government Complaints advice team. The complaints policy allows us to consider complaints about Welsh Government’s administrative actions (i.e. maladministration) or service failure by us. The policy is available by post on request and can also be found on our website: How to make a complaint about Welsh Government [HTML] | GOV.WALES<https://www.gov.wales/how-make-complaint-about-welsh-government-html&gt;. The Policy does not allow us to consider complaints about a decision which has not involved maladministration. Your concerns will be addressed by the relevant officials within Welsh Government, who will respond to you directly and as soon as possible. Best Regards, Steffan Herdman Rheolwr Cwynion / Complaints Manager Y Tîm Cynghori ar Gwynion / Complaints Advice Team Gweithrediadau a Chyflenwi AD / HR Operations and Delivery [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Neges ddwyieithog yw hon – gweler y fersiwn Saesneg isod os gwelwch yn dda/This is a bilingual message – please scroll down for English Annwyl Sion Buckler Nodyn cydnabod safonol yw hwn i gadarnhau bod eich gohebiaeth wedi’i dderbyn gan Lywodraeth Cymru ddyddiedig 30/09/2026, eich cyfeirnod . Ein cyfeirnod ar gyfer yr ohebiaeth hon yw TO/HF/05677/26 Rydym yn anelu at ymateb cyn pen 17 diwrnod gwaith o’r dyddiad y bydd yn cyrraedd Llywodraeth Cymru. Mae hyn yn golygu y dylech gael ymateb cyn 23/10/2026. Byddwn yn ymateb trwy e-bost ond ddim o’r cyfeiriad e-bost hwn o bosibl – felly gwiriwch eich ffolder post sothach. Sylwer, os ydych wedi ysgrifennu at fwy nag un Gweinidog, byddwch yn derbyn un ymateb yn unig ar ran Llywodraeth Cymru. Ni fyddwch yn derbyn ymatebion ychwanegol. Rydym yn sganio gohebiaeth bapur ac yn cadw’r copi electronig yn unig am y cyfnod a bennir yn ein hysbysiad preifatrwydd. Rydym yn cadw’r copi caled gwreiddiol o’r ohebiaeth am uchafswm o 3 mis ar ôl inni ateb. Os ydych yn dymuno i unrhyw ran o’ch gohebiaeth wreiddiol gael ei dychwelyd, rhaid ichi roi gwybod inni ar unwaith ar ôl cael yr e-bost hwn. Os yw’r ohebiaeth yn rhan o ymgyrch wedi’i threfnu, efallai y byddwn yn ymateb i’r trefnydd yn unig, ac nid ichi yn uniongyrchol. I gael gwybodaeth am sut y mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn prosesu gohebiaeth i’r Gweinidogion, cliciwch ar y ddolen hon: https://llyw.cymru/ysgrifennu-weinidogion Gellir dod o hyd i hysbysiad preifatrwydd Llywodraeth Cymru yma -https://llyw.cymru/hysbysiad-preifatrwydd-llywodraeth-cymru Os ydych am gysylltu â ni eto am unrhyw reswm, mae’r manylion cyswllt i’w cael yma: https://llyw.cymru/ysgrifennu-weinidogion Dear Sion Buckler This is a standard acknowledgement to confirm receipt of your correspondence to the Welsh Government dated 30/09/2026, your reference . Our reference for this correspondence is TO/HF/05677/26. We aim to respond within 17 working days from receipt in the Welsh Government. This means you should receive a response before 23/10/2026. We will respond via e-mail, but it may not be from this e-mail address – so please ensure that you check your junk mail folder. Please note that if you have written to more than one Minister you will receive only one response on behalf of the Welsh Government. You will not receive additional replies We scan paper correspondence, only retaining the electronic copy for the period stated in our privacy notice. We retain original hard copies for a maximum of 3 months after we reply. If you wish any part of your original correspondence to be returned you must inform us immediately upon receipt of this e-mail. Where correspondence is part of an organised campaign we may only respond to the organiser and not to you direct. Information about how the Welsh Government processes correspondence to Ministers can be found here: https://gov.wales/writing-ministers The Welsh Government privacy notice can be found here – https://gov.wales/welsh-government-privacy-notice If you wish to contact us again for any reason, contact details can be found at https://gov.wales/writing-ministers Sganiwyd y neges hon am bob feirws hysbys wrth iddi adael Llywodraeth Cymru. Mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn cymryd o ddifrif yr angen i ddiogelu eich data. Os cysylltwch â Llywodraeth Cymru, mae ein hysbysiad preifatrwydd<”https://gov.wales/about/welsh-government-privacy-notice/?lang=cy”> yn esbonio sut rydym yn defnyddio eich gwybodaeth a sut rydym yn diogelu eich preifatrwydd. Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg. Byddwn yn anfon ateb yn Gymraeg i ohebiaeth a dderbynnir yn Gymraeg ac ni fydd gohebu yn Gymraeg yn arwain at oedi. —————– On leaving the Welsh Government this email was scanned for all known viruses. The Welsh Government takes the protection of your data seriously. If you contact the Welsh Government then our Privacy Notice<https://gov.wales/about/welsh-government-privacy-notice/?lang=en&gt; explains how we use your information and the ways in which we protect your privacy. We welcome receiving correspondence in Welsh. Any correspondence received in Welsh will be answered in Welsh and corresponding in Welsh will not lead to a delay in responding.

Dear Mr Buckler, ATISN 27589 – Great House Farm, Llandough Thank you for your request which I received on 29 September. You asked for: 1. Any consideration, between 1 July and 31 December 1988, of listing, spot-listing or emergency listing of Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, adjoining St Dochdwy’s (approx. ST 168 733). 2. Any inspection, photograph, minute or note of the building, or of its demolition, in that period. Possession was taken on 29 November 1988. Demolition of the farmhouse began on 6 December 1988. 3. Any transfer, destruction or disposal of those files, with the schedule used and the date. You will receive a response by 26 October 2026. If you have any queries about this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future correspondence. The request you sent me contains personal information about you – for example, your name and address. The Welsh Government will be the data processor for this information and, in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation, it will be processed in order to fulfil our public task and meet our legal obligations under the Act to provide you with a response. We will only use this personal information to deal with your request and any matters which arise as a result of it. We will keep your personal information and all other information relating to your request for three years from the date on which your request is finally closed. Your personal information will then be disposed of securely. Under data protection legislation, you have the right: • to be informed of the personal data we hold about you and to access it • to require us to rectify inaccuracies in that data • to (in certain circumstances) object to or restrict processing • for (in certain circumstances) your data to be ‘erased’ • to (in certain circumstances) data portability • to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who is our independent regulator for data protection For further information about the information which the Welsh Government holds and its use, or if you wish to exercise your rights under the GDPR, please see contact details below: Data Protection Officer Welsh Government [address removed] The contact details for the Information Commissioner’s Office are: [address removed] Any information released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or Environmental Information Regulations 2004 will be listed in the Welsh Government’s Disclosure Log (at https://gov.wales/about/open-government/freedom-of-information/responses/?lang=en). Yours sincerely Andy Wigley Dr Andy Wigley [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Dr Wigley, Thank you for your acknowledgement of ATISN 27589 and confirmation that a response is due by 26 October 2026. For the avoidance of doubt, I should clarify the two historical dates reproduced in your acknowledgement: “Possession was taken on 29 November 1988” and “Demolition of the farmhouse began on 6 December 1988” were included in my request as contextual information identifying the period and events to which the requested records relate. Their repetition in the acknowledgement should not be treated as an acceptance by me that either date, or any legal characterisation of possession or demolition, has been established by the Welsh Government or by me. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] My request is for recorded information held by the Welsh Government/Cadw concerning the matters specified in points 1–3. I am not asking Cadw to determine title, possession, limitation or any other legal issue, and nothing in this FOI correspondence is intended to constitute an admission, waiver, settlement or abandonment of any rights or position concerning those matters. Please also expressly confirm that records falling within the scope of ATISN 27589, including any relevant historic listing, inspection, photographic, administrative and file-disposal records, will be preserved pending completion of the request and any applicable internal review or complaint process. I look forward to the substantive response by 26 October. And sincerely thank you for your time and attention in this matter. You are appreciated. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Good afternoon. I acknowledge receipt of your e-mail below. I can also confirm that Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) does not hold any information or records for Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth or planning applications 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES. All PEDW’s electronic records have been searched. PEDW does not have a paper file repository. Isabel Nethell Pennaeth Gweithrediadau/Head of Operations Penderfyniadau Cynllunio a’r Amgylchedd / Planning & Environment Decisions Wales Llywodraeth Cymru / Welsh Government [A logo for a company AI-generated content may be incorrect.] Penderfyniadau Cynllunio ac Amgylchedd Cymru | LLYW.CYMRU<https://llyw.cymru/penderfyndiadau-cynllunio-ac-amgylchedd-cymru?_ga=2.118801417.%5Bremoved%5D.%5Bremoved%5D.%5Bremoved%5D&gt; / Planning and Environment Decisions Wales | GOV.WALES<https://gov.wales/planning-and-environment-decisions-wales&gt; Sganiwyd y neges hon am bob feirws hysbys wrth iddi adael Llywodraeth Cymru. Mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn cymryd o ddifrif yr angen i ddiogelu eich data. Os cysylltwch â Llywodraeth Cymru, mae ein hysbysiad preifatrwydd yn esbonio sut rydym yn defnyddio eich gwybodaeth a sut rydym yn diogelu eich preifatrwydd. Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg. Byddwn yn anfon ateb yn Gymraeg i ohebiaeth a dderbynnir yn Gymraeg ac ni fydd gohebu yn Gymraeg yn arwain at oedi. On leaving the Welsh Government this email was scanned for all known viruses. The Welsh Government takes the protection of your data seriously. If you contact the Welsh Government then our Privacy Notice<https://gov.wales/about/welsh-government-privacy-notice/?lang=en&gt; explains how we use your information and the ways in which we protect your privacy. We welcome receiving correspondence in Welsh. Any correspondence received in Welsh will be answered in Welsh and corresponding in Welsh will not lead to a delay in responding. [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Cadw / Welsh Government Complaints Manager and Chief Inspector, I refer to the internal-review outcomes of 2, 10 and 29 July 2026 and the Chief Inspector’s letters of 27 August and 4 September 2026 concerning the 1988 Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr listing file for Llandough-juxta-Penarth. The previous responses said the file had “most likely” been destroyed, that no destruction record could be found, and that Cadw could not say what retention arrangements applied 38 years ago. I am not asking you to repeat the response or recreate a record that does not exist. I ask whether any pre-existing recorded information remains that supports or qualifies the “most likely destroyed” conclusion or documents the file’s lifecycle. Please disclose any existing file inventory, closure note, archive catalogue entry, transfer list, disposal authority, retention schedule, weeding/destruction record, archival receipt, email/minute/note recording the search or basis for the conclusion, or record showing whether the file remained held or was transferred on/after 6 December 1988. Please provide the recorded date and responsible role/unit for any documented disposal or transfer decision. If no additional record is held, please distinguish an actual contemporaneous disposal decision/log from the present-day inability to locate the file. Identify repositories, indices and systems searched for this focused request. If any information is withheld, cite the statutory basis and disclose reasonably separable information. Please preserve any extant records within scope while the related complaint and disclosure routes remain active. This is a request for recorded information, not a request to decide title, possession or the legal effect of the 1987 proceedings. This is a focused request for additional recorded information, not an appeal or a request to reopen the merits of the earlier complaint. If it falls outside the scope or closure status of ATISN 27021, please register it as a new FOI request, cross-reference ATISN 27021 for context, and confirm the new reference and statutory response date. If you consider the requested material already covered by the earlier request/response, please identify the precise part of the prior request/response that dealt with each category and tell me how the additional points will be handled. Yours faithfully, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Welsh Government FOI team, I refer to the live requests ATISN 27021 and ATISN 27589 (Cadw listing material) and to the Wales Office response under 26FOI 103 / IR/26/16. Separately from those listing-specific requests, I request under the Freedom of Information Act: 1. The retention and destruction schedules (or equivalent policy documents) that applied, or still apply, to former Welsh Office / Welsh Government file series covering agricultural tenancies, land ownership or compulsory purchase, rural depopulation, or related policy in the period 1970–1997. 2. Any recorded information identifying whether files in those series that would have related to Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr / Llandough-juxta-Penarth, or to the companies Western Ground Rents Ltd or BP Properties Ltd, were destroyed, transferred or retained, and if destroyed the date and authority. 3. Confirmation of the repositories to which any surviving pre-1997 paper files from the relevant series were transferred (e.g. National Assembly / Welsh Government / The National Archives / other). This request is distinct from ATISN 27021 and ATISN 27589 and should not be merged with them. Please confirm the statutory response date. Yours sincerely, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Sion Buckler Further to your recent request for information, please find an acknowledgement letter attached. Kind regards Natalie Natalie Chant Tîm Rheoli Busnes / Business Management Unit Y Grŵp Effeithiolrwydd Gweithredol / Operational Effectiveness Group [signature block trimmed]

Dear Mr Buckler, ATISN 26-0009 – Great House Farm, Llandough Thank you for your latest request which I received on 10 October. You asked for: 1. Any existing file inventory, closure note, archive catalogue entry, transfer list, disposal authority, retention schedule, weeding/destruction record, archival receipt, email/minute/note recording the search or basis for the conclusion, or record showing whether the file remained held or was transferred on/after 6 December 1988. 2. The recorded date and responsible role/unit for any documented disposal or transfer decision. 3. If neither 1 or 2 exist, distinguish an actual contemporaneous disposal decision/log from the present-day inability to locate the file, identifying the repositories, indices and systems searched for this focused request. You will receive a response by 6 November 2026. If you have any queries about this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future correspondence. The request you sent me contains personal information about you – for example, your name and address. The Welsh Government will be the data processor for this information and, in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation, it will be processed in order to fulfil our public task and meet our legal obligations under the Act to provide you with a response. We will only use this personal information to deal with your request and any matters which arise as a result of it. We will keep your personal information and all other information relating to your request for three years from the date on which your request is finally closed. Your personal information will then be disposed of securely. Under data protection legislation, you have the right: • to be informed of the personal data we hold about you and to access it • to require us to rectify inaccuracies in that data • to (in certain circumstances) object to or restrict processing • for (in certain circumstances) your data to be ‘erased’ • to (in certain circumstances) data portability • to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who is our independent regulator for data protection For further information about the information which the Welsh Government holds and its use, or if you wish to exercise your rights under the GDPR, please see contact details below: Data Protection Officer Welsh Government [address removed] The contact details for the Information Commissioner’s Office are: [address removed] Any information released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or Environmental Information Regulations 2004 will be listed in the Welsh Government’s Disclosure Log (at https://gov.wales/about/open-government/freedom-of-information/responses/?lang=en). Yours sincerely Andy Wigley ] Dr Andy Wigley Prif Arolygydd – Pennaeth Arolygiaeth yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol / Chief Inspector – Head of Historic Environment Inspectorate Cadw Dysgu, Cymunedau a Diwylliant / Learning, Communities and Culture Llywodraeth Cymru / Welsh Government Tŷ Ladywell / Ladywell House Y Drenewydd / Newtown Powys [removed] ]] P Helpwch yr amgylchedd – peidiwch ag argraffu hon os nad oes gwir raid Help our environment – only print this if really necessary Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth Gymraeg. Cewch ateb Cymraeg i bob gohebiaeth Gymraeg ac ni fydd gohebu yn Gymraeg yn arwain at oedi. We welcome correspondence in Welsh. Correspondence received in Welsh will be answered in Welsh and corresponding in Welsh will not involve any delay. Sganiwyd y neges hon am bob feirws hysbys wrth iddi adael Llywodraeth Cymru. Mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn cymryd o ddifrif yr angen i ddiogelu eich data. Os cysylltwch â Llywodraeth Cymru, mae ein hysbysiad preifatrwydd<”https://gov.wales/about/welsh-government-privacy-notice/?lang=cy”> yn esbonio sut rydym yn defnyddio eich gwybodaeth a sut rydym yn diogelu eich preifatrwydd. Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg. Byddwn yn anfon ateb yn Gymraeg i ohebiaeth a dderbynnir yn Gymraeg ac ni fydd gohebu yn Gymraeg yn arwain at oedi. —————– On leaving the Welsh Government this email was scanned for all known viruses. The Welsh Government takes the protection of your data seriously. If you contact the Welsh Government then our Privacy Notice<https://gov.wales/about/welsh-government-privacy-notice/?lang=en&gt; explains how we use your information and the ways in which we protect your privacy. We welcome receiving correspondence in Welsh. Any correspondence received in Welsh will be answered in Welsh and corresponding in Welsh will not lead to a delay in responding.

Dear Natalie / FMCO FOI Team, Thank you for the acknowledgement of ATISN 26-0010 concerning retention and disposal schedules. I would be grateful for the substantive response as soon as possible, particularly in relation to any schedules covering records of Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough, 1988–1996. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Mr Wigley, Thank you for your reply of 15 October concerning ATISN 27021. I would be grateful if you could confirm: 1. Whether any inventory, closure note, archive transfer form or disposal schedule still exists for the 1988 listing file, even if the file itself has been destroyed. 2. The identity of any successor or predecessor body (including Cadw, the former Welsh Office, or South Glamorgan County Council) that may hold copies or related material. 3. Any recorded reason for the disposal decision and the date it was made. I have also submitted related FOIs to the MOD (FOI2026/23272), The National Archives (CAS-359317-Q8Q4R9, CAS-347296-M0V4Y1), HM Land Registry (Z084NQV, N610CGV) and South Wales Police (FOI 1264/26), and I am corresponding with ITV Wales and the National Library of Wales about 1988 broadcast material. The public documentary index is at https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com. Regards, Sion Buckler [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Sion Buckler Further to your recent request for information, please find disclosure response attached, sent on behalf of Emma Harvey-Woodason. Kind regards Natalie [signature block trimmed] — Attachment: “ATISN 26-0010 – Disclosure.pdf” (2 pages). Open the letter (PDF) · evidence page EV-0244. Letter text follows (requester’s email address removed): Y Grŵp Effeithiolrwydd Gweithredol Operational Effectiveness Group Sion Buckler [email removed] Our ref: ATISN 26-0010 Date: 19 October 2026 Dear Sion Buckler ATISN 26-0010 Thank you for your request which I received on 10 October. You asked for: 1. The retention and destruction schedules (or equivalent policy documents) that applied, or still apply, to former Welsh Office / Welsh Government file series covering agricultural tenancies, land ownership or compulsory purchase, rural depopulation, or related policy in the period 1970–1997. 2. Any recorded information identifying whether files in those series that would have related to Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr / Llandough-juxta-Penarth, or to the companies Western Ground Rents Ltd or BP Properties Ltd, were destroyed, transferred or retained, and if destroyed the date and authority. 3. Confirmation of the repositories to which any surviving pre-1997 paper files from the relevant series were transferred (e.g. National Assembly / Welsh Government / The National Archives / other). Our response 1. All Welsh Government Retention Schedules, past and present, are available on the external website: Welsh Government retention and disposal schedule | GOV.WALES. Before 1997, the Welsh Office or other agencies would have had responsibility for areas affecting Wales and would have had their own retention schedules. 2. Searches were carried out to find files mentioning the farm name and the companies listed in your request. No files were found and given the date range of your request, any routine records would have been destroyed in line with the corporate retention schedule applied at the time. Given the date range for the search, it is equally possible that records relating to this would not have been transferred to Welsh Government and disposition would have been carried out by a predecessor body. Parc Cathays ● Cathays Park OEG.FMCO.FOI@gov.wales Caerdydd ● Cardiff Gwefan ● website: http://www.llyw.cymru CF10 3NQ http://www.gov.wales 3. Material with historical significance from this period would have been identified using the Welsh Office’s Operational Selection Policy (available on TNA’s website: OSP 7 – Welsh Office 1979-1997). Historical material would then have been transferred by us to The National Archives (or a designated Place of Deposit) for permanent preservation at the appropriate time (this was after 30 years at that time, subsequently reduced to after 20 years for WG material from 2023 onwards). Records relating to Welsh Government property/deeds/leasing etc. are not transferred to TNA as they are not classed as “public records” like our business records are. These would be retained until the property is sold or lease agreements terminated. Next steps If you are dissatisfied with the Welsh Government’s handling of your request, you can ask for an internal review within 40 working days of the date of this response. Requests for an internal review should be addressed to the Welsh Government’s Freedom of Information Officer at: Information Rights Unit Welsh Government Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ or e-mail: Freedom.ofinformation@gov.wales Please remember to quote the ATISN reference number above. You also have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office Wycliffe House Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Website: http://www.ico.org.uk However, please note that the Commissioner will not normally investigate a complaint until it has been through our own internal review process. Yours sincerely Emma Harvey-Woodason Departmental Records Officer Welsh Government

Dear Mr Buckler, Thank you for your request which was received on 28 September 2026. Please see attached response. Your sincerely, Andy Wigley [signature block trimmed] — Attachment: “ATISN 27589 – 2026-10-19 – Response.pdf” (2 pages). Open the letter (PDF) · evidence page EV-0245. Letter text follows (requester’s email address removed): Sion Buckler Eich cyf/Your ref: ATISN 27589 By email: [email removed] Ein cyf/Our ref: qA2496208 Dyddiad/Date: 19 October 2026 Dear Mr Buckler Great House Farm, Llandough (ATISN 27589) Thank you for your request for information received on 28 September 2026. We have considered your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The information you have requested was the subject of a previous request submitted by you under reference (ATISN 27021), to which Welsh Government has already responded, including undertaking an internal review. Following a review of your latest request, we are satisfied that it is substantially similar to the earlier request and that no new information has been generated or become available since our previous response. Accordingly, Welsh Government is refusing your request under section 14(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which provides that a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request if it is a repeated request made by the same person, where it is substantially similar to a previous request and a reasonable interval has not elapsed. For ease of reference, the previous response, together with the outcome of the associated internal review, can be found here: FOI release 27021: Great House Farm | GOV.WALES You have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Yours sincerely, Andy Wigley Head of Historic Environment Inspectorate