Great House Farm: Case Overview and Key Records

Great House Farm and the disputed title

Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr) stood beside St Dochdwy’s Church at Llandough-juxta-Penarth. The Williams / Buckler family traces its connection to the home to at least 1667; Mary (Nancy) Williams’s statement (c.1974) records this (Mary (Nancy) Williams testimony).

The central dispute is whether Parcel A—the farmhouse, buildings, garden and yard—had a distinct title history from Parcel B, the eastern fields. The family’s claim to Parcel A is that it did not pass into the Western Ground Rents and BP title chain. The question must be tested against the original agreements, conveyances, plans and Land Registry files; the family’s wider argument is set out in the overall working theory.

Parcel A, Parcel B and the conveyance record

• GHF-E115 — the 1877 Bute–Thomas agreement, GHF-E116 — the reported 1877 lease to John Williams (original unlocated) and GHF-E117 — Bute trustees’ accounts are central to testing Mary (Nancy) Williams’s c.1974 statement (Mary (Nancy) Williams testimony) of the earlier house-plot arrangements [PENDING: EV-0006; PENDING: EV-0007; PENDING: EV-0008].
• GHF-E118 — the 1916 tenancy and plan, GHF-E119 — the 1924 drain agreement and plan and GHF-E120 — the 1928 rent receipt and end of quarrying bear on the land’s description and the end of quarrying [PENDING: EV-0014; PENDING: EV-0015; PENDING: EV-0016].
• GHF-E121 — the 1938 Bute–WGR conveyance and plan and DBDT123/7 — the 1939 WGR–John Williams tenancy and plan are key to the dispute over which land was conveyed or let [PENDING: EV-0019; EV-0023].
• GHF-E131 — the 1969 WGR–BP Pension Trust conveyance and GHF-E132 — the 1971 abstract of title are followed by the HMLR schedule of first-registration documents, the WA231076 register, its title plan, and records for WA513690 and its title plan.

The distinct-parcel contention and the effect of the 1987 amalgamation are disputed questions, not conclusions established by the existence of the later register alone.

Occupation, possession proceedings and BP v Buckler

The 1955 High Court possession papers and writ and execution record, the 1959 and 1965 WGR offers, the 1962 possession order, and Mary (Nancy) Williams’s 1974 plea and pleadings concern possession and the claimed status of her occupation [PENDING: EV-0032; PENDING: EV-0034; PENDING: EV-0041]. The 1974 licence letters are material to the later dispute [PENDING: EV-0049; PENDING: EV-0050].

BP Properties Ltd v Buckler and the 1987 Court of Appeal judgment are the central judicial records [EV-0080]. The judgment decided possession and licence; whether it finally determined the root-title claim on its merits is an open issue; the judgment’s scope and the issues left undecided are addressed in BP v Buckler: Scope, Decided and Undecided.

Evidence of the family’s occupation and acts of ownership, including the tree-planting account, is recorded in GHF-E151 and Mary (Nancy) Williams’s statement.

Registration and the 1983 notice allegation

The registration record includes the WA231076 first-registration file (FC-001), the WA240304 first-registration file (FC-002), and the HMLR schedule of documents. The recorded WA231076 title register and title plan should be compared with the instruments relied on for the land description and the 1987 amalgamation.

[SOURCE PENDING] Notification connected with the 1983 registration arrived only after Mary (Nancy) Williams died on 26 March 1983 [PENDING: EV-0060]. That account remains an allegation: the original notice and evidence of dispatch, receipt and the objection deadline have not been verified. GHF-E180 records the pending original, and the disputed issue is set out in the 1983 late-notice allegation.

1988 removal and demolition

The ITV Cymru Wales report, the 3 December 1988 South Wales Echo article and the demolition chronology record the public dispute and the farmhouse’s removal. The newspaper article’s image and transcription are available in GHF-E090-N08. The suggestion that persons in the footage may have been SAS or undercover personnel has no named source yet (SOURCE PENDING); Branwen Buckler’s September 2026 recollection is that the men who detained her appeared to be soldiers (GHF-E114; Branwen Buckler testimony); this remains unconfirmed and is addressed in the identity allegation and GHF-E181.

Heritage, planning and archaeology

The relevant records include the 1974 architectural survey and floor plan, the 1982 GGAT warning letter, the 1987 local-plan record and the 1988 Cadw inspection photographs and listing-decision record. Planning records include the officer’s report and outline permission, the 1992 GGAT letter and reserved-matters approval, and the 1994 archaeology report and Condition 18 record. Later land transfers are recorded in GHF-E149 and GHF-E150.

Public-authority handling and records disclosure

Later enquiries concern the registration history, heritage decisions and surviving files. Relevant records include the HMLR stage-two complaint decision, HMLR stage-one complaint decision, HMLR’s registration-history letter, the paper-file retrieval letter and the Cadw ATISN 27021 response.

The outstanding issues and responses are recorded in the Master Scrutiny Issue Register, FOI and Public-Authority Reply Register, Source Conflicts Register and Missing Records Register. The family’s identified legal and procedural concerns are set out in the Legal Review: Fraud, Land and Human Rights, alongside the Cadw forensic critique and GGAT forensic review.

Cedwyn, Cydfin and Tŷ Mawr

Earlier place-name and manorial records include the Cedwyn / Cwm-Cedwyn index, the 1392 boundary reference, the 1547 Cydwin lease, and Bute name variants from 1552–1824. See also the historical map, 1824 Tŷ Mawr map and manorial-evidence review. Similar names alone do not prove identical boundaries or title.

Current case scrutiny and next actions

The current legal and records work is summarised in Where things stand, the Tightrope roadmap, the Project Plan and the Justice Plan. Decisions, risks and work ownership sit within PRINCE2 Project Management and its monthly highlight reports. The restoration objective is set out in The Restoration Campaign.

Key case records: Evidence Library · Master Timeline · Evidence Chain · Records Access Chronology · Sources and Archives · Anticipated Objections and the Family’s Answers.

AI-agent instructions for editors