Welsh Government and Cadw — Email Correspondence Catalogue (Part 2)

From: Sion Buckler
To: Amy.Longford@gov.wales (cc cadwplanning@gov.wales, planning@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, stephen.doughty.mp@parliament.uk) (bcc cadw@gov.wales, cadw@tfw.wales, cadwplanning@gov.wales, scheduledmonuments@gov.wales, customerhelp@gov.wales, Freedom.ofinformation@gov.wales, planning@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, contactonevale@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, c1v@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, press@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, democratic@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, SeneddCulture@senedd.wales, nmr.wales@rcahmw.gov.uk, her@heneb.org.uk, info@heneb.co.uk)
Date: 9 August 2026, 18:43 UTC
Subject: Re: CADW failures
Attachments: CADW_Great_House_Farm_Forensic_Review_2026_v2.pdf

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. Our family have been heavily displaced, dispossessed and justice delayed/ denied for decades. 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.

As it stands with this case the law has become a monument to injustice, as the practical application of property law resulted in the inhumane treatment of my family. And for authority to be authority, legitimacy is paramount. And I question a lot of the legitimacy in the decisions and actions of the authorities in this matter. 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 (Ret’d Sgt)
Royal Signals
Cyber and Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

Note: A copy sent to cadw@gov.wales was rejected on delivery. The RCAHMW acknowledgement of 14 August in this thread is catalogued on the Royal Commission page.

From: Cadw Scheduled Monuments mailbox
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 9 August 2026, 18:45 UTC
Subject: Automatic reply: CADW failures

Diolch am eich ymholiad.
Nid yw'r blwchpost yma'n cael ei fonitro dros y penwythnos a gwyliau banc.
Os yw eich ymholiad ar frys, ffoniwch 0300 025 6000.

Thank you for your enquiry.
Please note that this mailbox is not monitored over the weekends or bank holidays.
If your enquiry is urgent, please call 0300 025 6000.

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 ? 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> 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.

From: Sion Buckler
To: Amy.Longford@gov.wales (cc cadwplanning@gov.wales, planning@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, stephen.doughty.mp@parliament.uk) (bcc cadw@gov.wales, cadw@tfw.wales, scheduledmonuments@gov.wales, customerhelp@gov.wales, Freedom.ofinformation@gov.wales, contactonevale@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, c1v@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, press@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, democratic@valeofglamorgan.gov.uk, SeneddCulture@senedd.wales, nmr.wales@rcahmw.gov.uk, her@heneb.org.uk, info@heneb.co.uk)
Date: 10 August 2026, 21:45 UTC
Subject: Re: CADW failures – Revised Report (10 August 2026)
Attachments: CADW_Great_House_Farm_Record_Correction_Request_2026.pdf

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 (Ret’d Sgt)
Royal Signals
Cyber and Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member hywelapbuckler@gmail.com 02031377118

Note: A copy sent to cadw@gov.wales was rejected on delivery.

From: Amy Longford, Senior Inspector of Historic Buildings, Cadw
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com (cc CadwPlanning@gov.wales)
Date: 14 August 2026, 15:18 UTC
Subject: RE: CADW failures – Revised Report (10 August 2026)

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

From: Sion Buckler
To: Amy.Longford@gov.wales
Date: 14 August 2026, 18:39 UTC
Subject: Re: CADW failures – Revised Report (10 August 2026)
Attachments: CADW_Forensic_Critique_Great_House_Farm.pdf

Amy,

Thank you for confirming receipt and for confirming that the revised report dated 10 August 2026 will be treated as the operative version in place of the previous edition.

I appreciate that you need to consult colleagues and that annual leave may affect the timetable. Friday 28 August is noted.

See attached an A.I analysis of the evidence and chronology I hold. Which might assist your departments internal review of this matter too.

I look forward to receiving the substantive response when you return.

Regards,

Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)

Royal Signals Cyber and Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

Williams / Buckler Family Estate

From: Dr Andy Wigley, Chief Inspector, Cadw
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com (cc Amy.Longford@gov.wales, Michael.Weatherhead@gov.wales, CadwPlanning@gov.wales)
Date: 27 August 2026, 16:21 UTC
Subject: RE: CADW failures – Revised Report (10 August 2026)

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 www.heneb.org.uk<http://www.heneb.org.uk/> 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
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
SY16 1JB

Ffôn / Tel: 0300 025 5375
Ffôn symudol / Mobile: 07711 120252
E-bost/ Email: andy.wigley@llyw.cymru<mailto:andy.wigley@llyw.cymru> / andy.wigley@gov.wales<mailto:andy.wigley@gov.wales>

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.

From: Sion Buckler
To: Andy.Wigley@gov.wales
Date: 27 August 2026, 18:52 UTC
Subject: Re: CADW failures – Revised Report (10 August 2026)

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 (Ret'd Sergeant)

From: Sion Buckler
To: Andy.Wigley@gov.wales
Date: 28 August 2026, 04:56 UTC
Subject: Re: CADW failures – Revised Report (10 August 2026)

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*. If I recall by the longstanding Llandough Council Clerk, who retired the day he finally replied to my FOI's. 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 (Ret'd Sergeant)

From: Sion Buckler
To: Andy.Wigley@gov.wales (cc cadwplanning@gov.wales, Amy.Longford@gov.wales, Michael.Weatherhead@gov.wales) (bcc cadw@gov.wales, cadw@tfw.wales, cadw@wales.gsi.gov.uk)
Date: 29 August 2026, 17:14 UTC
Subject: Great House Farm, Llandough
Attachments: CADW_Forensic_Critique_Great_House_Farm_v5.0.0 (1).pdf, Particulars_of_Claim_Great_House_Farm (1).pdf

Sirs/Ma'am,

Further to my last two emails this week, and in response to yours, which is appreciated, please see the attached documents.

My latest version file on yourselves; CADW. And a mock application to a mock AI chancery court; a simulation I'm running in a karpathy autoresearch loop as a long horizon agent to refine the arguments my family made for the last century before being silenced. And spending the last 4 decades like hostage prisoners of war.

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. Any possible institutional failure you might have identified isn't the ice berge here, I assure you. Not even the tip of it.

I am not approaching this simply to apportion blame, although I am both horrified and furious reading into all this. 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", and that description has stayed with us and shamed us ever since. The reality was considerably more complicated and, for my family, profoundly distressing. 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 — potentially in clandestine collaborations with the British State, given that 33 acres were carved out for the limeworks in the WWI effort, and War Ag occupied the land adjacent to ours in WWII. 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). Llandough may have been the last of Wales to be colonised.

I can tell you as a soldier. In Nicosia the indigenous Greeks and many Turks too, would approach the green line with old records of their land holding the UN occupied, even 4 decades later, and the UN would have to surrender those lands back to the indigenous. I draw a lot of parallels between this, our case and Wales' dream of devolution/ decolonisation. This case also might show we've been in a land market bubble and so a land market crash is coming. Our case isn't isolated or unique.

I was a child in that house. My mother was pregnant, and the three of us were still young children. The people who removed us by force — following BP and the UK Government (synonymous at the time) after awarding themselves victory in their courts, (Magistrates as oppose to Chancery or before the Bench as a matter of equity, as should have happened on the merits of this case) — caused my mother's shoulder to become dislocated when she attempted to serve them with a High Court injunction ordering the occupiers not to destroy our home or remove our belongings. 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.

The ITV coverage at the time showed some of what happened, including the injury to my mother, but not that she was pregnant and that three young children were inside. ITV, it seems, never aired that footage, and instead of responding to my FOI request, they quietly published it to a YouTube archive last year — apparently hoping that I, or my AI agents, or anyone else, would not notice this suppression. I also hold other ITV footage which they have not admitted to or disclosed, showing my younger baby sister held to watch the looting of our home.

The MP is hesitant to respond, the Llandough councillor will not respond, and the longstanding Llandough clerk retired after initially trying, and failing, to dismiss me. I am ashamed of my nation. I served in war too, and left my military career with honours; I am bona fide, having also completed 22 years in Oath in 2024, the last 2 under the employ of the Vale of Glamorgan Council in adult care. The Land Registry also tried everything to steer me away from identifying their mistake in allowing BP to register our land in their name, without our ownership claim being lodged, in 1983. The fact that my nan — who had already spent 40 years challenging her ownership claim by 1983 — died within the two weeks she would have had to challenge BP's registration of our land in their name, is another matter requiring investigation.

Much like my late father's sudden death at age 41, between BP's application and approval of housing development, 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. Outrageous. 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. Very suspect and nobody raised questions or challenged except our family i.e. 'Buckler vs United Kingdom' at the ECHR in 1988/89. Who also ruled in lieu of BP rights over ours as the owners. 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. With 6 centuries left on that freehold from the Knight in 1500, to a military commander and leader like myself. The true title chain. All the while the occupiers operate from defective title. It's possible getting to me may prove more difficult than how my dad before me or nan before him were gotten to, as I am a military warfare professional of almost 3 decades now.

It is otherwise difficult to explain what all we went through does to a family, particularly when the public account of what happened does not reflect the reality experienced by those of us who were inside the house at the time. My younger sister had nightmares when I brought this up with her. It's subsequently cruel to see her having to visit archieves for a 4th time, to try to see again what we are there to see.

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. The non response from the Llandough councillor, classification of the 133 house plans on the council planning portal, delay from MP responding, is also an outrage. And clear bias towards the houses being developed on our stolen occupied land, by the holders of the defective title. No wonder my surviving family, of mainly women, aren't speaking up or out. It just horrifies me how they have had to live like such hostages under such terrorists. After a literal act of terrorism against us.

I was involved in the effort in Iraq to break two SAS soldiers out of an Iraq prison under police guard, days before their execution. Me and a lot of the squadrons of soldiers I have around me to this day. I see my family in a similar light there, under the tyranny of this. And I am not standing for it. I'm only 41, I'm in full mental and physical health. I may have a lot of years left in my life which I'm able to dedicate to this.

I have also passed this matter to my Cardiff based BBC producer friend, who also confirmed they'll be looking into this too. And Gareth Wyn Jones and others will a platform. This is a matter of public and national interest. It should not be drawn into clandestine warfare, with silence and violence, albeit that is my domain. Because there's already been plenty of it by the looks of it. I want this to remain in the open. Emails, open letters, courts and Senedd public enquiry etc.

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 (Ret'd Sergeant)

Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

Note: Blind copies sent to cadw@gov.wales and cadw@wales.gsi.gov.uk were rejected on delivery. The copy to cadw@tfw.wales was delivered.

From: Cadw contact centre (cadw@tfw.wales, operated by Transport for Wales)
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 29 August 2026, 17:35 UTC
Subject: Re: Great House Farm, Llandough #611801922

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

Note: This reply came from the Cadw contact centre (ticket #611801922) and answers the blind copy sent to cadw@tfw.wales.

From: Dr Andy Wigley, Chief Inspector, Cadw
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com (cc CadwPlanning@gov.wales, Amy.Longford@gov.wales, Michael.Weatherhead@gov.wales, Matthew.Coward@gov.wales)
Date: 4 September 2026, 15:49 UTC
Subject: RE: Great House Farm, Llandough

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>

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
SY16 1JB

Ffôn / Tel: 0300 025 5375
Ffôn symudol / Mobile: 07711 120252
E-bost/ Email: andy.wigley@llyw.cymru<mailto:andy.wigley@llyw.cymru> / andy.wigley@gov.wales<mailto:andy.wigley@gov.wales>

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.

From: Sion Buckler
To: Andy.Wigley@gov.wales
Date: 4 September 2026, 16:33 UTC
Subject: Re: Great House Farm, Llandough

Thank you Andy,

Regards,

Sion

From: Sion Buckler
To: cadw@gov.wales (cc cadwplanning@gov.wales, cadw@tfw.wales, cadw@wales.gsi.gov.uk)
Date: 17 September 2026, 19:32 UTC
Subject: Great House Farm, Llandough

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 (Ret'd Sergeant)*
Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

Note: Delivery to cadw@gov.wales was blocked (550 5.4.1) and cadw@wales.gsi.gov.uk failed (domain not found). Copies to cadwplanning@gov.wales and cadw@tfw.wales were delivered.

From: Cadw contact centre (cadw@tfw.wales, operated by Transport for Wales)
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 18 September 2026, 06:17 UTC
Subject: Re: Great House Farm, Llandough #628635887

Hi Sion Thank you for your email.We have forwarded your complaint to our complaints manager.Kind regardsColin.

From: Sion Buckler
To: Andy.Wigley@gov.wales (cc complaints@gov.wales, cadwplanning@gov.wales)
Date: 20 September 2026, 07:17 UTC
Subject: Formal complaint of 17 September 2026 — Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough — non-delivery and re-service

Wigley,

I sent you the formal complaint below on 17 September 2026. I have since established that it never reached you.

It was addressed to cadw@gov.wales, which rejected it — my mail server recorded "message blocked… the address couldn't be found or is unable to receive email." A copy addressed to cadw@wales.gsi.gov.uk also failed, that domain having been decommissioned. The only addresses that accepted it were cadwplanning@gov.wales and cadw@tfw.wales.

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 cadw@gov.wales 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 (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

From: Sion Buckler
To: Andy.Wigley@gov.wales (cc complaints@gov.wales, cadwplanning@gov.wales)
Date: 22 September 2026, 15:51 UTC
Subject: Supplement to complaint re-served 20 September 2026 — Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough

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 my family's account 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 cadw@gov.wales 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 cadw@wales.gsi.gov.uk. 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 (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

From: Sion Buckler
To: Andy.Wigley@gov.wales
Date: 30 September 2026, 00:38 UTC
Subject: [2] Re: Supplement to complaint re-served 20 September 2026 — Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough

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 2026, re-served on 20 September after delivery to cadw@gov.wales was 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 (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber and Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

From: Dr Andy Wigley, Chief Inspector, Cadw
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 30 September 2026, 00:38 UTC
Subject: Automatic reply: [2] Re: Supplement to complaint re-served 20 September 2026 — Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough

Diolch am eich neges.
Rydw allan o'r Swyddfa.
Byddaf yn delio â’m he-byst ar ôl dychwelyd (1/10/26).
Am unrhyw beth brys cysylltwch â cadw@tfw.wales<mailto:cadw@tfw.wales>

Thank you for your message.
I am out of the office.
I will respond to my e-mails on my return (1/10/26).
If your email is urgent please contact cadw@tfw.wales<mailto:cadw@tfw.wales>

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> 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.

From: Steffan Herdman, Complaints Manager, Welsh Government Complaints Advice Team
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com (cc Complaints@gov.wales)
Date: 30 September 2026, 08:41 UTC
Subject: RE: Supplement to complaint re-served 20 September 2026 — Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough

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>.

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
Cyfarwyddiaeth Pobl a Lleoedd / People and Places Directorate
Llywodraeth Cymru / Welsh Government

From: Cadw contact centre (cadw@tfw.wales, operated by Transport for Wales)
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com
Date: 24 September 2026, 15:24 UTC
Subject: Re: FOI "Llandough Roman villa & medieval house finds were destroyed in a 1983 fire" #628912926

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

Note: The family's request was addressed to Heneb and GGAT and copied to cadw@tfw.wales and the RCAHMW. Its full text is catalogued on the Heneb page. This entry is Cadw's acknowledgement (ticket #628912926).

From: Sion Buckler
To: Freedom.ofinformation@gov.wales (cc walesofficefoi@ukgovwales.gov.uk)
Date: 28 September 2026, 21:42 UTC
Subject: FOI — Welsh Office / Cadw papers, July–December 1988 — Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough — following 26FOI 103

Freedom of Information
Welsh Government
Freedom.ofinformation@gov.wales
cc: walesofficefoi@ukgovwales.gov.uk — 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 https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/ . 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 (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals
hywelapbuckler@gmail.com

From: Dr Andy Wigley, Chief Inspector, Cadw
To: hywelapbuckler@gmail.com (cc CADWMinisterials@gov.wales)
Date: 1 October 2026, 14:26 UTC
Subject: RE: FOI — Welsh Office / Cadw papers, July–December 1988 — Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough — following 26FOI 103 (ATISN 27589)

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

Cathays Park

CARDIFF

CF10 3NQ

Email: DataProtectionOfficer@gov.wales

The contact details for the Information Commissioner’s Office are:

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Website: www.ico.org.uk

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

SY16 1JB

Ffôn / Tel: 0300 025 5375

Ffôn symudol / Mobile: 07711 120252

E-bost/ Email: andy.wigley@llyw.cymru / andy.wigley@gov.wales

 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.

From: Sion Buckler
To: Andy.Wigley@gov.wales
Date: 1 October 2026, 15:34 UTC
Subject: Re: FOI — Welsh Office / Cadw papers, July–December 1988 — Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough — following 26FOI 103 (ATISN 27589)

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. This whole situation maybe unprecedented. It was already a landmark legal case in 1987, without this added layer we may now be understanding.

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 (Ret'd Sergeant) Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member

From: Sion Buckler
To: Freedom.ofinformation@gov.wales
Date: 10 October 2026, 19:14 UTC
Subject: ATISN 27021 — existing records behind the 1988 listing-file disposal finding

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 (Ret'd Sergeant)
Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member