Subject: RE: Acknowledgement from the Culture, Communications, Cymraeg and Sport Committee From: Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Cyfathrebu, y Gymraeg a Chwaraeon - Culture, Communications, Cymraeg and Sport Committee Direction: received Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 09:13 UTC Institution: Senedd Refs: none Archive id: gm-19ff53ffe0f61979 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Mr Buckler, Thank you for your further correspondence and for clarifying the purpose of your submission. I understand the distinction you draw between seeking a review of the original 1988 decision and raising broader concerns about record-keeping, archival practice, and public accountability. However, the Committee's role is to scrutinise and hold the Welsh Government and associated public bodies to account in relation to policy, governance, and the use of public resources. While I appreciate the broader administrative concerns you have identified, the issues raised in your correspondence arise from a specific historical case. The Committee does not have a role in reviewing or overseeing day-to-day operational decisions taken in individual cases. Accordingly, the Committee is unable to take forward the matters raised in your correspondence. If you wish to pursue concerns regarding the management, retention or preservation of historical records, these matters are most appropriately raised with the relevant public authority or archival body responsible for those records. Similarly, concerns regarding the administration of a public body should be pursued through that body's complaints procedure and, where appropriate, with the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. Thank you for taking the time to write to the Committee and to set out your concerns in detail. Yours sincerely, Haidee [cid:image001.png@01DD2A3D.D9F9C7A0] Haidee James[cid:image002.png@01DD2A3D.D9F9C7A0] Ail Glerc, Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Cyfathrebu, y Gymraeg a Chwaraeon, Senedd Cymru Second Clerk, Culture, Communications, Cymraeg and Sport Committee, Welsh Parliament [phone redacted] Rhagenwau|Pronouns: hi – she/her From: Sion Buckler <[email redacted]> Sent: 11 August 2026 16:57 To: Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Cyfathrebu, y Gymraeg a Chwaraeon - Culture, Communications, Cymraeg and Sport Committee <[email redacted]> Subject: Re: Acknowledgement from the Culture, Communications, Cymraeg and Sport Committee Dear Ms James, Thank you for your considered response. I understand and accept that the Committee does not have a remit to adjudicate upon an individual dispute, determine whether a historical decision was lawful, or direct Cadw to reopen a particular case. My submission was deliberately framed so as not to ask the Committee to do any of those things. I would, however, respectfully clarify one point, because I am concerned that the nature of the request may have been characterised more narrowly than intended. The attached report expressly states that it is not a legal challenge, a forensic proof of wrongdoing, a complaint seeking adjudication, or a demand for reversal of the 1988 decision. Its stated purpose is historical record correction, archival explanation and administrative acknowledgement. In particular, it asks for an explanation of why almost none of the records concerning the 1988 assessment survive, whether that reflects the applicable record-retention arrangements, and whether the surviving independent evidence should be properly reflected in the permanent public record. The central issue therefore extends beyond the merits of the individual 1988 listing assessment. Cadw's 2026 FOI response confirms that an assessment took place, but that only two exterior photographs now survive; the assessment report, reasons for refusal, site notes, internal recommendations and consultation correspondence are no longer available. The report does not assert that this proves wrongdoing. Rather, it identifies a straightforward public-administration question: how can the adequacy and evidential basis of an irreversible public heritage decision be understood or scrutinised when the underlying administrative record no longer survives? That seems potentially relevant to the Committee's stated function of scrutinising the administration and accountability of Welsh Government and associated public bodies, even if the Committee cannot itself determine whether the 1988 decision was correct. I am therefore not asking the Committee to investigate the Buckler family's historical dispute with BP, adjudicate upon the 1988 decision, or direct Cadw to reverse anything. The specific administrative questions raised in the report are instead: 1. What record-retention arrangements applied to the 1988 assessment? 2. Why do the assessment report, reasons, site notes and consultation records no longer survive? 3. Were the records destroyed under an applicable retention policy or other authority, and were they considered for transfer to the appropriate archival institution? 4. Is the present position consistent with Welsh Government/Cadw expectations for the preservation of records concerning significant heritage decisions? 5. Are current arrangements sufficient to ensure that comparable heritage assessments, particularly where a building is under imminent threat of demolition, are properly documented and retained? These are not questions that require the Committee to determine the rights of either party to the original dispute. They concern administrative practice, institutional record-keeping and the ability of the Senedd and the public to scrutinise decisions taken by public bodies. The report specifically asks Cadw to explain the archival position and review its current record-keeping practices for this reason. I would therefore be grateful if the Committee could reconsider whether the broader administrative and accountability issue falls within its scrutiny function, even if the Committee cannot examine the underlying individual dispute. If the Committee considers that it nevertheless cannot engage with the matter, I would appreciate clarification as to which Senedd or Welsh Government scrutiny, oversight, archival or complaints mechanism is considered appropriate for raising a documented concern about the absence of the administrative record of a historical Cadw decision and the implications this has for public accountability. For completeness, I should also emphasise that the report itself deliberately recognises the limits of the surviving evidence. It does not claim that Cadw acted unlawfully or in bad faith, and it expressly acknowledges that the absence of the 1988 working papers means that the assessment cannot now be reconstructed definitively. My objective is therefore quite limited: to ensure that the surviving evidence is preserved, that the archival gap is properly explained, and that the public record accurately distinguishes what is established from what can no longer be verified. I hope that clarification assists, and I would be grateful if you could confirm whether the Committee is able to consider the matter from that wider public-administration and accountability perspective. Kind regards, Sion Buckler (Ret’d Sergeant) Royal Signals Cyber & Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member On Tue, 11 Aug 2026, 07:58 Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Cyfathrebu, y Gymraeg a Chwaraeon - Culture, Communications, Cymraeg and Sport Committee, <[email redacted]<[email redacted]>> wrote: Dear Mr Buckler, Thank you for your correspondence and for sharing the forensic review of Cadw's 1988 assessment of Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough. I acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed in your letter and recognise the longstanding concerns that you and your family have raised. The Committee’s role is to scrutinise the work of the Welsh Government and associated public bodies, including holding ministers and public authorities to account for their policies, administration and use of public resources. However, the Committee does not have a remit to investigate, adjudicate upon, or oversee individual complaints or dispute. Nor does it have the powers to reopen historical decisions or direct public bodies to undertake investigations into specific matters. The Committee is therefore unable to take on an oversight role in relation to the issues you raise or to intervene in these matters. The matters you raise appear principally to concern the actions and decision-making processes of Cadw in relation to a specific historical assessment. Cadw are responsible for responding to requests for information about their records and decision-making processes, and for considering any representations made regarding the accuracy or completeness of the historical record. Thank you again for writing to the Committee. Kind regards, Haidee [cid:image001.png@01DD2A3D.D9F9C7A0] Haidee James[cid:image002.png@01DD2A3D.D9F9C7A0] Ail Glerc, Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Cyfathrebu, y Gymraeg a Chwaraeon, Senedd Cymru Second Clerk, Culture, Communications, Cymraeg and Sport Committee, Welsh Parliament [phone redacted] Rhagenwau|Pronouns: hi – she/her From: Sion Buckler <[email redacted]<[email redacted]>> Sent: 10 August 2026 22:46 To: [email redacted]<[email redacted]> Cc: [email redacted]<[email redacted]>; [email redacted]<[email redacted]>; DOUGHTY, Stephen <[email redacted]<[email redacted]>> Subject: Re: CADW failures – Revised Report (10 August 2026) 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 [email redacted]<[email redacted]> [phone redacted]