Subject: Re: Epexio contact us form submission From: Sion Buckler Direction: sent Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2026 04:14 UTC Institution: Glamorgan Archives Refs: none Archive id: gm-1a0e112511993a85 ------------------------------------------------------------ Louise, Thank you again for your very detailed response under reference 2026/4097. You have been extremely helpful throughout this research, and I am very conscious of that. I do travel back and forth to the UK and will visit Leckwith in person, where I look forward to meeting you and the team and thanking you personally. I wanted to reply because I think I can now explain more precisely what I am trying to establish from the records. I am trying to reconstruct what happened historically which led my late grandmother and father, over many decades, to continue asserting that our family owned the land at Great House Farm, while that position was repeatedly contested and ultimately possession was awarded to BP in *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler*. What has caused me to revisit the documentary history is that the later position is not as straightforward as I had previously assumed. Land Registry has now told me that its position is not that it determined that my family did not own the land; but it insists that no registration mistake has been identified, which is what the MP forwarded me (they're fobbing him off too). Land registry will wake up to this soon I'm sure. Or I'm wrong and I need to wake up. But I am a military warfare professional, and while I make mistakes, or AI makes mistakes on my behalf, I have no issue holding my hands up. I'm just trying to understand what happened to us and our home and our land as children in the 80's, and why it all happened. At the same time, I have so far found no convincing documentary evidence of my family paying rent for the particular parcel which we occupied and claimed as our own after the quarrying arrangement appears to have come to an end. I have therefore had one of my AI agents published my current reconstruction, including the documentary sources behind it, here: Great House Farm research I am not asking you to accept that reconstruction. It's clearly hit and miss as an early technology. I am asking for your help in testing it against the records held by Glamorgan Archives. The central question My present understanding is that what had originally been treated as one agricultural holding can, when the surviving documents are examined chronologically, be distinguished into two areas. For simplicity, I have called them *Parcel A* and *Parcel B*: - *Parcel A* — the farmhouse, house plot, garden and associated land north/west of St Dochdwy's Church, occupied by my family; and - *Parcel B* — the agricultural land to the east which was subject to the agricultural tenancy and subsequently associated with Western Ground Rents. I appreciate that “Parcel A” and “Parcel B” are my labels, not historical descriptions appearing in the documents. But they aren't entirely just my labels, parcel B is clearly what is in the 1939 map, which you hold, which the council clerk for Llandough directed me to earlier this year, on his day of retirement. Also in 1983 two parcels were merged at the land registry, by BP. Which confirms two parcels. I have purchased all those records avaliable and the maps do confirm what I suspect. The important question is whether the *underlying documents themselves support the physical distinction*. My working reconstruction is that the 1877 Daniel Thomas/Williams arrangements ultimately resulted in my family acquiring the freehold interest in the land around the farmhouse when the quarrying arrangement came to an end, with the last machinery leaving in 1928. If that is correct, it would explain something which otherwise appears very difficult to reconcile. The 1916 agricultural tenancy may have covered both parcels of the farm as a whole at that time. But if part of that holding subsequently ceased to be part of the agricultural tenancy because of my family's interest in the parcel A crystallising into our freehold of parcel A, then the 1938 Western Ground Rents acquisition and the *1939 revised agricultural tenancy* would not necessarily concern our farmhouse land. Despite decades of it being treated as though it did and our occupancy being allegedly permissive, which is a narrative forced upon us to believe, when it most likely wasn't the case. And why my nan rejected the premis and my dad too. Until their dying breaths. I inherit this interest in this land parcel A as heir and successor. That is why the 1939 plan was so important and helpful. The point I would particularly like you to confirm *When you look at the actual 1939 Western Ground Rents revised tenancy and its plan, I presume you see the same thing I see?* My reading is that the plan depicts *Parcel B, the eastern agricultural land, but does not depict or include Parcel A containing the farmhouse and the land immediately associated with it.* If that is what the plan shows, I would be very grateful if you could simply confirm that. If I am wrong, I would equally value you telling me that I am wrong and, ideally, pointing me to the feature of the plan or accompanying document which demonstrates that. I am not asking you to determine what that means in law. Only whether *we are looking at the same physical information in the same historical document*. That distinction is crucial because I am increasingly concerned that the later history may have proceeded on the assumption that there was only one undivided parcel, when the contemporary records may actually distinguish two different interests. I would like to do the same exercise with the other records Your response itself says: “With all historical research of this nature, it is necessary to piece together information from surviving records that have been deposited with us.” That is precisely what I am now trying to do. I understand the scientific process demands you look at the evidence and tell what it tells. But I've done that, I'm making my case. And I'm actually drawing the conclusion South Wales might be hexed under a spell not seeing what I see. We also have hallucination with AI which is why I ask for this specific clarification of the evidence you hold against my interpretation of it. Because in one hand I have the narrative, from court documents and news articles saying we were squatters. In the other hand I have credible evidence we had no issue relinquishing their parcel. The problem was all with us on our parcel. And Western Ground Rents and BP don't appear to ever had our parcel to be able to assert we were on it permissively. And the 1982 registration of their parcel in their name, is paradoxically based on an alledged no contest our occupancy was permissive. When its all we've done since the 40's is challenge it. Almost a century. I would therefore be grateful if, where reasonably possible, you could look at the relevant surviving records and tell me whether the documentary evidence supports, contradicts, or simply does not establish the following: *1. 1916* I think the 1916 agricultural tenancy appears to encompass the whole farm as it then stood. Weather it was 2 seperate parcels then I don't know. *2. 1877 / 1928* Do the surviving Thomas/Williams/quarrying records support or contradict the proposition that the farmhouse parcel was treated differently from the eastern agricultural land, and that the relevant quarrying arrangement had an effect on the family's interest in that land by 1928? *3. 1938* Does the Western Ground Rents conveyance or associated material show that WGR acquired the farmhouse/house plot itself, or does it appear to concern only the agricultural interest which subsequently appears in the 1939 tenancy? *4. 1939* Does the revised WGR tenancy plan contain only the eastern agricultural parcel, excluding the farmhouse and its immediate land? This is the point on which I would particularly appreciate a direct confirmation or correction. *5. 1955 / 1962 / 1974* Do the surviving records contain any express documentary act which actually transferred, extinguished or otherwise conclusively disposed of the family's claimed interest in the farmhouse parcel? I am deliberately not asking you to determine the legal effect of those events. I am asking whether such an express documentary act appears in the records. *6. Later title history* Do the surviving Glamorgan Archives records contain documentary evidence showing how the farmhouse parcel itself passed from the earlier family interest into Western Ground Rents, BP or another owner before the 1982/83 registration? Or is that documentary chain simply not present in the surviving archive? I would genuinely welcome correction I want to emphasise this because I do not want this correspondence to become an exercise in asking the Archive to validate my theory. If I have misunderstood the records, *please tell me plainly*. If the records support what I am seeing, please tell me that plainly too. And if the surviving material cannot establish the point either way, that is also a useful and perfectly acceptable answer. Something as simple as: *Supported by the surviving record* *Not supported / contradicted by the surviving record* *Cannot be determined from the surviving record* would be enormously helpful to me, together with the relevant reference where possible. I am particularly keen to establish this because the research has already demonstrated the value of going back to the underlying documents rather than relying upon later descriptions of them. The 1877 material is a good example: what initially appeared to be an inconsistency has been capable of being reconsidered once the underlying research and records were examined. That has made me realise that I need to make sure that I am not making the same mistake in reverse. I do not want to build an elaborate theory around a document which I have simply misunderstood. I am not asking the Archive to become a party to the dispute I completely understand the distinction between an archive holding a record and a court or Land Registry determining legal title. I am not asking Glamorgan Archives to adjudicate the dispute, give me legal advice, determine ownership, or take sides against any present landowner or public authority. I am asking for something considerably narrower: *I want to know whether the historical documentary evidence held by the Archive actually shows what I think it shows.* That seems to me to be a legitimate research question for an archive service, particularly where the answer can be expressed simply by reference to what is physically depicted or expressly recorded in the documents. I also appreciate that the statutory FOI duty itself does not necessarily require an archive to create a new interpretation of information merely because a requester asks for one. I am not trying to turn this into such a demand. I am asking for professional assistance and dialogue in understanding the historical material, which seems consistent with Glamorgan Archives' own published access principles concerning open two-way communication, active participation by users and responsiveness to the community it serves. The wider Archive Service Accreditation framework likewise recognises access and engagement with communities as a core part of the function of an archive service. I think that distinction is important. Why this matters to me I am trying to establish what actually happened to my late grandmother and father's claimed ownership of their home and land. My family maintained that claim for decades. The claim was contested. The matter eventually resulted in the loss of possession and the subsequent demolition of the farmhouse. I completed 22 years of military service in 2024, leaving my career with honour. I am now approaching this as a researcher trying to establish the documentary truth of a family and community history. I am not asking anyone to believe my family merely because it is our family history. Quite the opposite. *I want the records to decide what can and cannot properly be said.* That is why I would value an open exchange with the people who hold those records. If you look at the 1939 plan and say, “No, Sion, I don't think it excludes the farmhouse parcel, and this is why,” I would consider that extremely useful. If you say, “Yes, I can see exactly what you are seeing — the plan depicts the eastern agricultural land and does not include the farmhouse parcel,” that is equally important. And if the surviving records simply do not allow the point to be determined, I would rather have that stated clearly than have either of us infer something which the evidence cannot sustain. I think that is the most constructive way for us to proceed. There is a shared interest here in getting the history right. These are records of the community in which we all live, and I think their greatest value is realised when the surviving evidence can be examined openly, critically and collaboratively. I would therefore be very grateful if you could engage with the question at that documentary level and tell me, as plainly as possible, *whether you see what I see*. Thank you again for all your assistance so far. I genuinely appreciate it. Kind regards, Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant) Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com On Thu, 24 Sept 2026, 16:56 Glamro / Swyddfa Cofnodion Morgannwg, < [email redacted]> wrote: > *Ref: 2026/4097* > > > > Dear Sion Buckler, > > > > Thank you for your email received into our enquiries system 8th > September. Please find below answers to your questions in turn. Please > note that prices quoted are without VAT based on the fact that you are in > Patagonia. > > > > **26 May 2026 (2026/2370)** > > 1. 1974 demolition petition, Llandough juxta Penarth — ref or not held. > > There is not a petition held within our collection. You would need to know > who the petition was submitted to in order to search for any further > reference to it. If it was submitted to the planning authority there may > be mention in the Planning Committee minutes and reports – see point 6 > below. > > > > **29 May 2026 FOIA/EIR (2026/2372)** > > > > 2. Williams/Buckler as owners, tenants, or reporters of the 1880 floor > discovery. > > One source of information about ownership would be rate books. UC/73/1 is > a rate book for 1882 – this is the nearest we have to 1880. A search of > this (and later volumes UC/73/1-5 covers 1882-1902 and then UDPE/T/30 and > UDPE/T/32 cover dates after 1900) could be undertaken by staff on your > behalf at a charge of *£50 *which would include copies of relevant > entries. > > > > 3. Gaps / missing volumes / withdrawals 1950–1989. > > We have never had a full set of records that would show the full > tenancy/ownership history of Great House / Ty Mawr Farm. With all > historical research of this nature, it is necessary to piece together > information from surviving records that have been deposited with us. There > are not any records that have been withdrawn from our collections that > would have provided additional information to this search for the period > 1950-1989. > > > > 4. Why the fabric was not scheduled before 1988 (or “Cadw holds this; we > hold nothing”). > > Not held in our collections – suggest contacting Cadw and the Royal > Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales. > > > > 5. Internal preservation assessments. > > As above - suggest contacting Cadw and the Royal Commission on the Ancient > and Historical Monuments of Wales. > > > > 6. Planning files for this acreage / demolition / Church View Close — file > refs, not class names. > > We do not hold planning files (it is possible some files may still be held > by the Vale of Glamorgan Council Planning Department), but we do hold > copies of the Planning Committee minutes and reports. Mary Buckler started > looking at the Planning Committee minutes and reports on her last visit to > the searchroom on 13th August. The document references to start with for > these would be DCVG/C/4/36/76-77 and DCVG/C/4/36/94 these are for the > planning applications 1989/01396/OUT and 1992/00671/RES. It is possible > that the minutes may make reference to any earlier applications or > discussions. A search of these records and anything else that they lead to > could be carried out by staff at a charge of *£50 *to include copies of > any relevant pages found. > > > > 7. When the known archaeology was raised in planning. > > If any record of this is in our collections it would appear in the > Planning Committee records described above in point 6. > > > > 8. EIAs / HER / developer briefs 1980–1990. > > The HER for Wales is searchable via the Heneb website: Historic > Environment Records (HER) - Heneb > . You could also > contact the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust to see if they have any > relevant information. > > > > **27 July / 5 August 2026 (2026/3309)** > > 9. DB/E/1–2 Stewart survey / Cedfin. > > This was consulted and photographed by Mary Buckler in our public > searchroom. If you would like to receive copies of the pages relating to > Ty Mawr this would be *two images* (one from DB/E/1 the survey and one > from DB/E/2 the terrier). Total cost *£17* (£13 for the first image in > the order and £4 for the next image). > > > > 10. Lambert Williams–Bute agreements 1818–1835 (not the D160 maps already > seen). > > Not held. Possibly at the National Library of Wales? > > > > 11. Material related to NLW D219. > > Not held – this is a National Library of Wales reference: Llandough > manorial leases and agreements, - National Library of Wales Archives and > Manuscripts > > You should contact the NLW for access or copies. > > > > 12. D153/4–8 1876 limeworks severance — not seen. > > Not held – this is a National Library of Wales reference: Deeds relating > to premises in p. Llandough, co. Glam., comprising a dwelling house > adjoining the churchyard, 1811 (D153/1-2), land (19 ..., - National Library > of Wales Archives and Manuscripts > . > You should contact the NLW for access or copies. > > > > 13. DXJF/64/27–32 full sketch bundle — notes seen; confirm sketches and > refs. > > We believe that the specific references within the bundle 27-32 that would > be of interest to you are items DXJF/64/30-31: sketch of former layout of > part of village of Llandough-juxta-Penarth by Mrs. Nancy Buckler of great > house farm, Llandough, with notes c1950 [1 card, 1 paper]. Is that what you > have already seen? Other items in the bundle do not relate to Llandough. > > > > 14. DCOWHS on Buckler of Penarth (not DCO/WHS/2). > > DCOWHS/2 is the only part of the DCOWHS (Cowbridge and District Local > History Society) that relates to Buckler of Penarth. No other records held. > > > > 15. Exact ref of the Nov 1877 counterpart already photographed; separate > July 1877 counterpart? > > I think the items described below have been discussed previously – are > these what you are seeking? Please confirm and we can provide a quote for > producing copies if required. > > > > *Document reference* > > - DBDT/1/3 > > *Title* > > - Adamsdown Square leases from the trustees of the will of the late > Marquess of Bute > . Lease to Mr John Williams > > *Level of description* > > - Item > > *Date* > > - Jul 1877 > > *Extent* > > - 1 parchment; plan in margin > > > > > > *Document reference* > > - DBDT/18/1 > > *Title* > > - Lease (counterpart) of land and premises situate in Clyde Street, > Roath from the trustees of the Will of the late Marquess of Bute to Mr John > Williams > > *Level of description* > > - Item > > *Date* > > - Nov 1877 > > *Extent* > > - 1 parchment; plan in margin > > > > 16. Cardiff RDC records for this farm. > > No records found. The area was not covered by Cardiff Rural District > Council but rather Penarth Urban District Council. > > > > 17. DRA 418–420 / DRA 5/31 if this site. > > Neither of these are complete document references from our collection. > Perhaps you could check these references or let us know what you think they > should be and we will be happy to search our catalogue. > > > > 18. UDPE/S/1/68. > > This was viewed by Mary Buckler on 6th August and is a set of plans for a > pair of semi-detached houses on the road between Dinas Powys and Llandough. > If you would like copies of these plans 5 images will be required at a > charge of *£20.* > > > > 19. Penarth estate/tithe/OS/boundary plans of the house plot (not > Cowbridge 1924/38). > > The relevant estate map would be the Bute Estate survey which is referred > to in point 9 above. You can view the tithe map online here: Tithe Maps > of Wales > > along with the accompanying apportionment: Tithe Maps of Wales > . > Many historic Ordnance Survey maps can also be viewed online, for example > through the National Library of Scotland website: Map Finder - with > Outlines - National Library of Scotland > > . > > > > 20. WGR / Mountjoy / BP Pension Trust / BP Properties papers. > > The only relevant papers we have are those mentioned in point 5.4 in my > email of 7th September: collection reference D696 – book of plans and > rental books for land owned by Western Ground Rents Ltd c1938-1944. A > search of these records could be carried out on your behalf at a charge of > *£50.* > > > > 21. Associated bundles stored separately. > > All catalogues have been searched for your enquiry. > > > > 22. Uncatalogued / recent deposits 1875–1988. > > A search of our accessions database, which records all records received > into our collection even if they haven’t yet been catalogued, has not > revealed any additional records. > > > > 23. Photography for copies to Patagonia — rules. > > Please find attached the digital photography order form which applies > wherever you are based. As mentioned above, prices quoted do not include > VAT due to your location. You need to sign and agree to the declaration on > the order form. > > > > **22 August 2026 — no reply** > > > > 24–29. DBDT10/19 and 10/20 identification of Daniel Thomas; Bute–Thomas > search at Llandough juxta Penarth; quarry/lime/reversion instruments > (poor-rate occupation already seen); later title; research cost. > > These points were answered in my email of 7th September. > > > > **26 August 2026 — no reply** > > 30–35. Physical examination of original **DBDT79/1** (catalogued May 1877, > Pembroke Terrace). Treat as a different instrument from the Nov 1877 > Llandough counterpart unless you confirm they are the same. > > These points were answered in my email of 14th September. > > > > We hope that this information is of use to you. We will respond to other > outstanding emails in due course. > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > Louise Hunt > > *Archifydd / Archivist* > > > > [map link redacted] > > *Archifau Morgannwg / Glamorgan Archives* > > [map link redacted] > > *Clos Parc Morgannwg > [map link redacted]* > > [map link redacted] > > *Lecwydd / Leckwith > [map link redacted]* > > *Caerdydd / Cardiff > [map link redacted]* > > *[postcode redacted] > [map link redacted]* > > > > [phone redacted] > > *[email redacted]* <[email redacted]> > > > > *www.archifaumorgannwg.gov.uk/* > *www.glamarchives.gov.uk* > > www.facebook.com/glamarchives > > www.instagram.com/glamarchives > > ********************************************************************** > > The Council welcomes correspondence in Welsh, English or bilingually. We > will ensure that we communicate with you in the language of your choice, as > long as you let us know which you prefer. Corresponding in Welsh will not > lead to delay. > > Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If > you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for > delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this > message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly > notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your > employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. > Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not > relate to the official business of the Council of the City and County of > Cardiff shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. All e-mail > sent to or from this address will be processed by Cardiff County Councils > Corporate E-mail system and may be subject to scrutiny by someone other > than the addressee. > > ********************************************************************** > > Mae’r Cyngor yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg, Saesneg neu’n ddwyieithog. > Byddwn yn cyfathrebu â chi yn ôl eich dewis, dim ond i chi roi gwybod i ni > pa un sydd well gennych. Ni fydd gohebu yn Gymraeg yn arwain at oedi. > > Mae'n bosibl bod gwybodaeth gyfrinachol yn y neges hon. Os na chyfeirir y > neges atoch chi'n benodol (neu os nad ydych chi'n gyfrifol am drosglwyddo'r > neges i'r person a enwir), yna ni chewch gopio na throsglwyddo'r neges. > Mewn achos o'r fath, dylech ddinistrio'r neges a hysbysu'r anfonwr drwy > e-bost ar unwaith. Rhowch wybod i'r anfonydd ar unwaith os nad ydych chi > neu eich cyflogydd yn caniatau e-bost y Rhyngrwyd am negeseuon fel hon. > Rhaid deall nad yw'r safbwyntiau, y casgliadau a'r wybodaeth arall yn y > neges hon nad ydynt yn cyfeirio at fusnes swyddogol Cyngor Dinas a Sir > Caerdydd yn cynrychioli barn y Cyngor Sir nad yn cael sel ei fendith. Caiff > unrhyw negeseuon a anfonir at, neu o'r cyfeiriad e-bost hwn eu prosesu gan > system E-bost Gorfforaethol Cyngor Sir Caerdydd a gallant gael eu > harchwilio gan rywun heblaw'r person a enwir. > > ********************************************************************** >