Subject: Re: RC26-0375 (gan gynnwys RC26-0353, -0368, a -0371) - Ty Mawr/ Great House, Llandough, Cardiff
From: Sion Buckler
Direction: sent
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 00:12 UTC
Institution: RCAHMW (Royal Commission)
Refs: RC26-0353, RC26-0375
Archive id: gm-1a0efa79faafb260
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Adam,

Thank you for your detailed response of 29 September (RC26-0375). It is
particularly helpful to have your confirmation that Archive 6048945 records
Richard Suggett's visit to the site after its demolition in December 1988,
and for identifying Archives 6048941, 6048942 and 6048944.

I have considered your response alongside the Commission's catalogue
entries and the other records now available. Before any of the outstanding
September requests are treated as concluded, I need to clarify one
distinction.

You state (as in your emails of 28 May, 10 June and 11 June) that there are
no letters or records concerning Tŷ Mawr Farm, Llandough, in the
Commission's registered files, which you describe as the only campaign
records kept in the long term.

I note that answer. My requests were not confined to registered campaign
files. They concern recorded information held by the Commission relating to
the site, including records which your own archive identifies as existing,
lost, received or created in connection with it.

I am happy for the points below to be answered in whatever order is most
convenient, provided the FOIA/EIR status and original dates of the
September requests are preserved. Where a point has already been answered
in full, a short confirmation that nothing further is held will suffice; I
do not wish the Commission to repeat itself.

1. Scope of the search

Please confirm whether the search has extended beyond registered files to
other relevant NMRW collections and systems, including (where applicable):

- Inventory working papers, drafts, record cards and historic index cards;
- field and survey notes;
- measured drawings, sketches, plans and elevations;
- maps and plan collections;
- photographic collections, negatives and indexes;
- vertical and oblique aerial photography and its indexes;
- grey literature and unpublished reports;
- special, personal or specialist collections;
- background records;
- historic administrative records;
- digital and legacy catalogue systems;
- accession and deposit records;
- transfer, withdrawal, de-accession or disposal records; and
- uncatalogued or separately catalogued material reasonably capable of
containing information about the site.

Please also confirm whether the search used the principal known identifiers
and variants, including:

Great House Farm; Great House; Tŷ Mawr; Ty Mawr Farm; Llandough;
Llandochau; Llandough-juxta-Penarth; NPRN 20182; ST 1681 7331; ST16707335;
GGAT02038s; Inventory site 425; NA/GL/88/49; NA/GL/89/208; RCS2/1/1777;
RCS2/1/1776; 6048941; 6048942; 6048944; 6048945; C.N. Johns; CN Johns; and
Mrs Buckler.

If any of the categories above were not searched, a simple statement to
that effect is sufficient.

2. The lost C.N. Johns / Mrs Buckler correspondence

The surviving Suggett record (Archive 6048945) identifies correspondence
between C.N. Johns and Mrs Buckler as having been lost from the file since
1986/87.

Your response establishes that the correspondence itself cannot now be
located. Please therefore confirm whether the Commission has also searched
for any residual records about that correspondence, including:

- a file cover or wrapper;
- enclosure or contents list;
- accession or receipt entry;
- issue, loan or handling record;
- reader-request record;
- catalogue or index card;
- duplicate copy;
- draft, extract or summary;
- contemporary note concerning its absence;
- later note concerning its loss;
- correspondence concerning its loss;
- transfer or return record; or
- any other record identifying when or how the correspondence ceased to be
with the file.

If none of those records exists, please say so expressly. The question is
no longer simply whether the correspondence survives, but whether the
surviving archive contains any documentary trace of its provenance and
disappearance.

3. Archive 6048945

Please provide the complete surviving contents of Archive 6048945 (every
page, card, continuation sheet, annotation and enclosure).

Please also confirm whether 6048945 is a complete standalone record, part
of a larger file or collection, an extract separated from a parent record,
or linked in any catalogue, accession or administrative system to other
records concerning Great House Farm/Tŷ Mawr.

You have confirmed that Suggett visited the site after demolition. Please
also confirm whether there is any surviving record giving the date or
purpose of that visit beyond the description currently catalogued, or any
associated site note, field sheet, photograph, sketch or correspondence.

4. NA/GL/88/49 and NA/GL/89/208

Thank you for explaining the relationship between those admission
references and Archives 6048945 and 6048941.

Please confirm whether the Commission retains any admission register entry,
receipt, accession sheet, contents list, file wrapper, box/listing record,
catalogue amendment, transfer record or other metadata showing what was
originally received under NA/GL/88/49 and NA/GL/89/208.

In particular, if 6048941 is the only surviving record received under
NA/GL/89/208, please confirm whether that conclusion comes from an original
admission record or simply from what is currently visible in the catalogue.

5. RCS2/1/1777 and RCS2/1/1776

I appreciate the clarification concerning Archive Numbers 6364275 and
6364276.

The separate question concerning RCS2/1/1777 remains open. Please confirm
whether the contents of RCS2/1/1777 have actually been inspected (including
location plan, photographs, captions and associated recording material)
sufficiently to establish whether the site is Bonvilston or Llandough.

If it is Bonvilston, I will record that as resolved. If it is Llandough,
please explain whether the catalogue has been or will be corrected or
linked to NPRN 20182, and provide the contents and copies requested earlier.

Please also confirm whether RCS2/1/1776 has been checked for the same
reason.

6. Photographs and aerial photography

I note your explanation that searching the aerial collection may involve a
charge.

Before deciding whether to commission a paid search, please tell me what
the Commission's existing indexes or catalogue systems establish about
aerial coverage of the relevant location:

- Is there any aerial coverage containing the site?
- Is there any vertical or oblique coverage for the relevant period?
- Is there any photograph taken during or after the demolition?
- Are there catalogue entries for photographs which are no longer held?
- Does the Commission have any image connected to NPRN 20182 which is not
presently visible on Coflein?

This is relevant to Suggett's statement that there was apparently no
photographic record of the site. I would like to distinguish “Suggett could
identify no photographic record at the time” from “the Commission has
searched its photographic collections and holds no photograph of the site”.
A nil return following a defined search of the photographic and aerial
indexes would itself be a useful result.

7. The 1974 survey and the ownership dispute

Your quotation of Archive 6048945 now establishes (as a matter of the
Commission's own file) that the house remained partially recorded because
of problems created by an ownership dispute. That point is therefore
settled.

Please confirm whether the Commission holds anything beyond the material
already visible on Coflein concerning:

- H.J. Thomas's 26 April 1974 survey;
- the 1974 site notes;
- the 12 December 1988 additions to the plan;
- measured drawings;
- field notes;
- correspondence concerning access; or
- any decision about what could or could not be recorded because of the
ownership dispute.

I am not asking the Commission to adjudicate the ownership dispute. I am
seeking only to establish what recording opportunities existed and what
records were actually made. (For context, the Commission's post-demolition
addition to the 1974 plan on 12 December 1988 is the only institutional
building-recording event identified in the immediate aftermath of the
demolition.)

8. Transfers, retention and disposal

Please confirm whether any records concerning Great House Farm/Tŷ Mawr were
ever transferred to another repository, received from another repository,
returned to a depositor, withdrawn, de-accessioned, destroyed, or otherwise
removed from the Commission's custody. Where such an event occurred, please
provide the recorded date, description, authority/reference and destination
where held.

In particular, please confirm whether relevant material was ever
transferred to or received from Cadw/Welsh Office/Welsh Government,
Glamorgan Archives, The National Archives, Amgueddfa Cymru, GGAT/Heneb or
another institution. (I note that the public HER entry GGAT02038s now
incorporates material derived from the Commission's 1988 records; any
residual administrative link or transfer record relating to that would be
useful.)

9. The nineteenth-century deposit

Thank you for identifying Archives 6048942 and 6048944.

I am not asking the Commission to endorse the historical account. I would
like the provenance of the RCAHMW record established, so far as it can be:

- what source was used to create Archive 6048942;
- whether that source was contemporary, retrospective or copied from
another publication;
- whether RCAHMW ever examined the alleged objects itself;
- whether any accession, transfer or correspondence record connected the
account with Amgueddfa Cymru; and
- whether the attribution that material was held by the National Museum of
Wales appears elsewhere in the Commission's records.

If the Commission has no such provenance information, please say so. (For
completeness, Amgueddfa Cymru has separately stated that it holds no record
of such an acquisition; I raise the point only to establish the documentary
trail within the Commission's own holdings.)

10. The demolition sequence

Your confirmation that Suggett visited after demolition makes the following
question particularly important.

Please confirm whether the Commission holds any record of notification of
the proposed demolition, notification during the demolition, a request for
(or consideration of, or decision not to undertake) emergency recording, a
site visit before, during or immediately after demolition, or contact with
Cadw, GGAT, the relevant local authority, BP Properties or its agents, or
Mrs Buckler or any other family member.

I am aware that the Commission may not have been under a statutory duty to
receive notice merely because the building was unlisted. I am not assuming
otherwise. The question is simply whether any such recorded information
exists. The Commission's own addition to the plan on 12 December 1988 is
the only institutional recording event so far identified in the immediate
post-demolition period; any residual notes or correspondence from that
visit would therefore be of particular value.

11. Search statement

Because the principal issue is now the distinction between “not in the
registered files” and “not held anywhere by the Commission”, I would be
grateful for a short factual search statement identifying:

- which physical record series were searched;
- which electronic/catalogue systems were searched;
- the principal names, site identifiers or reference numbers used;
- whether relevant archive staff or custodians were consulted; and
- whether any potentially relevant material was excluded because it was
uncatalogued, separately indexed, deposited or otherwise outside the
registered-file series.

A concise factual description is sufficient; I am not asking for an
elaborate report.

12. Statutory status

Finally, I do not want the distinction between the Commission's public
enquiry/research service and its statutory information-rights function to
become blurred.

My requests of 8, 15, 17 and 20 September 2026 remain as made. I am content
for the Commission to answer them together where that is administratively
easier, but I am not withdrawing them or converting them into paid research
enquiries.

Please therefore confirm:

1. which request or requests your present email is intended to answer;
2. whether each outstanding request remains open;
3. whether your present email is intended to constitute a formal FOIA/EIR
response;
4. where you say information is not held, the scope of the search
supporting that conclusion;
5. where information is being withheld rather than not held, the relevant
statutory basis; and
6. the applicable internal-review procedure and the name/contact details of
the officer responsible for information rights.

I appreciate the distinction you have drawn between material the Commission
currently holds and material which may once have existed. That distinction
is precisely why I am trying to establish the documentary chain carefully
rather than draw conclusions from gaps in the archive.

I am deliberately approaching this as a records-reconstruction exercise. I
am not asking the Commission to reach a conclusion about ownership, the
legality of the demolition, or the conduct of any person or institution.

My aim is to establish what records were created, what survives, what
entered or left the Commission's custody, what was transferred or disposed
of, what cannot now be located, and what searches have actually been
undertaken.

Thank you again for your assistance. I would be grateful if the outstanding
September requests could remain open while these points of clarification
are addressed.

Regards,

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