Subject: RE: [3] Re: Formal complaint — GGAT / Heneb: Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough — HER identifiers and the 1978–1995 record From: Steven Foulston Direction: received Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:53 UTC Institution: Heneb (formerly GGAT) / Historic Environment Record Refs: none Archive id: gm-1a0f297acf478271 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Mr Buckler, I acknowledge receipt of your supplementary information. Best regards Steven Foulston From: Sion Buckler Sent: 30 September 2026 13:57 To: Steven Foulston Subject: [3] Re: Formal complaint — GGAT / Heneb: Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough — HER identifiers and the 1978–1995 record Mr Foulston, Thank you for acknowledging the complaint of 27 September 2026 and for confirming you are the investigating officer. I note the five-week target. Please treat this email as a supplement to that complaint. The attached is my report of GGATs involvement to the extent I know and a current consolidated account of GGAT’s role as curator, advisor, contractor and record-holder at Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough, and of the record now held by Heneb. Attachment GGAT — Forensic Critique, Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough, Version 4.0.3 (Final), 30 September 2026. My AI agent generated report based on the info I hold thus far, does attempt to distinguish established facts, reasonable inferences, matters that cannot be established, and facts that cut against the criticism. I took care not to allege dishonesty, bad faith or criminal conduct by named officers. It records nine defects: the standing building; the 1982–1988 SMR gap; an evaluation method mismatched to GGAT’s own predictive model; specify-price-bid-execute on the same application; a missing representation from a County Councillor identified as a member of GGAT; access converted into a “non-existent to low” zoning; failure to answer the Disused Burial Grounds question GGAT itself raised; a still-misclassified and inconsistently identified HER; and the absence, until your appointment, of any substantive institutional answer. What I ask Heneb to do on this complaint 1. Give me a complaint reference and confirm the target date for a written response. 2. Confirm which legal entity now holds GGAT’s records for this site (Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust Limited, company 01276976 / charity 505609 / Heneb operationally). 3. Correct or formally review HER GGAT02038s, which remains classified as “POST MEDIEVAL – Farm” despite the 1994 cemetery and the 2005 publication of 1,026 burials as the largest early-medieval burial population then recovered in Wales. 4. Reconcile the HER identifiers already supplied to the family (including GGAT02038s, GGAT03586s and GGATE003872) and supply the source file, not a public summary. 5. Search and disclose, or certify as not held: file S387; the 1 October 1982 letter; the 1989 consultee report on 89/01396/OUT; the 8 February 1990 further comments (Appendix B to the officer’s report); the 1990 assessment archive; any emergency building record, watching brief or fabric report on the December 1988 demolition; and any conflicts register or trustee minute for the 1989–90 commission. 6. Address the nine criticisms in the attached report in writing. Our family’s wider case, so the complaint is not read as a cataloguing dispute only Separately from the archaeological record: I believe there has been fraud, concealment and government involvement resulting in the dispossession of our home and land. The family has occupied and claimed Great House Farm since at least 1667. In 1988, after BP Properties Ltd v Buckler, we were removed. The farmhouse was demolished on 6 December 1988. About twenty houses now stand on that ground. The narrative that followed treated us as peasant squatters evicted from an old farmhouse. That narrative is false. In reconstructing the house as a Welsh heritage museum in Patagonia I found that our ownership of the house-and-garden parcel was never extinguished. The working case is two parcels: Parcel A (house and garden) belonging to Mary Williams; Parcel B treated as if it were the whole farm; a synthetic title built by decades of false assertion that occupation of Parcel A was permissive. Limitation is postponed if concealment is made out. That title case is for the Land Registry, the courts and the other bodies already on notice. It is not for Heneb to adjudicate. It is why the archaeological record matters. The same ground GGAT evaluated as largely empty contained inhumations a few centimetres below the topsoil. RCAHMW’s own file records that the standing building remained partially recorded because of the ownership dispute, and was then destroyed. Our family has suffered shame, dispossession, ostracisation, exile, reputational harm, and the loss of our ancestral home, land and an incompletely recorded building. There were, on our case, serious human-rights failures in how that was done too. Such as my pregnant mum being thrown over the gateway of our property into a puddle, which is why she is in a sling with a dislocated collar bone on ITV News Wales footage afterwards. She was trying to get medicine for my father who lay in hospital after a heart attack. I watched helpless, as a child, while our home was demolished in front of us. I am giving each institution that held a public function over this site the opportunity to remedy what it accepts. For Heneb that means putting the record right, producing what it holds, and saying plainly where GGAT’s 1978–1995 conduct and the present HER fail the standards that applied then and apply now. Remedy from Heneb is correction of the record, disclosure, and an accountable written position — not a finding on title. Please confirm receipt of the attached report and that it forms part of the complaint file you are investigating. Regards, Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant) Royal Signals Cyber and Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member