Subject: RC26-0375 (gan gynnwys RC26-0353, -0368, a -0371) - Ty Mawr/ Great House, Llandough, Cardiff - Further response
From: NMR Enquiries
Direction: received
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2026 13:47 UTC
Institution: RCAHMW (Royal Commission)
Refs: RC26-0353, RC26-0375
Archive id: gm-1a11178b91ab138c
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sion Buckler,

With regards to your email of 30th September, I note that many of the queries which you have set have already been addressed in our previous correspondence. In particular, please note that our searches have been extensive, including searches of any possibly relevant registered files, the only administrative and operational records and materials held in the long term, and the NMRW archive, including both term-based and spatial searches in the archive catalogue, and a manual search for any additional, uncatalogued material. This will be more fully addressed in point 1 as I take your questions in order, below.

1) Our searches have been extensive. This has included searches of any possibly relevant registered files, the only administrative records and materials held in the long term. As I have noted, we do not appear to hold any records or correspondence in these records relating to your enquiries, or to Great House Farm more generally, including the circumstances of its demolition. Our searches have also included full searches of the NMRW archive, including both term-based and spatial searches in the archive catalogue, and a manual search for any additional, uncatalogued material. The term-based searches have included all relevant site names and related terms, as you have enumerated them. These searches have therefore included searches for all of the types of records which you have enumerated, with the exception of our historic aerial photography collections, which searches would incur a charge (see point 6, below).

2) As has been noted in my previous correspondence, no record of this correspondence or allusion to the same is extant in our records, with the exception of the brief note in Archive 6048945. For the scope of our comprehensive searches undertaken to determine this, see point 1, above.

3) Regarding Archive Number 6048945, as I noted in my email of 29 September, if you would like to order a scan of this record, please complete the attached order form. The record comprises one page, front and back, and would therefore require two scans. Please note that we waive fees for small orders of fewer than 5 research-quality scans for personal, non-commercial research. The record is part of our NMR Site Files Collection, for details of which, please see the collection-level entry in our archive catalogue, here: https://coflein.gov.uk/en/archives/6202405. As I further noted in my email of 29 September, there is no surviving record giving the date or purpose of that visit beyond the description currently catalogued, nor any associated site note, field sheet, photograph, sketch or correspondence.

4) Searches of our internal records relating to these accessions numbers have revealed no further information beyond that which is available in the publicly accessible archive catalogue and noted in my email of 29th September.

5) These records have been thoroughly, physically reviewed and it has been determined that they relate to the sites stated in the Archive Catalogue. They do not relate or allude to Great House Farm, Llandough in any way.

6) With regard to aerial photography, as noted in my email of 29 September, a search of our aerial photography collections, including to determine whether there is aerial photography coverage of the site, would incur a charge (see attached price list). As was further noted in my email of 29 September, if any aerial photographs covering the area of the site do exist, these would likely be vertical aerial photography, taken from a high altitude during routine recording of the landscape and would be unlikely to show the site in any detail. There is no further photographic record of the site in our collection.

7) As noted in previous correspondence, the 1974 ‘investigator's notes for Great House Farm, Llandough, including sketch plan showing periods of construction’ by H. J. Thomas is Archive Number 6048943 (https://coflein.gov.uk/en/archives/6048943). The ‘ink drawing showing plan of Great House Farm, Llandough, showing periods of construction. Scale 1:100. Additions made 12/12/1988’ is Archive Number 6048941 (https://coflein.gov.uk/en/archives/6048941). A scan of the item Archive Number 6048943 can be ordered using the attached order form, while, as noted in my emails of 28 May and 29 September, a copy of Archive Number 6048941 is included in the report available here: https://www.walesher1974.org/her/app/php/herumd.php?group=GGAT&level=3&docid=301361628. As I have noted throughout our correspondence, we do not hold anything beyond the material already visible on Coflein.

8) There is no record of this.

9) We hold no such providence information.

10) As noted in my email of 29 September and in point 3, above, we do not hold any information relating to the circumstances of the December 1988 visit outside of Archive Number 6048945.

11) See point 1, above. Physical searches were undertaken of all relevant Registered Files and key collections, such as the Site Files, which may have contained uncatalogued material. In both cases nothing of any relevance was identified beyond the records enumerated in the online archive catalogue here: https://coflein.gov.uk/en/sites/20182/archives. Comprehensive searches were carried out on both Coflein and Historic Wales, as well as in our internal archive catalogue and details of these searches are noted in point 1, above. All identified archive material has been carefully examined and read by our enquiries staff. All relevant records and archive staff have been consulted. No potentially relevant material has been excluded for any reason.

12) In accordance with the suggestion contained in your email of 20 September, my email of 29 September fully addressed, and was in reply to, all enquiries of 8, 15, 17, and 20 September, and I therefore consider all of these enquiries to have now received a full response. We have established that we hold no internal, administrative, or operational records related to your enquiries, nor any which relate to Great House Farm, and that the only records of any relevance which we hold are publicly accessible records in the National Monuments Record of Wales archives. No information is being withheld. All enquiries therefore relate to publicly available records and should be considered as ‘publicly accessible to the applicant by other means’, namely our public enquiries service: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/21.

Our FOI policy can be seen here: https://rcahmw.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/freedom-of-information-policy/.

Sincerely,

Adam Coward




NMR Enquiries
Ymholiadau Cyhoeddus I Public Enquiries
Ffordd Penglais | Penglais Road, Aberystwyth, [postcode redacted]
[phone redacted]
[email redacted] | [email redacted]
www.cbhc.gov.uk | www.rcahmw.gov.uk
Noddir gan Lywodraeth Cymru | Sponsored by Welsh Government
Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg a Saesneg. Ni fydd gohebu yn Gymraeg yn peri oedi.
We welcome correspondence in Welsh and English. Corresponding in Welsh will not lead to any delay.

Yn unol â Rheoliadau Safonau'r Gymraeg (Rhif 2) 2016, mae gennych hawl i gyfathrebu a gohebu â Chomisiwn Brenhinol Henebion Cymru yn eich dewis iaith. Er mwyn sicrhau ein bod yn cyflawni’r hawl, rhowch wybod i ni a ydych yn dymuno derbyn gohebiaeth a/neu alwadau ffôn oddi wrthym yn y Gymraeg. Bydd yr wybodaeth hon yn cael ei chofnodi gennym ni, a byddwn yn defnyddio'r iaith o’ch dewis ym mhob cyfathrebu yn y dyfodol. Diolch.
Under the Welsh Language Standards (No. 2) Regulations 2016, you have the right to communicate and correspond with the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales in your preferred language. To ensure we uphold this right, please let us know whether you wish to receive correspondence and/or telephone calls from us in Welsh. This information will be recorded by us, and we will use your preferred language in all future communication. Thank you.
​
From: Sion Buckler <[email redacted]>
Sent: 30 September 2026 01:12
To: NMR Enquiries <[email redacted]>
Subject: Re: RC26-0375 (gan gynnwys RC26-0353, -0368, a -0371) - Ty Mawr/ Great House, Llandough, Cardiff

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