[Recovered on 19 Oct 2026 from the original email in the family's Gmail, because this archive file was missing. Matched to this entry by its subject line; where several emails share a subject, the order within the group is not certain. Email addresses, phone numbers and private addresses are redacted.] Subject: Great House Farm, Llandough From: Sion Buckler Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 04:19 UTC ------------------------------------------------------------ Customer Relations / Planning Complaints Officer, I wish to make a formal complaint concerning the Vale of Glamorgan Council's Dear Customer Relations / Planning Complaints Officer, I wish to make a formal complaint concerning the Vale of Glamorgan Council's handling of Great House Farm, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, particularly the circumstances surrounding its demolition in December 1988 and the subsequent planning process. Please register this as a formal complaint under the Council's corporate complaints procedure and provide me with a complaint reference number. This complaint concerns the Council's administration and exercise of its planning and heritage responsibilities. It is not intended to constitute an appeal against a properly made historic planning decision. 1. Great House Farm, Llandough (Cardiff not Cowbridge) was recognised as a building of historic importance The planning and archaeological documentation concerning the site identifies Great House Farm as a building of heritage significance. In particular, the archaeological material identifies the former building as a "county treasure" associated with SMR 2038s, while earlier architectural recording by RCAHMW describes a substantial historic farmhouse with surviving historic fabric. The later 1990 archaeological assessment states: «"Owing to an ownership dispute and the subsequent sudden destruction of the property in 1988 the building was incompletely understood."» I regard that statement as highly significant because it records, contemporaneously with the subsequent planning process, that the building had been destroyed suddenly and that its archaeological and architectural history had therefore not been adequately understood or recorded. 2. The Council's apparent failure to take protective action before the 1988 demolition I ask the Council to investigate what action, if any, its planning and heritage officers took when Great House Farm was at risk of demolition. In particular, I ask the Council to establish: 1. Whether the Council knew that Great House Farm was at risk of demolition before December 1988. 2. Whether the Council received any notification, complaint, application, correspondence or other warning concerning the proposed demolition. 3. Whether the building had been considered for statutory listing or other statutory protection. 4. Whether consideration was given to the use of a Building Preservation Notice or any other available statutory or administrative mechanism capable of preventing or delaying demolition pending assessment. 5. Whether the Council's heritage officers, planning officers or archaeological advisers were consulted. 6. Whether any inspection or photographic/architectural record was undertaken immediately before or after the demolition. 7. Why, given the building's recognised historic significance, the Council did not secure a comprehensive standing-building record before the building was lost. I am not asserting at this stage that a particular statutory power necessarily had to be exercised. I am asking the Council to investigate what powers and procedures were available in 1988 and why they were, or were not, used in this case. 3. The "sudden destruction" of the building requires investigation The 1990 archaeological assessment expressly attributes the incomplete understanding of the building to its "subsequent sudden destruction ... in 1988". I therefore ask the Council to establish from its records: - the date on which it first became aware of the proposed or actual demolition; - the identity of the relevant officers; - whether the Council received complaints or reports concerning demolition activity; - whether any site visit took place; - whether any notice, warning, enforcement action, preservation action or other intervention was considered; - and whether the Council has retained records explaining why the demolition was allowed to proceed. This is particularly important because the building was subsequently treated within the planning process as an already-cleared site. 4. The 1989 planning application appears to contain a significant historical discrepancy The outline planning application submitted by BP Properties Ltd in 1989 states, in the section asking which buildings were to be demolished: «"None."» The same application describes the site as "Disused" and the previous use as "Not known". This requires explanation because the application followed the demolition of Great House Farm in December 1988 by approximately one year. I ask the Council to investigate whether its planning officers: - were aware of the former Great House Farm building when the 1989 application was processed; - knew when and how it had been demolished; - checked the accuracy of the applicant's statement that no buildings were to be demolished; - identified the former farmhouse in the planning history and supporting documentation; - and considered whether the demolition itself raised any planning, heritage or enforcement issue requiring investigation. I am particularly concerned that the planning process appears to have proceeded on the basis of a cleared site without first establishing the circumstances in which the historic building had disappeared. 5. Failure to create an adequate record of the lost building The subsequent archaeological documentation states that the building was "incompletely understood". I ask the Council to explain what mitigation, recording or investigation it required in consequence. The documentary evidence presently available indicates that substantial historic fabric and multiple phases of the building existed, yet the building was destroyed without a complete standing-building survey having been secured. I therefore ask the Council to identify: - all surveys undertaken before demolition; - all surveys undertaken after demolition; - all archaeological or architectural advice obtained by the Council; - all photographs held by the Council; - all correspondence concerning the building's architectural or historic importance; - and the Council's policy or practice in 1988 concerning the recording of significant unlisted historic buildings at risk. 6. Subsequent planning treatment of the site Following demolition, the planning process concentrated heavily on below-ground archaeology, ultimately resulting in archaeological investigation of the cemetery and associated remains. I do not suggest that archaeological excavation was inappropriate. My concern is that the destruction of the standing historic building appears to have been treated as a fait accompli rather than as an event requiring accountability and an explanation of how the Council's heritage responsibilities had been discharged. The later planning documentation should therefore be reviewed alongside the records relating to the 1988 demolition. In particular, I ask the Council to identify precisely when the planning authority first recorded the former farmhouse as demolished and what explanation was placed on the planning file for its loss. 7. Matters I ask the Council to investigate Please investigate and provide a substantive response to the following questions: A. What did Vale of Glamorgan Council know about the impending demolition of Great House Farm before December 1988? B. What statutory and non-statutory heritage protections were available to the Council at the time? C. Were any of those mechanisms considered or discussed? D. Were any Building Preservation Notice, listing, enforcement, urgent works, archaeological recording or other protective measures considered? E. Why was the building apparently destroyed without a comprehensive standing-building survey? F. What records does the Council hold concerning the demolition itself? G. Why did the 1989 planning application proceed despite the recent demolition of a building identified in the archaeological record as a "county treasure"? H. Why was the applicant's answer "None" given to the question concerning buildings to be demolished, and did the Council investigate the apparent discrepancy? I. Did any Council officer consider whether the 1988 demolition constituted a breach of planning control or otherwise required investigation? J. Did the Council investigate whether the building had been demolished lawfully? K. What heritage assessment was undertaken before the subsequent development permissions were processed? L. What lessons has the Council subsequently incorporated into its procedures for County Treasures and other locally significant historic buildings? 8. Records requested as part of the investigation Please preserve and review all relevant records, including planning files, enforcement records, heritage files, committee papers, officer reports, internal correspondence, site inspection notes, photographs, archaeological correspondence and consultation records concerning: - Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr / Cedfin / Cydfin; - SMR/HER reference 2038s / GGAT02038s; - the December 1988 demolition; - the 1989 outline planning application; - the 1990 archaeological assessment; - and the subsequent reserved matters/development applications. I would also ask that the Council identify any material which has been destroyed or cannot now be located, together with the applicable retention/disposal record where one exists. 9. Outcome sought I am seeking a formal investigation and a reasoned written explanation of the Council's actions and omissions. In particular, I ask the Council to determine: 1. Whether its officers discharged the heritage and planning responsibilities applicable at the time. 2. Whether any failure occurred in relation to the identification, protection, recording or investigation of Great House Farm. 3. Whether the Council's handling of the 1989 planning application appropriately addressed the recent demolition of the building. 4. Whether any relevant records have been lost or destroyed and, if so, when and under what retention arrangements. 5. What procedural lessons arise from the case. I also request disclosure of the relevant non-exempt records identified during the complaint investigation, where these are not otherwise available. I recognise that requests for specific recorded information may need to be dealt with separately under the appropriate information-access regime. I have only recently been able to examine and correlate the surviving planning, archaeological and heritage documentation sufficiently to identify these issues. I therefore ask that the Council accepts the complaint for investigation notwithstanding the age of the events concerned. Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the complaint reference and the officer responsible for its investigation. Yours faithfully, Sion Buckler of Great House Farm, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, particularly the circumstances surrounding its demolition in December 1988 and the subsequent planning process. Please register this as a formal complaint under the Council's corporate complaints procedure and provide me with a complaint reference number. This complaint concerns the Council's administration and exercise of its planning and heritage responsibilities. It is not intended to constitute an appeal against a properly made historic planning decision. 1. Great House Farm was recognised as a building of historic importance The planning and archaeological documentation concerning the site identifies Great House Farm as a building of heritage significance. In particular, the archaeological material identifies the former building as a "county treasure" associated with SMR 2038s, while earlier architectural recording by RCAHMW describes a substantial historic farmhouse with surviving historic fabric. The later 1990 archaeological assessment states: "Owing to an ownership dispute and the subsequent sudden destruction of the property in 1988 the building was incompletely understood." I regard that statement as highly significant because it records, contemporaneously with the subsequent planning process, that the building had been destroyed suddenly and that its archaeological and architectural history had therefore not been adequately understood or recorded. 2. The Council's apparent failure to take protective action before the 1988 demolition I ask the Council to investigate what action, if any, its planning and heritage officers took when Great House Farm was at risk of demolition. In particular, I ask the Council to establish: 1. Whether the Council knew that Great House Farm was at risk of demolition before December 1988. 2. Whether the Council received any notification, complaint, application, correspondence or other warning concerning the proposed demolition. 3. Whether the building had been considered for statutory listing or other statutory protection. 4. Whether consideration was given to the use of a Building Preservation Notice or any other available statutory or administrative mechanism capable of preventing or delaying demolition pending assessment. 5. Whether the Council's heritage officers, planning officers or archaeological advisers were consulted. 6. Whether any inspection or photographic/architectural record was undertaken immediately before or after the demolition. 7. Why, given the building's recognised historic significance, the Council did not secure a comprehensive standing-building record before the building was lost. I am not asserting at this stage that a particular statutory power necessarily had to be exercised. I am asking the Council to investigate what powers and procedures were available in 1988 and why they were, or were not, used in this case. 3. The "sudden destruction" of the building requires investigation The 1990 archaeological assessment expressly attributes the incomplete understanding of the building to its "subsequent sudden destruction ... in 1988". I therefore ask the Council to establish from its records: - the date on which it first became aware of the proposed or actual demolition; - the identity of the relevant officers; - whether the Council received complaints or reports concerning demolition activity; - whether any site visit took place; - whether any notice, warning, enforcement action, preservation action or other intervention was considered; - and whether the Council has retained records explaining why the demolition was allowed to proceed. This is particularly important because the building was subsequently treated within the planning process as an already-cleared site. 4. The 1989 planning application appears to contain a significant historical discrepancy The outline planning application submitted by BP Properties Ltd in 1989 states, in the section asking which buildings were to be demolished: "None." The same application describes the site as "Disused" and the previous use as "Not known". This requires explanation because the application followed the demolition of Great House Farm in December 1988 by approximately one year. I ask the Council to investigate whether its planning officers: - were aware of the former Great House Farm building when the 1989 application was processed; - knew when and how it had been demolished; - checked the accuracy of the applicant's statement that no buildings were to be demolished; - identified the former farmhouse in the planning history and supporting documentation; - and considered whether the demolition itself raised any planning, heritage or enforcement issue requiring investigation. I am particularly concerned that the planning process appears to have proceeded on the basis of a cleared site without first establishing the circumstances in which the historic building had disappeared. 5. Failure to create an adequate record of the lost building The subsequent archaeological documentation states that the building was "incompletely understood". I ask the Council to explain what mitigation, recording or investigation it required in consequence. The documentary evidence presently available indicates that substantial historic fabric and multiple phases of the building existed, yet the building was destroyed without a complete standing-building survey having been secured. I therefore ask the Council to identify: - all surveys undertaken before demolition; - all surveys undertaken after demolition; - all archaeological or architectural advice obtained by the Council; - all photographs held by the Council; - all correspondence concerning the building's architectural or historic importance; - and the Council's policy or practice in 1988 concerning the recording of significant unlisted historic buildings at risk. 6. Subsequent planning treatment of the site Following demolition, the planning process concentrated heavily on below-ground archaeology, ultimately resulting in archaeological investigation of the cemetery and associated remains. I do not suggest that archaeological excavation was inappropriate. My concern is that the destruction of the standing historic building appears to have been treated as a fait accompli rather than as an event requiring accountability and an explanation of how the Council's heritage responsibilities had been discharged. The later planning documentation should therefore be reviewed alongside the records relating to the 1988 demolition. In particular, I ask the Council to identify precisely when the planning authority first recorded the former farmhouse as demolished and what explanation was placed on the planning file for its loss. 7. Matters I ask the Council to investigate Please investigate and provide a substantive response to the following questions: A. What did Vale of Glamorgan Council know about the impending demolition of Great House Farm before December 1988? B. What statutory and non-statutory heritage protections were available to the Council at the time? C. Were any of those mechanisms considered or discussed? D. Were any Building Preservation Notice, listing, enforcement, urgent works, archaeological recording or other protective measures considered? E. Why was the building apparently destroyed without a comprehensive standing-building survey? F. What records does the Council hold concerning the demolition itself? G. Why did the 1989 planning application proceed despite the recent demolition of a building identified in the archaeological record as a "county treasure"? H. Why was the applicant's answer "None" given to the question concerning buildings to be demolished, and did the Council investigate the apparent discrepancy? I. Did any Council officer consider whether the 1988 demolition constituted a breach of planning control or otherwise required investigation? J. Did the Council investigate whether the building had been demolished lawfully? K. What heritage assessment was undertaken before the subsequent development permissions were processed? L. What lessons has the Council subsequently incorporated into its procedures for County Treasures and other locally significant historic buildings? 8. Records requested as part of the investigation Please preserve and review all relevant records, including planning files, enforcement records, heritage files, committee papers, officer reports, internal correspondence, site inspection notes, photographs, archaeological correspondence and consultation records concerning: - Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr / Cedfin / Cydfin; - SMR/HER reference 2038s / GGAT02038s; - the December 1988 demolition; - the 1989 outline planning application; - the 1990 archaeological assessment; - and the subsequent reserved matters/development applications. I would also ask that the Council identify any material which has been destroyed or cannot now be located, together with the applicable retention/disposal record where one exists. 9. Outcome sought I am seeking a formal investigation and a reasoned written explanation of the Council's actions and omissions. In particular, I ask the Council to determine: 1. Whether its officers discharged the heritage and planning responsibilities applicable at the time. 2. Whether any failure occurred in relation to the identification, protection, recording or investigation of Great House Farm. 3. Whether the Council's handling of the 1989 planning application appropriately addressed the recent demolition of the building. 4. Whether any relevant records have been lost or destroyed and, if so, when and under what retention arrangements. 5. What procedural lessons arise from the case. I also request disclosure of the relevant non-exempt records identified during the complaint investigation, where these are not otherwise available. I recognise that requests for specific recorded information may need to be dealt with separately under the appropriate information-access regime. I have only recently been able to examine and correlate the surviving planning, archaeological and heritage documentation sufficiently to identify these issues. I therefore ask that the Council accepts the complaint for investigation notwithstanding the age of the events concerned. Please acknowledge receipt and confirm the complaint reference and the officer responsible for its investigation. Yours faithfully, Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant) Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member