[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 19:32 UTC ------------------------------------------------------------ Mr Wigley, I am writing to make a *formal complaint to Cadw* concerning the handling and substantive response to my correspondence regarding Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough, and particularly Cadw's 1988 consideration of whether the building should be protected by listing. I am making this complaint directly to Cadw at this stage because I consider that Cadw should be given a proper opportunity to review and address the matters before any escalation to the wider Welsh Government complaints process. For the avoidance of doubt, I am *not making a further Freedom of Information request* and I am not simply asking Cadw to produce records which it has already said no longer exist. I accept that Cadw has stated that all records it currently holds concerning the 1988 listing decision have been released. My complaint concerns what can properly be established from the surviving evidence, whether the responses I have received have adequately addressed that evidence, and whether the historical record can now be described accurately where the underlying file has been lost. 1. The newly identified 1982 evidence I have now identified a 1 October 1982 consultation letter from the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust concerning the East Vale Local Plan and the proposed Ty Maw Farm site, identified as *H2.1*. The letter states: “Ty Maw Farm (H2.1) is designated as a three-acre residential site. As you will see from the enclosed information the settlement at Llandough developed considerably from farming and fishing... Recent excavations at Llandough by the Trust revealed early occupation, part of the villa and medieval grange buildings. There remains a possibility that occupation continues to the north of the church; provision should be made, therefore, for thorough investigative work prior to the development.” I do not suggest that this document, by itself, establishes that the standing farmhouse was required to be listed. Its significance is narrower and more demonstrable: *six years before the 1988 demolition, the archaeological and planning system already contained site-specific information identifying Ty Maw Farm as a proposed development site and recording substantial archaeological sensitivity in the immediate Llandough area, including possible continued occupation north of the church.* That materially affects the historical context in which Cadw's 1988 assessment needs to be understood. I therefore ask Cadw to address: 1. Whether this 1982 information was held by, available to, or capable of being obtained by Cadw in the period leading to the 1988 decision. 2. Whether Cadw has any surviving evidence showing what archaeological, planning or historic-building information was available to the inspectors or decision-makers in 1988. 3. Whether there was communication between Cadw and the relevant planning/archaeological authorities concerning the proposed development of Ty Maw Farm and the need for investigation or protection. 4. If it is no longer possible to establish whether this evidence was actually considered, whether Cadw will expressly acknowledge that uncertainty rather than treating the absence of the historic file as evidence that the relevant information was absent. 2. The 1974 RCAHMW survey I have previously drawn Cadw's attention to the 26 April 1974 Royal Commission survey by H.J. Thomas at ST16817331. That survey recorded Great House Farm as a historic building, including features such as the late seventeenth-century character of the house, its cross-passage arrangement, adze-worked beams, ogee stops and barrel-vaulted cellar. Cadw has stated that only two photographs from its relevant historic material survive and that it cannot now establish whether the 1974 survey was taken into account in the 1988 listing consideration. I accept that this may now be incapable of being proved from the surviving file. However, there is an important distinction between: *“Cadw cannot now establish whether the information was considered”* and *“there is no evidence that the information was available or relevant.”* The surviving RCAHMW material demonstrates that professional historic-building recording existed well before the 1988 decision. I therefore ask Cadw to address specifically whether that material was available to Cadw through the inter-agency heritage system at the time and, if so, what can now be established about its availability. 3. Cadw's own evidence that listing was actively being considered in 1988 The surviving contemporary material indicates that in December 1988 Cadw was actively considering emergency protection/spot-listing of Great House Farm, including inspection and consultation concerning the building's historic significance. That is important because it demonstrates that this was not retrospectively invented as a heritage issue decades later. Cadw itself was considering protection immediately before the building was demolished. Cadw's present position is that the historical listing file no longer survives and that its retention arrangements at the time cannot now be established with certainty. I am not asking Cadw to speculate about what a destroyed file contained. I am asking Cadw to distinguish clearly between: - what the surviving evidence positively establishes; - what information was demonstrably available by 1988; - what actions by Cadw in 1988 can still be established; - what cannot now be established because the historic record has been lost; and - any conclusions Cadw considers cannot responsibly be drawn. That distinction is particularly important when assessing whether the surviving record provides a sufficiently reliable account of what happened. 4. The planning authority and temporary protection I also wish to clarify the position concerning temporary protection. I am not suggesting that Cadw itself necessarily possessed the statutory power to serve a Building Preservation Notice. I understand that such protection was a matter for the relevant local planning authority under the legislation then in force. The question for Cadw is therefore whether, during the 1988 consideration, *Cadw advised, discussed or communicated with the relevant planning authority concerning any available temporary protection mechanism or the need to prevent demolition pending consideration of listing.* If Cadw cannot establish what was discussed because the records no longer survive, that should be stated expressly. 5. The later description of Great House Farm as “a listed building” I have also identified later archaeological/planning documentation in which the former site is described in terms including: “The site formerly contained Great House Farm (a listed building).” I am not asserting that this wording conclusively proves that Great House Farm was formally listed at that time. I am asking Cadw to explain, insofar as the surviving evidence permits, whether there is any known provenance for that description and whether Cadw considers it accurate, erroneous, or simply impossible now to determine. This is relevant because it illustrates the existence of potentially conflicting historical accounts concerning the building's protection status. 6. The significance of the loss of the 1988 record Cadw has understandably stated that the historic file cannot now be produced. However, the loss of that file creates a historical evidential limitation; it should not automatically resolve questions arising from the surviving evidence in Cadw's favour. The appropriate conclusion may simply be that some aspects of the 1988 decision *cannot now be reconstructed with certainty*. I would therefore like Cadw to consider whether its previous responses have drawn that distinction sufficiently clearly. 7. What I am asking Cadw to do I am asking Cadw to treat this as a formal complaint and provide a substantive response addressing the following: *A.* Whether the newly identified 1982 GGAT evidence materially changes Cadw's understanding of the information environment surrounding Ty Maw Farm before the 1988 demolition. *B.* Whether Cadw can establish that the 1974 RCAHMW survey was available to it in 1988. *C.* Whether Cadw can establish what archaeological, planning and historic-building information was available to its officers when the building was being considered for protection. *D.* What can now be established about Cadw's communications with the local planning authority and other heritage bodies during the 1988 listing consideration. *E.* Whether temporary protection was discussed or advised upon and, if not capable of being established, whether Cadw will state that plainly. *F.* What can be established about the inspection of Great House Farm and the ultimate listing decision. *G.* Whether Cadw accepts that the loss of the historic file means that some aspects of the 1988 decision can no longer be reconstructed reliably. *H.* Whether Cadw considers the surviving documentary evidence, including the 1974 survey and 1982 archaeological/planning evidence, should be reflected in any relevant contemporary heritage record or historical account. *I.* Whether Cadw can explain the provenance, insofar as it is capable of doing so, of the later description of the former site as containing “a listed building.” *J.* Whether Cadw considers that its previous responses have adequately distinguished between the absence of surviving evidence and evidence that something did not happen. 8. Scope of this complaint I want to be clear that I am not asking Cadw to determine my family's wider property or title claims, nor am I asking Cadw to reach a predetermined conclusion about the historical ownership of the land. Those matters are separate. This complaint is confined to *Cadw's own heritage-related role, the 1988 protection/listing process, the information that can now be established as having existed, and the adequacy and accuracy of Cadw's present explanation of that history.* I am also not asking Cadw to speculate about missing documents. On the contrary, I ask that the absence of those documents be treated as an evidential limitation and expressly identified as such. 9. Requested outcome I would like Cadw to: 1. Register this as a formal complaint and provide a complaint reference. 2. Have the matter reviewed by an appropriate person who has not simply repeated the previous FOI position. 3. Provide a point-by-point response to the matters above, taking account of the newly identified 1982 evidence. 4. Correct or clarify any part of Cadw's previous correspondence that is found to have been incomplete, inaccurate or insufficiently qualified. 5. State clearly which matters can now be established, which cannot, and which remain uncertain because the historical records no longer survive. I regard that as a proportionate and reasonable opportunity for Cadw to address the matter directly before I consider whether escalation through the Welsh Government complaints process is necessary. Yours sincerely, *Sion Buckler (Ret'd Sergeant)* Royal Signals Cyber/Electronic Warfare Professional and Life Member