[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: Title Fraud and Procedural Concealment – Church View Close, Llandough (formerly Great House Farm/ "Ty Mawr")
From: Sion Buckler
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2026 17:31 UTC
------------------------------------------------------------

Councillor Carroll & co,

I write regarding potential gaps in the Council's planning and
record-keeping processes relating to Great House Farm, Llandough, which was
demolished in 1988 following the 1987 Court of Appeal decision in BP
Properties Ltd v Buckler.

Recent evidence suggests the Council may wish to examine its own position
on this matter, as it raises questions about procedural compliance and
record integrity that could expose the authority to wider scrutiny.

CORE ISSUES

**1. Identity and Procedural Integrity**

The 1987 judgment turned on a 1974 licence addressed to "Mrs Buckler". My
grandmother, Mary Williams, did not use or accept this designation.
Contemporaneous evidence (1978 newspaper article attached) records her
asserting ownership under her correct name.

If the 1987 court was not presented with this evidence, the judgment may
rest on an incomplete factual record. This raises procedural fairness
concerns relevant to any future review of the decision.

**2. Heritage Information and Statutory Compliance**

The site's archaeological significance was documented by 1978 (Roman
burials, monastic associations). Yet professional excavations in 1994
revealed 1,026 early medieval burials and monastic structures—findings that
should have prompted evaluation under the Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

Critical question: Did the Council conduct or require prior archaeological
assessment before granting permissions to demolish? If not, this represents
a potential gap in statutory process that may affect the validity of the
permissions granted.

**3. Land Registry Disclosure**

BP registered title in 1982 based on the disputed licence. The Council
should establish:
- Whether any dispute notice or heritage caution was lodged;
- Whether the Council disclosed relevant heritage information to the Land
Registry;
- What planning records exist from 1978–1988 regarding the site's known
archaeological potential.

**4. Corporate Identity Inconsistency**

During my father's appeal, the court treated BP Properties Ltd and BP
Pension Trust Ltd inconsistently—as separate entities when convenient, then
as one when dismissing his claim. This raises questions about how
thoroughly the litigation was scrutinised and whether the Council's records
reflect this uncertainty.

WHY THIS MATTERS TO THE COUNCIL

These issues go beyond a single historical dispute. They touch on:

- **Planning record integrity**: Whether heritage information was
adequately documented and acted upon;
- **Procedural compliance**: Whether statutory protections (Ancient
Monuments Act) were properly applied;
- **Institutional liability**: Whether decisions were made on incomplete or
misleading information;
- **Precedent risk**: Whether similar vulnerabilities may exist in other
historical planning decisions.

REQUESTS

I ask the Council to:

1. **Commission a review** of the planning permissions granted between
1978–1988 for Great House Farm, specifically examining what heritage and
archaeological information was available to decision-makers and how it was
handled.

2. **Refer this matter to the Monitoring Officer** for examination of
procedural compliance and record integrity.

3. **Establish** what correspondence, cautions, or dispute notices exist in
relation to this site's title or heritage status.

4. **Clarify the Council's current protocol** for handling historical title
disputes, previously unknown heritage information, or allegations of
material non-disclosure in past planning processes—to prevent recurrence.

I am not asking the Council to reverse the 1987 judgment or disturb current
residents. I am asking it to ensure its own records are accurate and its
own processes are defensible.

I attach the 1978 article and supporting documents, and am available to
meet or provide further information.

Yours faithfully,

Sion Buckler, Sgt (Ret'd)
Executor for the Manor of Llandough
[address redacted], Dinas Powys, [postcode redacted]