Llandough Community Council meetingThursday 22 October 2026, 19:00 (remote)

SAY: Our family's case traces its connection to Tŷ Mawr to 1667, a date reported in the 1958 press and in Mary's later statement. The full chain of occupation and title remains contested.

IF ASKED “Weren't you tenants?” The 1939 tenancy plan, now held, depicts the eastern fields only, not the house. Mary refused the tenancies offered for the house.

AGAINST US: The heritage record says the Vaughans held Great House as the chief freehold farm from the mid-16th to the late 18th century. Both accounts can be true only if the Williamses held under them.

AGAINST US: A 1904 report says John Williams “succeeded his father in the tenancy of the farm in 1855” (wiki EV-0227): a tenancy, and of “Llandough Farm”, matched to Great House by inference.

AGAINST US: “Home Farm” appears in no other source, and the 1881 acreage may read 170, closer to the neighbouring Llandough Farm of the Rees family (wiki EV-0228).

SAY: A published study reports 1,026 early-medieval burials from an excavation in the wider area in 1994. It has not been shown that those burials lay within our particular parcel, and the monastery's exact site remains unestablished.

IF ASKED “Isn't this history already told?” The Council's own village history says 800 burials and does not mention Great House at all.

AGAINST US: Museum Wales traces the medieval spur and spearhead linked to the “armour” story to Church Farm, 1858, not to Great House.

AGAINST US: It has not been shown that the 1994 burials lay on the family's own parcel.

SAY: For decades Mary Williams said the house was hers. In February 1983, BP applied to register the farmhouse under a separate title while she lived there; she died the following month. The title was amalgamated with the adjoining fields in February 1987.

IF ASKED “The register is conclusive.” I accept the register is important. I am asking for the supporting deeds and plans, and a reasoned response from HM Land Registry; I am not asking this Council to decide whether the register is wrong.

AGAINST US: The 1916 tenancy described the farm as one holding, and later documents repeated that wording.

AGAINST US: HM Land Registry says there is no evidence of a mistake; its stage-two decision says the title is registered correctly. That decision is with the Independent Complaints Reviewer.

SAY: The family lost the possession proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the adverse-possession argument and considered the 1974 letters. I am not asking the Council to retry that case; I am asking for help with disclosure and a full documentary account.

IF ASKED “The courts have decided this.” They ruled against the family's possession case, including by considering the 1974 letters, and the Strasbourg application was declared inadmissible. I accept those outcomes. My present request is for records to be disclosed and examined, not for this Council to retry the case.

AGAINST US: The Court of Appeal found the 1974 letters made later occupation permissive, whether or not Mary accepted them.

AGAINST US: Strasbourg held the interference with William Buckler's home lawful and justified.

SAY: In 1988 a Welsh family was removed from its home and the house demolished before dawn. It was reported as an eviction.

IF ASKED “Why has it taken so long?” Witnesses died, papers were lost and the trauma silenced the family. Key records surfaced only in 2026.

AGAINST US: Press, 1989: one charge was withdrawn as out of time; William Buckler pleaded guilty to the others.

SAY: Great House was demolished on 6 December 1988, the day after Cadw refused listing. The local plan called for retention. Cadw has supplied two photographs, but a complete assessment file and a destruction record have not been produced.

IF ASKED “Missing records prove nothing.” Agreed. Missing records alone do not prove wrongdoing. I ask the bodies concerned to explain what was searched, what survives and what cannot be found.

AGAINST US: GGAT disclosed its dual role in 1990, recommended recording and protection, and did not advise demolition.

AGAINST US: Cadw said in 1988 that the house was not of sufficient architectural merit to list.

SAY: More than twenty bodies have received specific records requests over eighteen months. Several identified records remain outstanding; their absence alone does not prove concealment.

IF ASKED “Isn't this a fishing expedition?” Each request identifies a record or a bounded class of records and seeks a recorded search, not a general trawl. I accept that several bodies have already disclosed material.

AGAINST US: Several bodies have disclosed material: the Royal Commission, Museum Wales, Cadw's photographs and the Land Registry schedule.

AGAINST US: A missing record is not, on its own, proof of concealment.

SAY: This is a matter of human rights, Welsh heritage and public interest, not one family's grievance.

IF ASKED “Why should a community council get involved?” Its own mission is preserving our identity. It is the community's voice to the Senedd and the Vale.

AGAINST US: Indigenous-rights language is the family's framing; it is not a legal category UK courts currently apply to Wales.

SAY: Please minute our statement and pack; make Tŷ Mawr a standing item with a named councillor; support disclosure and preservation; and recommend that the Senedd consider an independent inquiry. We are not seeking anyone's home at Church View Close.

IF ASKED “What can a community council do?” Record it, write letters, recommend an inquiry, and keep it on the agenda. That is how this starts.