Amgueddfa Cymru, Heneb and Cotswold Archaeology — correspondence with the family (email)

Dear Requester, Thank you for your email. Heneb is not subject to FOI requests as we are a Limited company. However, if you fill out our Enquiry Form<https://heneb.jotform.com/form/240392792819366&gt; then we will be happy to assist as best we can. Kind regards, Calli [quoted text trimmed]

Thanks, [quoted text trimmed]

[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] *[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] You are under a strict legal duty to preserve all physical and electronic records, metadata, correspondence, maps, and erased files relating to this site. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]* Dear Freedom of Information Officer, RE: Information Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 I am writing to request access to historical records, internal correspondence, planning briefs, and assessments held by your organization regarding Great House Farm, Llandough, near Penarth/Cardiff (demolished December 1988), and the historical occupancy of the Buckler family. Statutory Mandate on Accessibility & Charging Fees: I am aware that previous attempts to locate this data have resulted in directives to visit physical archives in person or use paywalled, commercial third-party web portals. Please be advised of the following statutory obligations: 1. Under EIR Regulation 8, fees cannot act as an unreasonable barrier or deterrent to access. Because my family was historically displaced from this site and I am executing this request remotely, forcing physical attendance or demanding payment constitutes an unlawful obstacle. 2. Public authorities are required to supply information in the format requested. I require all documents to be delivered digitally via email attachment or secure electronic download link, free of charge, as specified by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidelines for data already held electronically. Please provide all recorded information matching the following points: 1. Tenant/Ownership Identification and the 1880 Report – Any documents, archival notes, or registry indexes citing the William/ Buckler family line (who occupied and farmed the house across four generations). – Clarification on whether my family members were formally cited as the legal owners, long-term tenants, or registered reporters of the 1880 discovery under the dining room floor. – Any explicit records indicating gaps, deleted metadata, or missing volumes in your authority’s archive concerning the tenancy, land-dispute maps, or agricultural heritage of Great House Farm between 1950 and 1989. 2. Statutory Protection and Cadw’s Assessments – Given that the site’s extreme archaeological value (a 1st-to-4th-century Roman precursor villa and a massive early medieval monastic settlement) was verified by rescue operations as early as 1979, what are the recorded reasons why Cadw failed to place a statutory Schedule or Protection Order on the standing fabric of Great House Farm before its demolition? – All internal correspondence, risk assessments, or ministerial briefs evaluating the preservation value of the sub-medieval direct-entry farmhouse core before it was levelled. 3. Planning Approvals and Local Authority Governance – All minutes, planning committee files, and consultation responses from the local authority that granted planning permission and housing development rights on this specific acreage. – Direct information explaining how the council approved planning permission for a private housing development in light of the documented historical evidence surrounding the immediate parish boundary. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – Records showing exactly where and at what stage of the planning process this archaeological evidence should have been brought up but was not, which ultimately allowed developers and public bodies to claim they were unaware of the land’s deep significance until after the farmhouse was destroyed and housing development began. – Any environmental impact assessments, historic environment register (HER) lookups, or developer briefs filed between 1980 and 1990 regarding the footprint of Great House Farm. If any part of this request is refused under the guise of commercial sensitivity or archival limitations, you are required by law to state the exact statutory exemption applied and provide a formal internal review pathway. I expect your response within the statutory 20-working-day timeframe. Kind regards, *Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Yes please. I am trying to gather all information. Mine and my families claim to ownership of the land was never extinguished, as confirmed by the land registry recently. This land is my birthplace and I am the heir and successor to the claim. I was in the home when we were dispossessed of it and when it was demolished in front of us in 1988. So this is not just an enquiry from a member of the public. This concerns my interest in the land and my personal story and data. Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team, I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and, where applicable, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. A published local history account states that, during works to replace the stone floor of the dining room at Great House Farm (also known as Ty Mawr), Llandough, Cardiff, the remains of a soldier and his horse were discovered beneath the floor. The remains were subsequently re-buried in the churchyard, and the soldier’s visor and lance were given to the National Museum of Wales (Amgueddfa Cymru). I therefore request the following recorded information held by Amgueddfa Cymru: Any records relating to the acquisition, accession, donation, transfer or deposit of a medieval visor, lance, helmet, or other items of armour associated with Great House Farm / Ty Mawr / Llandough. The accession number(s), date of acquisition or transfer, name of the donor or transferring body, and any provenance or discovery notes linked to these objects. Any catalogue entries, object records, or internal correspondence concerning the above items. Any records of associated human or animal remains from the same discovery, including notes on reburial. Any related excavation, watching-brief, or discovery reports held by the Museum. If any of the requested information is already publicly available (for example via the Museum’s online collections database), I would be grateful if you could simply provide the relevant accession numbers or catalogue links. Please treat this as a request for recorded information only. I am not seeking advice or opinion. I look forward to your response within the statutory timescale. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester Thank you for your request for information received on 2nd July 2026, concerning furniture, furnishings, antiques, fixtures, heirlooms and other movable property originating from Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough. Following searches of the Museum’s collections management systems and associated records, Amgueddfa Cymru has not identified any furniture, furnishings, antiques, fixtures, heirlooms or other movable property recorded as originating from Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough. Accordingly, Amgueddfa Cymru does not hold recorded information falling within the scope of items 1 to 9 of your request relating to such objects. For clarity: * We have not identified any objects of the type described in your request as originating from Great House Farm. * We have not identified inventories, catalogues, acquisition records, disposal records, loan records, provenance files, ownership records, photographs, correspondence, reports, memoranda or related records concerning such objects within the scope of your request. * We have not identified any records relating to the identification, recovery, ownership or location of furniture or household effects from Great House Farm. We note your references to archaeological material from land associated with Great House Farm. However, archaeological finds are outside the scope of this response because they do not fall within your request for furniture, furnishings, antiques, fixtures, heirlooms and other movable property. We understand that archaeological material is the subject of a separate information request and will be dealt with separately. Under section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, our response is therefore that Amgueddfa Cymru does not hold the requested information. Cofion cynnes, [A picture containing text, tableware, plate, dishware Description automatically generated] FOI Team ] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear FOI Team, Thank you for your response. I note your position that Amgueddfa Cymru does not hold recorded information within the scope of my request. However, I would be grateful if you could clarify the searches undertaken to reach that conclusion. In particular, please confirm: – Which collections management systems, databases and “associated records” were searched. – Whether searches extended beyond accessioned objects to include acquisition files, provenance files, curator correspondence, donor files, temporary custody records, unaccessioned material, photographs and administrative records. – The search terms used (for example: “Great House Farm”, “Ty Mawr”, “Llandough”, “Williams”, “Buckler”, “Bute Estate” and any other relevant variants). – Whether any potentially relevant records have been transferred to another institution or destroyed in accordance with a retention policy. My original request was not limited to identifying surviving objects. It also sought records relating to their provenance, acquisition, transfer, ownership, photographs and correspondence. This reflects the fact that the contents of Great House Farm may have been dispersed following the property’s demolition, meaning relevant records could exist even if no objects were ultimately accessioned by the Museum. If, following those searches, Amgueddfa Cymru remains satisfied that no recorded information is held, I would be grateful for confirmation of that position. Finally, if you are aware of another public authority that is more likely to hold records falling within the scope of my request, I would appreciate your advice in accordance with your duty to provide advice and assistance. Thank you for your assistance. Yours faithfully, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester Thank you for your email. Following receipt of your query, Amgueddfa Cymru undertook further enquiries to satisfy itself that no information had been overlooked when responding to your request. These enquiries included a review of records held across the Museum’s collections and a review of archived electronic systems and records by the Museum’s Information Technology team. The review considered all collections management systems used by the Museum, including those most likely to contain information falling within the scope of your request. For the History collections, searches were undertaken of the Collections Management System (CMS), accession files, donor indexes, location indexes and associated collection documentation. Searches were carried out using terms including “Great House Farm”, “Ty Mawr”, “Llandough”, “Buckler” and “Bute”. Additional consideration was given to acquisition records, provenance information and associated administrative records. For the Art collections, searches were undertaken within the collections management system across description, comments, acquisition notes and place fields using the terms “Ty Mawr”, “Great House Farm”, “Great House”, “Williams”, “Buckler”, “Llandough” and combinations of those terms. No additional paper archives relating to Great House Farm, Ty Mawr, Great House or Buckler were identified. The Museum’s Information Technology team also reviewed archived electronic systems and records retained by the Museum. These enquiries identified some information relating generally to Great House Farm and the surrounding area. However, no information was identified concerning furniture, furnishings, antiques, fixtures, heirlooms or other movable property originating from Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough. We did not identify any inventories, catalogues, acquisition records, disposal records, loan records, provenance files, ownership records, photographs, correspondence or other records falling within categories 1 to 9 of your request. We are also not aware of any relevant collection records relating to such material having been transferred to another institution or destroyed. Accordingly, having completed these additional enquiries, Amgueddfa Cymru remains satisfied that it does not hold recorded information within the scope of your request and our response under section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 remains unchanged. In relation to your request for advice and assistance, Cardiff Council and Cardiff Castle would appear to be the organisations most likely to hold records relating to furniture, furnishings or other movable property associated with Great House Farm. If you remain dissatisfied with this response, you may request an internal review within 40 working days of the date of this email. Cofion cynnes, [A picture containing text, tableware, plate, dishware Description automatically generated] FOI Team ] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

FOI Team, Thank you for your detailed response and for undertaking the additional enquiries. I appreciate the further information you have provided concerning the searches undertaken. However, I would like to request an internal review under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. My concern is not simply that no objects have been identified. It is whether the searches undertaken have fully addressed the scope of my original request, particularly the documentary evidence concerning the provenance, acquisition, transfer, ownership, identification and dispersal of material originating from Great House Farm (Ty Mawr). I would be grateful if the internal review could consider the following points. *1. Information identified concerning Great House Farm* Your response states that the additional enquiries identified “some information relating generally to Great House Farm and the surrounding area”. Please could you identify what categories of information this refers to and, where it is not exempt, provide the relevant recorded information or explain where it can be accessed? This appears potentially relevant to the original request even if it does not itself identify furniture or household objects. *2. Scope of the archived electronic search* You state that the Information Technology team reviewed “archived electronic systems and records retained by the Museum”. Please could the review clarify: – which archived systems were searched; – the approximate date ranges covered; – whether historical email or correspondence archives were searched; – whether legacy collections-management databases were searched; – whether databases or systems preceding the current CMS were searched; and – whether any archived systems were unavailable, incomplete or incapable of being searched. *3. Correspondence and administrative records* My original request expressly sought correspondence concerning the identification, recovery, ownership or location of objects, as well as correspondence with the Bute Estate, Cardiff Council, Cardiff Castle and other public authorities. Your response refers generally to “associated collection documentation” and “administrative records”, but does not make clear whether historical correspondence files were specifically searched. Please could the internal review establish whether searches were made of: – curator correspondence; – departmental correspondence files; – donor correspondence; – acquisition correspondence; – disposal correspondence; – loan correspondence; – provenance correspondence; – correspondence with Cardiff Council; – correspondence with Cardiff Castle; – correspondence with the Bute Estate; – correspondence with other museums or public authorities; and – any relevant institutional or external correspondence indexes. *4. Search terms* Thank you for identifying many of the search terms used. Please could the internal review confirm whether the search also included combinations and variants involving: – “Bute Estate” – “Bute” – “Cardiff Castle” – “Cardiff Council” – “Great House Farm” – “Ty Mawr” – “Great House” – “Llandough” – “Buckler” – “Williams” – “Mary Williams” – “Mary Doreen Williams” – “household effects” – “contents” – “furniture” – “furnishings” – “heirlooms” – “fixtures” – “estate” – “dispersal” – “recovery” – “provenance” – “ownership” – “transfer” – “demolition” I appreciate that historical records may not have been consistently indexed, which is why I would be grateful for confirmation of the methodology used. *5. Transfer, disposal and destruction* Your response states: “We are also not aware of any relevant collection records relating to such material having been transferred to another institution or destroyed.” Please could the internal review clarify whether this conclusion is based upon: a. a search of transfer/accession-out records; b. a review of retention and disposal records; c. enquiries with relevant collections staff; d. review of archival transfer documentation; or e. institutional knowledge rather than a documentary search. I am particularly interested in distinguishing between “no record exists” and “no record was identified in the systems searched”. *6. The original request concerning external institutions* The original request was deliberately framed broadly because the question concerns possible dispersal of the contents of a demolished historic property. It expressly included records concerning Cardiff Council, Cardiff Castle, the Bute Estate, museums, Arts Council England, DCMS, RCEWA and other public authorities. I would therefore be grateful if the review could confirm whether records of communications or transactions involving those bodies were searched within Amgueddfa Cymru’s records, rather than simply searching the Museum’s object catalogue for Great House Farm objects. *7. Advice and assistance* You have stated that Cardiff Council and Cardiff Castle “would appear to be the organisations most likely to hold records relating to furniture, furnishings or other movable property associated with Great House Farm”. I appreciate that you cannot transfer another authority’s records to me. However, could you please provide any further information available to the Museum as to *which particular department, collection, archive or record series at Cardiff Council or Cardiff Castle is most likely to contain such material*? That would materially assist me in directing subsequent FOI and archival enquiries. I am grateful for the additional work already undertaken. I am requesting the internal review because I would like the record to be clear as to precisely what was searched, what information was identified, and what the negative result does and does not establish. I am not asking Amgueddfa Cymru to determine any allegation concerning the historical ownership of Great House Farm. The purpose of the review is simply to ensure that the documentary search corresponds fully with the scope of the original FOI request. Please treat this email as my formal request for an internal review of FOI 2026-020. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Williams / Buckler Family Estate [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thank you for your request for information received on 27 July 2026 concerning records relating to a reported discovery at Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough, including a soldier, horse remains and items described as a visor and lance. Amgueddfa Cymru has undertaken searches of its collections management systems, accession records and associated documentation. We have not identified any records relating to the acquisition, accession, donation, transfer or deposit of a medieval visor, lance, helmet or other item of armour associated with Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough. We have also not identified records relating to the specific discovery described in your request, including records of associated human or animal remains, reburial records, excavation reports, watching briefs or discovery reports. Accordingly, under section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, our response is that Amgueddfa Cymru does not hold the requested information. For completeness, our searches identified records relating to other archaeological finds from Church Farm, Llandough and to other archaeological discoveries recorded at Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough. These records do not relate to, nor are they otherwise associated with, the discovery described in your request. We have therefore not considered them to fall within the scope of this request. If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may request an internal review by writing to [removed] within 40 working days of the date of this letter. Cofion cynnes, [A picture containing text, tableware, plate, dishware Description automatically generated] FOI Team ] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear FOI Team, Thank you for your response. I am requesting an internal review of the handling of my request. I do not consider the response sufficient because it appears that the searches were conducted too narrowly around the later description of a “medieval visor, lance, helmet or other item of armour”, rather than around the underlying historical discovery at Great House Farm itself. The issue I am investigating is a reported nineteenth-century discovery at Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough. My understanding from contemporary or near-contemporary newspaper and historical accounts is that the discovery was described as involving the remains of a Roman soldier, with associated remains and objects. The dating and description of the individual objects as “medieval” may therefore itself be inaccurate, or may represent a later conflation or retelling of the original discovery. Your response is particularly significant because it states: «”Our searches identified records relating to … other archaeological discoveries recorded at Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough. These records do not relate to, nor are they otherwise associated with, the discovery described in your request. We have therefore not considered them to fall within the scope of this request.”» I respectfully challenge that approach. The central question is precisely whether the discovery described in later historical accounts can be identified, corroborated, corrected or explained through the Museum’s records concerning archaeological discoveries at Great House Farm. If the Museum has identified records relating to other discoveries at the same historically significant site, it is not sufficient simply to conclude internally that they are unrelated without disclosing what those discoveries are, when they were recorded, and the basis upon which that conclusion was reached. I therefore request that the internal review reconsider the scope of my request and undertake searches using, at minimum, the following terms and concepts: – Great House Farm – Ty Mawr – Llandough – Llandough, Cardiff – Roman soldier – Roman burial – Roman grave – Roman remains – human remains – skeleton – horse remains – equine remains – soldier and horse – cavalry burial – military burial – grave goods – Roman military equipment – visor – helmet – lance – spear – armour – archaeological discovery – nineteenth-century discovery – 1870 and adjacent years Please also search for relevant records under alternative historical place-name indexing, donor names, findspot descriptions, parish names and catalogue terminology where the precise modern name “Great House Farm” may not have been used. Most importantly, I ask that you disclose sufficient information about the “other archaeological discoveries” which your searches identified at Great House Farm to enable me to understand and assess the Museum’s conclusion that they are unrelated. This should include, so far as held: 1. A description or title of each relevant discovery or record. 2. The approximate date of the discovery or record. 3. The nature of the material or remains involved. 4. Any accession number, catalogue number or archival reference. 5. The recorded provenance or findspot. 6. Any dating attributed to the discovery. 7. The basis upon which Amgueddfa Cymru concluded that each record was unrelated to the nineteenth-century discovery described in my request. I am not asking the Museum to create new archaeological opinions or undertake speculative research. I am asking for recorded information which has already been identified during the searches and which directly concerns archaeological discoveries at the specific site named in my request. If the Museum maintains that any of those records fall outside the original scope, then please treat this email additionally as a refined request for the recorded information identified above. I would also ask the reviewer to consider whether the original response gave insufficient weight to the possibility that the historical account may have inaccurately dated or described the find. A search which excludes Roman, nineteenth-century, burial and equine terminology risks missing the very records capable of establishing what was actually discovered beneath Great House Farm. Given that your searches have already identified records concerning archaeological discoveries at Great House Farm itself, I would be grateful for a full reconsideration and disclosure of the recorded information requested above. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester Thank you for your email requesting an internal review of our response to FOI 2026-024. Internal Review We have accepted your request for an internal review of FOI 2026-024. The purpose of an internal review is to consider whether Amgueddfa Cymru handled the original request appropriately, including whether: * the request was interpreted correctly; * reasonable and proportionate searches were undertaken; * relevant information held by the Museum was identified and considered; and * the response complied with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The internal review process is not ordinarily intended to redefine or broaden the scope of the original request, nor to conduct new searches solely on the basis of additional search terms or lines of enquiry proposed after the original response has been issued. Nevertheless, the reviewer will consider the points raised in your correspondence when assessing whether the original request was interpreted appropriately and whether the searches undertaken were reasonable in the circumstances. We aim to provide the outcome of the internal review within 20 working days of receipt of your request. If, exceptionally, we are unable to conclude the review within that period, we will write to you again explaining the position. Additional Information Request Your email also requests information concerning other archaeological discoveries recorded at Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough, including details of those discoveries and the records identified during our searches. We consider this element of your correspondence to be a new request for recorded information, distinct from FOI 2026-024. We have therefore registered this as a separate Freedom of Information request, ref FOI 2026-32. Under section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, we will respond to that request within 20 working days of receipt. Based on the date your correspondence was received, we aim to respond to the new request by 23 September 2026. The internal review and the new request will be considered separately and may result in separate responses. Cofion cynnes, [A picture containing text, tableware, plate, dishware Description automatically generated] FOI Team ] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

FOI Team, This is a new request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is not a repeat of FOI 2026-024 and it is not a comment on the internal review of that request. In your letter of 25 August 2026 (FOI 2026-024) you stated: “For completeness, our searches identified records relating to other archaeological finds from Church Farm, Llandough and to other archaeological discoveries recorded at Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough. These records do not relate to, nor are they otherwise associated with, the discovery described in your request. We have therefore not considered them to fall within the scope of this request.” I now request those records. Please provide: 1. A schedule of every object, archive file, accession, loan, enquiry or correspondence record that Amgueddfa Cymru holds which is indexed, provenanced or otherwise recorded as from Great House Farm / Ty Mawr / Llandough Farm, Llandough (Penarth / Vale of Glamorgan). For each entry: accession or archive number, object or file title, date of acquisition or creation, donor or excavator if recorded, and a one-line description. 2. The same schedule for Church Farm, Llandough, but only so far as the records were retrieved in the 2026-024 search and can be identified without a new full trawl. 3. Any accession, register entry, day-book, donations book or correspondence in the collections of Amgueddfa Cymru or of its predecessor Cardiff Museum / Welsh Museum of Natural History / National Museum of Wales, dated 1875–1915, recording ironwork, armour, a visor, a lance, a helmet, “armour from Llandough”, or a find from Great House / Llandough Farm. Published sources which state that such ironwork is in the National Museum, and which therefore make a search of predecessor registers reasonable, are: • GGAT, Land at Great House Farm, Llandough: An Archaeological Assessment, August 1990 (planning file 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES): “it is likely that some medieval ironwork which is held by the National Museum of Wales was discovered under the rear wing c 1880 (RCAHMW 1988).” • Holbrook & Thomas, Medieval Archaeology 49 (2005), p. 70 n. 142: “medieval ironwork was discovered under the rear wing of Great House Farm c. 1880. It is now in the collections of the National Museums & Galleries of Wales.” I note that the National Museum of Wales was not founded until 1907. If a find of c.1880 entered a public collection in Cardiff it would have done so through the earlier municipal museum. Please search those predecessor accession registers, not only the post-1907 NMW database. 4. Any object record for Llandough ironwork that is not labelled “visor” or “lance” but is or was associated with the farmhouse floor or rear wing / dairy (the room identified on H. J. Thomas’s 1974 RCAHMW plan). Please treat this as a request for recorded information only. Regards, Requester [signature block trimmed]

HER Officer (Heneb: Glamorgan-Gwent), This is a request for recorded information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and, so far as applicable, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and under the public-access duty to the historic environment record. I request the full HER source file for Great House Farm, Llandough (GGAT02038s and any linked event or find records), specifically: 1. The complete text of the entry or entries that refer to armour or medieval ironwork found under the rear wing / floor c.1880, including every source code and footnote. 2. A copy or transcript of the RCAHMW / Suggett 1988 material held on the HER file (GGAT’s 1990 assessment cites “RCAHMW 1988” for the museum attribution). 3. Any museum accession number, letter, or catalogue slip on the file that identifies where the ironwork went. 4. Any distinction on the file between: (a) the c.1880 rear-wing ironwork; (b) iron from the 1979 villa excavation south of the church; (c) the 1994 cemetery iron girdle (Burial 631) later examined by the National Museum of Wales. Please send electronic copies. I am an interested person researching the documented history of this site, not a commercial applicant. Regards, Requester [signature block trimmed]

Dear Requester Thank you for your request for an internal review of FOI 2026-020 concerning furniture, furnishings, antiques, fixtures, heirlooms and other movable property originating from Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough. The reviewer has considered your original request, the responses provided by the Museum, the additional enquiries undertaken following your request for clarification on 3rd August 2026, and the concerns raised in your email requesting an internal review. We are satisfied that the request was interpreted correctly and that reasonable and proportionate searches were undertaken to identify information falling within the scope of the request. Following the original response, the Museum undertook additional enquiries across relevant collections records and archived electronic records in order to satisfy itself that no information had been overlooked. We are satisfied that the searches undertaken were appropriate to the nature and scope of the request and that no further searches are required in order to determine whether Amgueddfa Cymru holds information within scope. The review therefore upholds the original decision that Amgueddfa Cymru does not hold recorded information concerning furniture, furnishings, antiques, fixtures, heirlooms or other movable property originating from Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough falling within categories 1 to 9 of your request. Response to the points raised 1. Information identified concerning Great House Farm During the additional enquiries, a small number of records referring generally to Great House Farm, Llandough were identified. These records do not relate to furniture, furnishings, antiques, fixtures, heirlooms or other movable property originating from Great House Farm and do not fall within categories 1 to 9 of your original request. The reviewer is therefore satisfied that they fall outside the scope of the request. 2. Scope of the archived electronic search We are satisfied that archived electronic records reasonably capable of containing information within scope were considered as part of the searches undertaken. Any data stored within a system or database pre-dating the existing Collections Management Systems, would have been migrated into the incumbent solution, and therefore included in the search. 3. Correspondence and administrative records The review considered whether correspondence or administrative records relating to the requested items were held. The Museum’s collections records include accession documentation and associated collection records relating to objects acquired by the Museum. Searches of those records did not identify any furniture, furnishings, antiques, fixtures, heirlooms or other movable property originating from Great House Farm. As no such objects were identified as having been acquired by the Museum, no associated acquisition, provenance, ownership, loan, disposal or related correspondence concerning such objects was identified. The review did not identify evidence that the Museum holds correspondence concerning the identification, ownership, recovery or location of Great House Farm furniture or household effects. 4. Search terms We are satisfied that appropriate search terms and variants were used across the relevant collections management systems, collection records and associated documentation. These included relevant location names, property names, family names and associated variants reasonably capable of identifying records within scope. The review is satisfied that the search methodology was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. 5. Transfer, disposal and destruction The statement that the Museum is not aware of relevant records having been transferred or destroyed reflects the outcome of the searches undertaken and the knowledge of relevant collections staff. The review did not identify any records showing that information within the scope of your request had been transferred to another institution or destroyed. For clarity, the Museum’s position is that no relevant records were identified. 6. Records concerning external institutions We note that your request sought records concerning communications with Cardiff Council, Cardiff Castle, the Bute Estate and other bodies regarding objects originating from Great House Farm. Searches were not limited solely to object catalogue records. Relevant collection documentation and associated records were also considered. No records were identified concerning furniture, furnishings, antiques, fixtures, heirlooms, or other movable property originating from Great House Farm, including correspondence with the organisations referred to in your request. 7. Advice and assistance The Museum does not hold information identifying a specific department, collection, archive or record series within Cardiff Council or Cardiff Castle that is likely to contain the information you seek. The advice previously provided reflected our general view that those organisations would be more likely than Amgueddfa Cymru to hold records relating to the ownership, management or disposal of property associated with Great House Farm. Conclusion Having considered all of the information available, we are satisfied that Amgueddfa Cymru undertook reasonable and proportionate searches and that, on the balance of probabilities, the Museum does not hold recorded information falling within the scope of your request. The original decision is therefore upheld. If you remain dissatisfied, you have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Cofion cynnes, [A picture containing text, tableware, plate, dishware Description automatically generated] FOI Team ] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester Thank you for your email. I note that this request covers the same subject matter as FOI:2026-032 and extends the scope of the information requested in that case. In order to avoid duplication and ensure that we provide a single, comprehensive response, our intention is to treat FOI:2026-036 as replacing FOI:2026-032 and to close FOI:2026-032 accordingly. Unless we hear from you to the contrary within the next few working days, we will proceed on that basis and respond to the broader request contained in FOI:2026-036. Please note that your request for an internal review of FOI:2026-024 remains a separate matter and will continue to be considered independently. Cofion cynnes, [A picture containing text, tableware, plate, dishware Description automatically generated] FOI Team ] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear FOI Team, Thank you for the internal review outcome dated 8 September 2026. I note that the review upholds the original decision. I do not, however, consider that the review has answered the substantive questions raised in my request for internal review. I am therefore putting the position on record, while also making a separate new request for recorded information which your review confirms already exists. 1. Records identified during the additional searches On 14 August 2026, Amgueddfa Cymru stated that the additional enquiries had identified: “some information relating generally to Great House Farm and the surrounding area”. The internal review now describes these as: “a small number of records referring generally to Great House Farm, Llandough”. The wording has therefore changed slightly, but the material fact has not: the Museum confirms that records referring to Great House Farm were identified. My internal-review request specifically asked for those records to be identified and, where not exempt, provided. The review does not do so. Simply stating that the records are considered to fall outside categories 1 to 9 does not identify what they are, where they are held, when they were created, or their reference numbers. 2. Archived electronic systems My request of 14 August specifically asked: – which archived systems were searched; – the approximate date ranges covered; – whether historical email or correspondence archives were searched; – whether legacy collections-management databases were searched; and – whether any archived systems were unavailable, incomplete or incapable of being searched. The review answers none of these questions individually. Instead, it states: “archived electronic records reasonably capable of containing information within scope were considered” and: “Any data stored within a system or database pre-dating the existing Collections Management Systems, would have been migrated into the incumbent solution, and therefore included in the search.” The first statement describes a conclusion, rather than identifying the systems actually searched. The second is an assumption about migration completeness. “Would have been migrated” is not a search result and does not establish that the relevant historical data was in fact migrated, completely migrated, retained, searchable and included in the particular search undertaken. 3. Correspondence independent of accessioned objects This is the most significant issue. The original request expressly sought correspondence and administrative records concerning, among other things: – identification; – recovery; – ownership; – location; – the Buckler and Williams families; – Cardiff Council; – Cardiff Castle; – the Bute Estate; – museums; and – other public authorities. Those categories were deliberately not restricted to objects which had subsequently been accessioned by the Museum. The review states: “As no such objects were identified as having been acquired by the Museum, no associated acquisition, provenance, ownership, loan, disposal or related correspondence concerning such objects was identified.” That reasoning addresses correspondence attached to an identified accessioned object. It does not establish that correspondence was searched for independently of an accession record. For example, an enquiry concerning an item, a communication about possible provenance, a request to identify an object, a discussion concerning temporary custody, a disposal enquiry, a communication with another institution, or correspondence about the contents of a property could exist without the item ever becoming an accessioned Museum object. Accordingly, the fact that no accessioned object was identified does not itself establish that no such correspondence existed or was held. The subsequent statement: “The review did not identify evidence that the Museum holds correspondence concerning the identification, ownership, recovery or location of Great House Farm furniture or household effects.” still does not establish whether the relevant correspondence repositories were actually searched. 4. Search terms My internal-review request set out specific terms and variants and asked the Museum to confirm whether those terms had been used. The review now states only: “appropriate search terms and variants were used” and refers generally to: “location names, property names, family names and associated variants”. That does not confirm whether the specific terms identified in my request were searched. In particular, the review does not say whether searches included combinations or variants involving: “Bute Estate”, “Bute”, “Cardiff Castle”, “Cardiff Council”, “household effects”, “contents”, “dispersal”, “recovery”, “transfer”, “demolition”, “provenance”, “ownership” and the other terms specifically identified in my 14 August correspondence. The distinction matters because a search for a property name or family name is not necessarily equivalent to a search for correspondence concerning the dispersal, recovery, transfer or ownership of its contents. 5. Transfer, disposal and destruction My request also asked what evidential basis existed for the earlier statement that the Museum was not aware of relevant records having been transferred to another institution or destroyed. The review now says: “The statement that the Museum is not aware of relevant records having been transferred or destroyed reflects the outcome of the searches undertaken and the knowledge of relevant collections staff.” This combines two different things: documentary searches and institutional recollection. It does not tell me whether the Museum searched: – transfer or accession-out records; – disposal records; – retention and destruction records; – archival transfer documentation; or – other records capable of establishing whether material had previously been transferred or destroyed. There is an important distinction between: “no record of transfer or destruction was identified in the records searched” and: “there is no evidence that any transfer or destruction occurred”. The review does not make that distinction sufficiently clear. 6. Searches concerning external institutions The original request expressly contemplated records concerning Cardiff Council, Cardiff Castle, the Bute Estate and other external bodies. The review states: “Searches were not limited solely to object catalogue records.” That is helpful, but it still does not identify what non-catalogue repositories were searched. For example, it does not identify whether searches were made of curator correspondence, departmental files, donor correspondence, acquisition/disposal correspondence, provenance files, loan files, institutional correspondence indexes, or other historical administrative records in which communications with external institutions might have been recorded. Again, the issue is not whether the Museum considers the search reasonable. It is whether the relevant classes of records were actually searched. 7. The significance of the “balance of probabilities” conclusion I note the review’s conclusion that, “on the balance of probabilities”, the Museum does not hold recorded information within the scope of the request. I do not dispute that a negative FOI determination may ultimately be reached on that basis. However, the balance-of-probabilities conclusion necessarily depends upon the quality, scope and rigour of the searches on which it is based. The ICO’s guidance states that, where a requester disputes whether relevant information has been located, the authority should be able to provide a reasoned and detailed account of how it determined that further information was not held, including the areas searched, staff consulted and, for electronic searches, the keywords, accounts and time parameters used. My concern remains that the review repeatedly substitutes statements such as “we are satisfied”, “appropriate”, “reasonably capable” and “on the balance of probabilities” for the underlying factual information about what was actually searched. I therefore consider the review outcome insufficiently informative on the specific search methodology raised in my review request. I reserve my right to refer the handling of FOI 2026-020 and the internal review to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Separate new FOI request Separately from the above, I am now making a new request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This new request is deliberately limited to recorded information which your own correspondence confirms was identified or generated in connection with the searches already undertaken. Please provide: A. Records identified The “small number of records referring generally to Great House Farm, Llandough” identified during the additional enquiries referred to in your email of 14 August 2026 and the internal review outcome of 8 September 2026. For each record, please provide, where recorded: – title or description; – date; – collection, series or department; – system or repository; – reference, accession or record number; and – a copy of the record, subject to any applicable exemption. If any part of a record is exempt, please identify the exemption relied upon and provide the remainder where reasonably practicable. Limb A is confined to the records your 14 August and 8 September letters say were identified in the FOI 2026-020 additional enquiries. It is not a new collection-wide search. If any of those records are also in scope of FOI 2026-032 or FOI 2026-036, please schedule them once and cross-refer. Please do not refuse this request as a duplicate. B. Existing search records Any recorded information already held concerning the searches undertaken for FOI 2026-020 or its internal review, including any existing: – search notes; – search logs; – search checklists; – system lists; – search-term lists; – IT tickets or instructions; – archived-system enquiries; – staff search records; or – other contemporaneous records documenting the searches undertaken. I am asking only for recorded information already held. I am not asking the Museum to create a new narrative or retrospective report. If no such search records are held, please state that expressly. Please register this as a new FOI request and provide it with its own reference number. It is not a further internal review of FOI 2026-020, nor is it a request to reopen or amend FOI 2026-032 or FOI 2026-036. I would therefore be grateful if this request could be processed separately and not treated as a clarification or continuation of those matters. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

FOI Team, Thank you for your email concerning FOI:2026-036. I do not agree that FOI:2026-032 should be closed or treated as replaced. The three matters are distinct and should remain so. Internal review of FOI 2026-024 This remains a review of how the original 27 July request was interpreted and searched. I confirm it is separate. Nothing in FOI:2026-036 is a comment on that review. FOI 2026-032 (your letter of 26 August 2026; also written by you as FOI 2026-32) This is the request you yourselves extracted from my 26 August email. Its subject is the records your searches for FOI 2026-024 had already identified: the “other archaeological discoveries recorded at Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough” and the Church Farm, Llandough finds which you excluded from 2026-024 as out of scope. You registered that as a new request and gave a response date of 23 September 2026. That request has not been withdrawn. Those records have already been located. They do not require a new collection-wide trawl. FOI:2026-036 (my email of 8 September 2026). This is a new request. It is not a restatement of 2026-032. It has additional limbs: a schedule of every object, archive file, accession, loan, enquiry or correspondence record indexed, provenanced or otherwise recorded as from Great House Farm / Ty Mawr / Llandough Farm; the Church Farm schedule only so far as already retrieved in the 2026-024 search, and without a new full trawl; predecessor accession, register, day-book, donations-book and correspondence searches for 1875–1915 (Cardiff Museum / Welsh Museum of Natural History / National Museum of Wales) for ironwork, armour, visor, lance, helmet, “armour from Llandough”, or a find from Great House / Llandough Farm; object records for Llandough ironwork not labelled “visor” or “lance” but associated with the farmhouse floor or rear wing / dairy. If it assists you administratively, I have no objection to a single letter that answers both 2026-032 and 2026-036, provided that: a. FOI 2026-032 is not closed, withdrawn or treated as superseded; b. the records already identified in the 2026-024 search are scheduled and disclosed as a discrete part of that letter, and that part is provided by the date you gave for [removed] September 2026); c. the additional limbs of 2026-036 remain live and are answered on the 2026-036 timescale; d. the two requests are not aggregated so as to refuse either under section 12; e. the internal review of FOI 2026-024 continues independently. The purpose of 2026-036 was to obtain the records you had already found and set aside, together with the predecessor-register and full-site schedule work that 2026-024 did not cover. It was not an invitation to extinguish 2026-032 or to restart the clock on material already retrieved. Please confirm that FOI 2026-032 remains open on the terms above. Regards, Requester [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester Thank you for your email. I note your position and can confirm that FOI:2026-032 will remain open and will be processed separately from FOI:2026-036. In all honesty, my suggestion that FOI:2026-036 replace FOI:2026-032 was not made with a view to aggregating the requests or considering the application of a section 12 exemption. It was intended as an administrative measure to avoid duplication of work and correspondence for a small collections team where two requests cover substantially the same subject matter. However, I note that you wish the requests to remain separate and we will proceed on that basis. Also, to confirm, the internal review of FOI:2026-024 will continue independently. Cofion cynnes, [A picture containing text, tableware, plate, dishware Description automatically generated] FOI Team ] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Diolch, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I have encountered parties trying opt out of FOI even GDPR and SAR. Then trying to refer me to other agencies before conducting a search. Then total denial any result were found. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Then I’ve actually had to show snippeted of my copies of records they should hold. Then I’ve had to insist on internal reviews to be sure of what was searched matched what I asked. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Or other oddities. I know with what happened in the last century with our farmhouse involved a lot of scandle, in order to disposses us of our country treasure 800 year old home, which we owned, before being removed by force from the land we still own, and demolishing our home since 1667 to develop 20 houses in its place, which the entire community petitioned when the plan was just 13 houses, and on a roman villa and monestry and medieval burial site[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. I’m just trying to get answers for my family and to understand what exactly happened in a fact find and on an evidence basis. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] And the land registry responses also raise more questions. Many local authorities take the maximum time to respond at each interval. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Many institutions report gaps in records and cannot account for destroyed/ missing records. So I thank you in advance for your co-operation in this matter. I believe a collective effort will mean a lot should the Senedd authorise a public enquiry or my family get justice. But this was and still is a matter of national public interest. Marconi was staying with us at our home there, in 1897, while conducting the successful experiment of radio at Lavernock Point. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I enclose for your interest ITV footage, unaired/ gatekept, of our home being looted of all our furniture we got from Cardiff Castle. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The complete story and chronology has not been told. It appears to begin with Cedwyn the giant/ St Cedwyn. A 2,200 year old iron age round house. The 1820 church wasn’t the first built. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There’s not even a park bench plaque to Marconi there or a tourist information board for the rich history and herritage. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Calli, Further to my email of 8 September 2026 concerning Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough, I attach a formal schedule of the records I am seeking, so that the request is easier for Heneb to work through and to allocate internally. I have also completed your online enquiry form, so the request is in your preferred channel. I appreciate a response would not fall due until 6 October, so this is not a chaser. It is to put the detail in one place and to clarify the basis of the request. On your note of 22 May. You are right that Heneb, as a limited company, is not a public authority under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and I do not pursue that. Two separate points remain, and I would welcome Heneb’s position on each. First, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 apply on a different test — regulation 2(2) reaches bodies carrying out functions of public administration relating to the environment, or under the control of a public authority. If Heneb considers it falls outside that, please say so expressly with brief reasons, so that I can direct the request elsewhere. Second, and independently, the Historic Environment Record is a statutory record: sections 194 and 195 of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 require the Welsh Ministers to maintain an HER for every local authority area and to make it available for public inspection, and Heneb keeps the south-east Wales record on their behalf. I therefore ask in the alternative that this be treated as a request for access under that regime and under Heneb’s own policy. Two things that will make this easier. If any item is too broad, please tell me which and I will narrow it rather than have the whole request refused. And if Heneb can supply, as a first step, simply a schedule or index of the records it holds for this site — without copying them — that would let me target the rest precisely and save your staff considerable time. I am content to inspect material by appointment at Baglan or at the HER, and any reasonable copying or staff-time charge can be notified to me in advance for approval. Two small administrative points. Please confirm which legal entity now holds the records and functions formerly of Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust Ltd, and who within Heneb handles access requests of this kind. Finally, since my correspondence in May was framed more formally: my purpose is documentary. I am reconstructing the record of a farm my family occupied for generations, and I would far rather do that with Heneb’s help than around it. I should say plainly that I have read GGAT’s December 1993 notification to the Vale of Glamorgan that Condition 18 had not been complied with, and the recommendation that a Breach of Condition Notice be issued. Whatever else is in dispute about this site, that was the Trust doing its job properly, and I am grateful for it. Thank you in advance for your time in this matter, Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Enc: Schedule of Records Requested, ref GHF/HENEB/2026-09-20

Dear Requester Thank you for your request for an internal review of Amgueddfa Cymru’s response to your Freedom of Information request concerning a reported archaeological discovery at Great House Farm, Llandough. I have now completed my review of the handling of your request, including the searches undertaken and the concerns raised in your request for review. Having reviewed the original request, the searches conducted and the response provided, I am satisfied that the request was handled appropriately and that reasonable and proportionate searches were undertaken in those locations where information falling within the scope of the request would reasonably be expected to be held. In your request for review, you suggest that additional searches should have been undertaken using a wider range of terms and concepts, including references to Roman burials, military burials, cavalry burials, human remains, horse remains and other archaeological terminology. I have carefully considered this point. However, when assessing whether information is held for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the relevant issue is not whether every conceivable search term has been used, but whether the authority has undertaken searches that are reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances and reasonably likely to identify relevant information if held. Your request concerned a specific reported discovery at a named location. Accordingly, the location identified in the request was used as the primary search criterion. Searches were undertaken across Amgueddfa Cymru’s information holdings where records relating to acquisitions, accessions, archaeological finds, provenance information and associated correspondence would reasonably be expected to be held. This included collections management systems, accession records, archived documentation, shared electronic records and other organisational record repositories. Records identified through those searches were reviewed by collections staff and the FOI team to determine whether they related to the reported discovery described in your request. As the search methodology was location-based rather than focused on a particular object type, archaeological period or interpretation, it was reasonably likely of identifying relevant records regardless of whether associated material had been recorded as Roman, medieval or otherwise. I have therefore considered your suggestion that later historical accounts may have inaccurately described the nature, date or attribution of the reported discovery. I am satisfied that this possibility would not have affected the outcome of the searches undertaken. I have also considered whether broader keyword searches would have been appropriate. Given the scale and diversity of Amgueddfa Cymru’s collections and records, generic terms such as “horse”, “burial” or “skeleton” would retrieve large volumes of records relating to many different sites and periods and would not provide a reliable or proportionate means of locating records relating to a specific reported discovery at a named location. I am satisfied that the location-based search strategy adopted was the most appropriate and proportionate approach. The searches undertaken did not identify any records relating to: * the acquisition, accession, donation, transfer or deposit of a visor, lance, helmet, armour or related objects associated with the discovery described in your request; * associated human or animal remains connected with that discovery; * reburial records relating to that discovery; or * excavation reports, discovery reports or watching-brief records relating to the discovery described in your request. Having reviewed both the scope of the original request and the searches undertaken, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, if information relating to the reported discovery were held by Amgueddfa Cymru, those searches would have been likely to identify it. You also raised concerns regarding the reference in the original response to other archaeological records identified during the course of the searches. Those records were reviewed and were not considered to relate to, or otherwise be associated with, the reported discovery described in your request. However, I can confirm that this aspect has been subject to further consideration and a separate response will be issued in relation to those records. I therefore uphold the original conclusion that Amgueddfa Cymru does not hold recorded information falling within the scope of your request. This concludes Amgueddfa Cymru’s internal review process. If you remain dissatisfied, you may complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Cofion cynnes, [A picture containing text, tableware, plate, dishware Description automatically generated] FOI Team ] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester Thank you for your request for information, registered as FOI 2026-032. As explained in our previous correspondence, this request has been considered separately from the internal review relating to FOI 2026-024. We have identified a number of records relating to archaeological discoveries recorded at Great House Farm and Church Farm, both at Llandough. These records were identified during searches undertaken in connection with the earlier request but were not considered to fall within the scope of that request, which concerned a specific reported discovery. We have now reviewed those records for the purposes of your new request. Attached are copies of the relevant records. Certain information has been redacted from the disclosed records under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, where it comprises the personal data of third parties. Disclosure of that information would contravene the data protection principles set out in UK data protection legislation. To assist interpretation, we have also included a brief descriptor for each record, together with any available reference or catalogue information held within the Museum’s records. Further to these documents, we have also identified some publicly available records which I have referenced below. An Early-medieval Monastic Cemetery at Llandough, Glamorgan: Excavations in 1994: Medieval Archaeology: Vol 49 , No 1 – Get Access<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1179/007660905×54044?needAccess=true&gt; Highlight 5: Llandough early medieval cemetery, Glamorgan (1994) – Cotswold Archaeology<https://cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk/highlight-5-llandough-early-medieval-cemetery-glamorgan-1994/&gt; Please note that the provision of these records should not be taken as indicating any association between them and the discovery you have described in FOI 2026-024. The records are being disclosed in response to your separate request for information relating to other archaeological discoveries recorded at the site. If you are dissatisfied with the handling of this request, you may request an internal review within 40 working days of this response. Cofion cynnes, [A picture containing text, tableware, plate, dishware Description automatically generated] FOI Team ] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Heneb: The Trust for Welsh Archaeology, I am writing to request access to recorded information concerning the March 1983 fire at the former Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT) warehouse in Swansea, particularly the reported destruction of archaeological finds, excavation records and photographic material from Llandough, together with records concerning the subsequent custody, preservation, transfer and integrity of archaeological records relating to Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough. I recognise that Heneb is an independent private company limited by guarantee and registered charity rather than a body ordinarily subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Heneb now maintains the statutory Historic Environment Records for Wales on behalf of the Welsh Ministers. Sections 194 and 195 of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 require the Welsh Ministers to maintain publicly accessible Historic Environment Records, including information concerning archaeological investigations and their findings. I therefore ask that this request be considered under any applicable statutory information-access regime, including the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 insofar as Heneb considers that it falls within their scope. If Heneb considers that the EIR do not apply to any or all of the information requested, please state that expressly and identify the legal basis for that position. I would nevertheless be grateful if Heneb would consider the request voluntarily as an information-access request, particularly where the information forms part of, or supports, the statutory Historic Environment Record or associated archaeological archive maintained on behalf of the Welsh Ministers. I have copied Cadw and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales because the request concerns the statutory HER system and records said to have been transferred or accessioned into the National Monuments Record of Wales. The request is for existing recorded information only. I am not asking Heneb to create a new report or undertake fresh archaeological interpretation. Purpose and evidential context This request arises from a wider forensic examination of the surviving documentary record concerning Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough. Two companion forensic critiques, dated 21 September 2026, have been prepared concerning respectively Cadw and GGAT/Heneb. They are not presented as proof of dishonesty, bad faith, corruption or deliberate destruction. Rather, they identify a series of documentary gaps, inconsistent records and questions which cannot properly be resolved without access to the underlying primary records. In particular, the GGAT critique identifies questions concerning the Trust’s historical roles as archaeological adviser, contractor, investigator, curator and record-holder, and concerning the provenance and subsequent custody of the 1990 Great House Farm assessment and associated material. The purpose of this request is therefore to establish, from the records themselves, what material existed, what was lost, what survived, where it was held, when it was transferred, and whether the present HER and archive accurately represent the historical record. The two distinct archaeological areas at Llandough For the avoidance of doubt, I ask that the following be treated as separate investigations. *1. Llandough Farm / Roman villa area south of St Dochdwy’s church* GGAT undertook excavation in this area in 1978–79, with the HER identifying event GGATE001109 as “Llandough Farm”. The associated site record concerns an Iron Age/Roman villa complex with later early-medieval burial activity. *2. Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr) area north of St Dochdwy’s church* GGAT undertook an archaeological assessment/evaluation of Great House Farm in 1990, followed by the substantially larger Cotswold Archaeological Trust excavation in 1994. These should not be conflated in the records or in any response to this request. Part A — March 1983 warehouse fire I have identified contemporaneous newspaper reports concerning the March 1983 fire at the GGAT Swansea warehouse. Those reports state that substantial quantities of archaeological material were destroyed and specifically identify finds from Llandough among the losses. They also report the destruction of a photographic studio/darkroom and a substantial quantity of photographic material. I therefore request: *1.* Any surviving inventory, catalogue, accession register, storage list, box list, find list, archive schedule or other contemporaneous record identifying archaeological material held at the Swansea warehouse immediately before the fire. *2.* Any surviving inventory, assessment or other record identifying material from the 1978–79 Llandough Farm excavation which was destroyed, lost, damaged or rendered unrecoverable in the fire. *3.* Any records identifying Llandough photographic material lost in the fire, including, where recorded: – original negatives; – contact sheets; – prints; – transparencies/slides; – photographic registers or catalogues; – site photography logs; and – duplicate or working copies. *4.* Any post-fire salvage, recovery, reconciliation or damage-assessment records concerning archaeological material or photographic material recovered from the warehouse. *5.* Any insurance claim, loss schedule, valuation, stock reconciliation, internal audit, board/minute record, memorandum or other contemporaneous document assessing the scale or nature of the archaeological and photographic losses. *6.* Any correspondence concerning the fire or its archaeological losses with Cadw/Welsh Historic Monuments, the Welsh Office/Welsh Government, Amgueddfa Cymru/National Museum Wales, RCAHMW, local authorities, funding bodies, insurers, fire authorities or other archaeological organisations. *7.* Any GGAT annual report, internal report, memorandum or other record discussing the fire, the losses, salvage, replacement of records, reconstruction of catalogues or subsequent archive-management arrangements. Part B — What survived from the 1978–79 Llandough excavation *8.* Any surviving GGAT records showing what material from the Llandough Farm excavation survived the 1983 fire, including finds, site records, plans, drawings, photographs, notebooks, context records, catalogues, reports and publication material. *9.* Any surviving records showing where surviving Llandough material was subsequently stored, transferred, deposited or otherwise held. *10.* Any transfer, accession or deposit records identifying material from the Llandough excavation now held by Heneb, Amgueddfa Cymru/National Museum Wales, RCAHMW, the Archaeology Data Service or another repository. *11.* If Heneb no longer holds material formerly held by GGAT from this excavation, please provide any recorded information showing when and how that material ceased to be held by GGAT or its successor organisations. Part C — Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr): the 1990 GGAT assessment *12.* Any records showing the complete archival history and custody of the GGAT 1990 archaeological assessment of Great House Farm, including the report associated with HER record GGAT02038s. *13.* Please provide any surviving records showing: – the date on which the assessment was completed; – the date on which it was received or entered into GGAT records; – its original file or archive reference; – where the original and working copies were held; – any subsequent movement between GGAT offices, stores or repositories; – any transfer or deposit to RCAHMW/the National Monuments Record of Wales; – the date and reference of any such accession; and – the identity and present location of associated archive material. I understand that the 1990 assessment was accessioned into the National Monuments Record of Wales on *20 March 2019*. Please confirm whether that date is correct and provide the underlying accession, transfer, deposit or cataloguing record. *14.* If the assessment was not accessioned into the National Monuments Record until 2019, please provide any recorded information showing where the assessment and associated archive material were held between completion of the assessment and that accession. *15.* Please provide any surviving pre-1990 or 1990 GGAT material relating to Great House Farm/Tŷ Mawr, including correspondence, field notes, photographs, plans, drawings, draft reports, site notebooks, assessment notes and archaeological planning correspondence. *16.* Please specifically provide any surviving material corresponding to, or identified as, *Appendix B* and *Appendix E* of the 1990 GGAT assessment, together with any records showing whether either appendix has been lost, separated from the principal report, transferred elsewhere, superseded, or otherwise disposed of. *17.* Any records concerning the preparation, internal review, approval, issue and circulation of the 1990 assessment and its appendices. *18.* Any records concerning the commissioning, procurement, quotation, specification, fee, contract, invoice or other administrative arrangements under which GGAT undertook the 1990 Great House Farm assessment. *19.* Any records showing what information supplied by GGAT about Great House Farm was entered into, amended within, cross-referenced within, or omitted from the then South Glamorgan/West Glamorgan Sites and Monuments Record. *20.* Any audit trail, change history, correction record or equivalent metadata showing subsequent amendments to the relevant HER records and references for Great House Farm/Tŷ Mawr. Part D — Relationship between the 1990 assessment and the 1994 excavation *21.* Any records showing what information or archive material from the 1990 GGAT assessment was supplied to, transferred to, or made available to Cotswold Archaeological Trust in connection with the 1994 excavation. *22.* Any correspondence between GGAT and Cotswold Archaeological Trust concerning the archaeological potential, results, interpretation, extent or recording of the Great House Farm site. *23.* Any records showing whether the 1990 GGAT trench plan, archaeological potential map, appendices or conclusions were used to determine the location, extent or methodology of the 1994 excavation. *24.* Any records identifying any material change between GGAT’s 1990 assessment and the findings of the 1994 excavation, including any contemporary acknowledgment within GGAT’s records that the 1994 findings differed materially from the conclusions or zoning of the 1990 assessment. Part E — The 1994 Cotswold Archaeological Trust excavation archive *25.* Any records held by Heneb concerning the surviving archive of the 1994 Great House Farm excavation, including information on where the archive was deposited or transferred. *26.* Any records showing the date, destination and scope of any transfer or deposit of the 1994 excavation archive, including: – finds; – human-remains records; – context sheets; – plans and drawings; – photographs; – catalogues; – databases; and – specialist reports. *27.* The published excavation record states that *1,026 inhumation burials were examined*, whereas the current Heneb HER record states *858 inhumations*. Please provide any records held by Heneb which explain the difference between these figures, including whether they represent different stages of excavation, different archaeological categories, different counting methodologies, or subsequent correction or revision of the HER. *28.* Any records showing whether material from the 1994 excavation remains with Heneb/GGAT, Cotswold Archaeology, Amgueddfa Cymru/National Museum Wales, RCAHMW, the Archaeology Data Service or another repository. *29.* I understand that archive material relating to the 1994 excavation was deposited in or around 2014. Please confirm whether this is correct and, if so, provide the relevant accession/deposit information and identify the repository concerned. Part F — Archive management following the 1983 fire *30.* Any records concerning the archive-management arrangements implemented by GGAT following the 1983 fire for the preservation, cataloguing, duplication, storage and eventual deposition of excavation archives, photographs and associated records. *31.* Any records showing whether records affected by the fire were reconstructed, recreated, copied, replaced or otherwise restored, and which archaeological projects were affected by any such work. *32.* Any records concerning subsequent reviews of the completeness of excavation archives affected by the fire. *33.* Any retention schedules, disposal schedules, archive policies, accession procedures or records-management guidance used by GGAT during the relevant period which governed the retention or disposal of archaeological project records and photographs. Part G — Present completeness and custody of the archaeological record *34.* Any surviving GGAT/Heneb records identifying missing, lost, destroyed, separated or otherwise unaccounted-for archive components relating to either the Llandough Farm excavation or Great House Farm/Tŷ Mawr. *35.* Any records showing whether the 1978–79 Llandough excavation archive, the 1990 Great House Farm assessment and the 1994 Great House Farm excavation archive were ever cross-referenced, reconciled or treated as related archaeological records. *36.* Any records identifying discrepancies between the historical GGAT records, the present Heneb HER, the National Monuments Record of Wales and the published archaeological reports concerning these sites. Part H — Heneb’s statutory HER role and custody of information *37.* Please identify the legal and administrative basis on which Heneb maintains the relevant Historic Environment Record on behalf of the Welsh Ministers, including any agreement, contract, service specification, grant agreement, memorandum of understanding or other instrument governing that arrangement. *38.* Does Heneb consider that information forming part of the statutory Historic Environment Record is held: a. by Heneb in its own capacity; b. by Heneb on behalf of the Welsh Ministers; or c. on some other legal or administrative basis? Please explain. *39.* Where historical GGAT material now held by Heneb forms evidence supporting a statutory HER record, please identify whether the underlying source archive is regarded as part of the HER itself, associated reference material, or a separate archaeological archive. *40.* If any of the information requested above is held by Heneb solely on behalf of the Welsh Ministers, please identify the relevant Welsh Government/Cadw body responsible for access to that information and the applicable access regime. Searches and records no longer held I appreciate that some historical records may no longer survive. Where information requested above is no longer held, please state that clearly and, where recorded information exists concerning its destruction, disposal, transfer, loss or separation, please provide that information. For each material category where the original record is no longer held, please provide any surviving record showing: – when it ceased to be held; – why it ceased to be held; – whether it was destroyed, lost, transferred or otherwise disposed of; – whether any replacement, copy or reconstruction was made; and – the repository or organisation to which it was transferred, where applicable. If Heneb’s searches establish that a record formerly known to exist cannot now be located, please identify the relevant search terms, archive locations or record systems searched and the outcome of those searches, insofar as such information is itself recorded. Where records have been transferred to another body, please identify that body together with any accession, archive or reference number known to Heneb. Scope and cost If Heneb considers that this request is too broad or that responding to it would exceed any applicable statutory cost limit, please identify the specific questions or categories causing the difficulty and advise how I can narrow the request while retaining the central questions concerning: 1. the scale and nature of the archaeological and photographic losses in the March 1983 warehouse fire; 2. what material from the 1978–79 Llandough excavation survived; 3. the complete custody history of the 1990 Great House Farm assessment and its appendices; 4. the relationship between that assessment and the 1994 excavation; 5. the whereabouts and completeness of the 1994 excavation archive; and 6. the present accuracy and provenance of the relevant HER records. If some information is already publicly available or is held by another body, please identify the relevant repository and, where possible, provide the relevant archive, accession or catalogue reference rather than simply directing me to the organisation generally. This request is made in the public interest and is intended to establish the documentary record. It should not be read as an allegation that any individual or institution acted dishonestly, in bad faith, corruptly, or deliberately destroyed or concealed evidence. I would be grateful for confirmation of receipt and for the request to be dealt with under the appropriate applicable information-access regime. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Chief Executive / Complaints Officer, This is a formal complaint to Heneb: The Trust for Welsh Archaeology, as operational successor to the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust, and to Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust Limited (The), company 01276976, which remains an active company with its registered office at Heneb’s address. It concerns Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan (near Penarth / Cardiff); ST 1681 7331; NPRN 20182. Cadw and RCAHMW have supplied three unreconciled HER references for the same site: GGAT02038s, GGAT03586s and GGATE003872. This is not a chaser of my records request of 8 September 2026 or the schedule of 19 September (ref GHF/HENEB/2026-09-20). That request remains open and is due a response by 6 October. Please treat this complaint as a separate file and give it a complaint reference. What this is not. It is not an allegation that GGAT demolished the house, advised that it be demolished, or decided that it should not be listed. It is not an allegation of dishonesty, bad faith or criminal conduct. It is not a title claim and I do not ask you to adjudicate BP v Buckler. GGAT’s letters of 13 and 15 December 1993, recommending a Breach of Condition Notice when Condition 18 had not been met, were the Trust doing its curatorial job. That is recorded here so it is not lost in what follows. The charge, put narrowly. GGAT was the public curator of the regional record; the adviser who told the planning authority it could not determine 89/01396/OUT without an archaeological assessment; the body which, in the same document, specified machine-trench evaluation, quoted £2,000 and two weeks, and recorded that it was already negotiating that work with BP Properties; the contractor who then executed that evaluation on a churchside monastic site its own 1978–80 excavations and its own 1982 letter had already flagged; and the author of a zoning map which treated as empty ground in which, four years later, inhumations were found a few centimetres below the topsoil. Disclosure of the dual role was not management of it. The public record still does not reliably carry what was found. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I enclose GGAT — Forensic Critique, Version 4.0.0 (21 September 2026). It distinguishes established fact, reasonable inference, what cannot be established, and facts that cut against the criticism. Where earlier versions were wrong, the corrections are printed and kept. The critique is the sourcing. This letter is the complaint. Please answer the letter. Treat the critique as the schedule of sources, not as a substitute for numbered answers. 1. I have not seen the HER I do not assert the wording of GGAT02038s, because I have not been allowed to read it. Cadw has said the content of the HER is managed by Heneb. RCAHMW and Cadw have given three different identifiers for the same site. Tests of Archwilio on 20 September 2026 did not return an error for unresolved records. They returned a different record, from a different trust, for a different site, with no warning: GGAT02038s → GAT46242 (Gwynedd desk-based assessment) GGAT03586s → GAT92911 (farmstead, Warwick Place, Gwynedd) GGAT02038s, alternative path, three attempts → E001657 each time A control query for an indexed record returned correctly. Please test those three queries, correct the substitution if confirmed, and tell me the outcome. Then permit inspection of the source file and supply an index of every linked site and event record with its correct reference. 2. “Partially recorded” is RCAHMW’s phrase, not a finding I have verified on the HER On 10 June 2026 Dr Adam Coward quoted NMR 6048945: “The house remained partially recorded because of problems created by an ownership dispute. The house and farm buildings were suddenly and completely destroyed by B. P. Properties Ltd. on 6th December 1988 amid considerable local controversy.” That is the Royal Commission’s file. I hold H. J. Thomas’s measured ground-floor plan of 26 April 1974, at 1:100, identifying the principal rooms including the Dairy and recording the beams. GGAT reproduced that plan as Figure 2 of its 1990 assessment, by kind permission. A measured ground-floor survey that could not reach the first floor and roof is not, without more, a failed survey. Please state, from records you hold: (a) whether the HER uses the phrase “partially recorded”, and if so from which source; (b) what parts of the building the 1974 survey measured, and what it did not; (c) what contemporaneous document, if any beyond NMR 6048945, establishes that access was restricted by the ownership dispute, by whom, on what date, and to whom; (d) whether Trench 7 of 1990 (north-east corner / former dairy, stone floor, mortared partition) was ever reconciled against the 1974 plan, and if the Trench 7 drawings, photographs and grid survive. 3. What GGAT held in 1988, and what it did not do On 1 October 1982 GGAT told the Vale that occupation might continue north of the church and that thorough investigative work should precede development. Between that letter and November 1988 no GGAT act concerning this site has been identified. RCAHMW added to its 1974 plan on 12 December 1988, six days after the demolition. There is no equivalent GGAT event. The 1990 report notes architectural features “observed in the rubble” and then begins GGAT’s own account with the words “Following the demolition… GGAT entered into discussion with Debenham Tewson”. Please state what the SMR entry contained immediately before December 1988; whether the 1982 advice was on it; whether any emergency building record, watching brief on the demolition or the rubble, or post-demolition fabric report exists; and where the carved stone and other architectural material later referred to now is. 4. “County treasure” GGAT 1989 §2.3: “At present our information on the Great House Farm area is limited to the records of the recently demolished property which was listed as a ‘county treasure’.” The phrase conferred no statutory protection. Identify the list or card, the date, the criteria, and what information about the building accompanied it. If you do not hold that document, say so. 5. Specify, price, bid, execute In one 1989 consultee report GGAT advised that 89/01396/OUT should not be determined without an assessment; specified machine-excavator trial trenching; quoted two weeks at £2,000; and recorded that negotiations with BP Properties via Debenham Tewson were already under way. BP then commissioned GGAT. The 1990 report disclosed a “dual role” and invited either party to go elsewhere. Disclosure is recorded. It is not the same as management. The IFA Code of approved practice for contractual arrangements was adopted on 17 September 1990, after the assessment was delivered. It does not bind that commission. The Welsh Archaeological Trusts’ Code of Practice dates from November 1997 and is not applied retrospectively. What did bind the 1989–90 arrangement, as contemporaneous standards rather than as a pleaded cause of action: the IFA Code of Conduct in force from June 1985; the BADLG Code, which GGAT expressly endorsed in the 1989 report; section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 as the implied standard of care between GGAT and BP (the family was not a party); and the fiduciary duty of charity trustees to identify and manage conflicts, not merely to notify two commercial counterparties. On 18 May 1994 GGAT’s Curatorial Section wrote, of another contractor: “An archaeological contractor should never be in the position of writing his own Brief as well as carrying out the work.” That principle was not met by GGAT’s own 1989–90 arrangement. Please identify who wrote the 1989 recommendation, who accepted the commission, whether those functions were separated, whether trustees or Cadw were told, and who wrote the 1990 brief. If you hold Appendix “B” to the officer’s report (GGAT’s further comments of 8 February 1990), Appendix “D” (the representation from a County Councillor identified as a member of GGAT), or Appendix “E” (the applicant’s agents’ written response to GGAT’s report), produce them. None of those three is in the planning file released in 2026. Appendix “A” is. I do not assert that GGAT removed them. I ask whether copies survive in GGAT/Heneb files. 6. The 1990 method against GGAT’s own model GGAT had excavated an early-medieval cemetery, a Roman villa and a Tewkesbury Abbey grange immediately south of the same church, on the same alkaline Liassic geology, and had written that occupation might continue north of it. It chose eight machine-cut trenches, some placed “at random”, and then rated uninvestigated eastern ground “non existent to low” potential. That rating converted a logistical limit into an empirical claim. Cotswold’s December 1994 preliminary report recorded that burials continued into that zone and “lay only a few centimetres below the topsoil”. I do not say a 1990 evaluation had to predict 1,026 burials. I ask whether the method was capable of detecting shallow inhumations on ground where GGAT’s own experience predicted excellent bone survival, and whether the 1990 evaluation has ever been reviewed against the 1994 results. If it has not, will Heneb review it now. 7. Human remains and the 1981 Act GGAT identified the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 and found disarticulated human bone by the churchyard wall. That Act turns on whether the land is a burial ground. A colour-coded potential map cannot answer it. What legal advice was obtained, when, and from whom? What evidence set the burial-ground boundary? Was a review undertaken after 1994? 8. Two burial figures, both correct Cotswold’s December 1994 preliminary report, §4.2: 858 inhumations and 152 disarticulated bone groups. Holbrook and Thomas, Medieval Archaeology 49 (2005): 1,026 burials comprising 814 articulated inhumations and 212 disarticulated bone groups, of which 801 skeletons received full osteological analysis; “by far the largest Early-medieval burial population so far recovered from Wales”. They are the same excavation counted twice. Please confirm which figure the HER now carries, and that both stages are identified as such. 9. The c.1880 ironwork sentence, and what Amgueddfa Cymru now holds GGAT 1990: “it is likely that some medieval ironwork which is held by the National Museum of Wales was discovered under the rear wing c 1880 (RCAHMW 1988).” By 2005 that hedged sentence had become flat assertion in print. Amgueddfa Cymru’s disclosures of 25 August 2026 (FOI 2026-024 and internal review 22 September 2026) and 22 September 2026 (FOI 2026-032) establish the following, so far as the Museum holds recorded information: (a) No accession, donation, transfer or deposit answering a visor, lance, helmet, armour, soldier, horse, or nineteenth-century discovery under the farmhouse floor. (b) Accession 82.44H is the 1979 GGAT excavation assemblage. Collected by Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust Ltd, 1979; donated 14 June 1982 by Wales & West Housing Association Ltd; bibliographic reference Owen-John 1988. The collections database locality field is “Llandough Roman Villa”, NGR ST 168 733 — not “Great House Farm”. (c) Accession 95.56H is the 1994 Cotswold Archaeological Trust cemetery assemblage. Collected by CAT, 1994; donated 28 July 1994 by Ideal Homes Wales Ltd. Locality field: “Great House Farm Llandough”, NGR ST 1681 7331. Period on the human-remains entries: Early Medieval (c.400–c.1070). (d) Accession 63.24 is objects stated to have been found at Church Farm, Llandough, in 1858. The Museum’s explanatory note of 22 September 2026 records that this is the only paperwork on that file, and that staff consider it possible those objects are the basis of the later local story. That is the Museum’s observation, not a finding I ask you to adopt as fact. Qualify or withdraw the 1880 sentence if you hold no source beyond the 1990 wording. Carry 82.44H and 95.56H on the principal HER description, with collector, donor, donation date, locality field as catalogued, and NGR. If the HER still points a professional user first to a post-medieval dwelling, that is a record defect against what both excavations produced and what the national museum now catalogues. Please also confirm whether GGAT retained copies of the 1980 donation correspondence with the National Museum (letters of 14 and 24 April 1980 are on the public record) and of any transfer file for 82.44H. 10. What the public record must now say If GGAT02038s, or its successor identifier, still leads as a post-medieval farm or dwelling, it does not satisfy the function of a working historic environment record, and it is difficult to reconcile with section 194(2)(j) of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023. I have not seen the source file, so I put that as a request for correction if the classification is as described by Cadw officers, not as a finding I have verified on the face of the record. A professional user needs, in the principal description and not only in a later narrative paragraph: the 1974 measured survey; GGAT’s 1978–80 work and 1982 advice; that the 1990 evaluation followed demolition and found human bone; that the 1994 excavation recovered the assemblage above, including in the 1990 low-potential zone; museum accessions 82.44H and 95.56H with their catalogued localities; and a note that the c.1880 NMW ironwork attribution is uncorroborated by the institution said to hold the object. Please also reconcile the NGRs in use for the farmhouse, the 1990 trenches, the 1994 excavation, the churchyard and the development parcels. Distinguish this site from Great House Farm, Llandough near Cowbridge, and from Llandow. Two Llandoughs sit in the same historic county. Homonym error is a live records risk. What I ask now A. A complaint reference, the name of the person who will determine it, the procedure you will apply, the timescale, and any independent review route. Preserve all surviving Great House Farm records pending that determination. B. Confirm which legal entity holds the records and functions formerly of GGAT Ltd, and who handles HER corrections. C. Answer sections 1 to 10 from the documents you hold. Where a document does not survive, say when it left the file, under what retention rule, and by whose authority. D. Correct the HER so that the 1979 and 1994 investigations and accessions 82.44H and 95.56H sit in the principal description, the 1880 attribution is qualified, the 1990 low-potential zone is annotated against the 1994 result, the three identifiers are reconciled, and Archwilio does not silently substitute another trust’s site. E. Test and, if confirmed, correct the Archwilio substitution. F. If you accept any part of this complaint, say what remedy you offer: record correction, release of surviving files or an index, a written account of the 1989–90 dual-role arrangement, and a methodological note on the 1990 evaluation against the 1994 excavation. I do not ask you to adjudicate title. I do ask you to account for what GGAT knew, what it recorded, what it advised, what it then sold and executed, what was found four years later, what the national museum now catalogues from GGAT’s own 1979 work, and whether the public record now tells the truth of that sequence. This letter is sent so that Heneb and GGAT Ltd have a fair opportunity to investigate, answer, and offer remedy before any further process. Please answer each numbered section. A general assurance that the organisation acted appropriately will not do. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Dear FOI Team, FOI 2026-032 Diolch yn fawr. Thank you for the records, the descriptors and the published references. This is a thorough response and it is genuinely useful. One correction of place is required. The request concerns Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough near Penarth / Cardiff. Among the disclosed PAS material is at least one record for a different property of the same name: Great House Farm, Llandough near Cowbridge (including 2022.18.1, NGR SS9934672805, medieval lead Romanesque mount). There is also a Great House farm entry at Llandow. Those are not the site named in the request. Two Llandoughs, and more than one Great House Farm, sit in the same county. The homonym is easy to miss and material. Please treat the Cowbridge / Llandow entries as out of scope for this request unless you hold recorded information showing they were, at any time, indexed, cited, or treated as if they related to Great House Farm, Llandough (Penarth / Cardiff). If any such cross-attribution exists in historic files, catalogues, correspondence, or search notes, that recorded information is within scope and I ask that it be disclosed. If labels or findspot fields are now amended to distinguish the two farms, please do not overwrite the original wording without retaining the prior form. I ask that any correction be recorded as a dated amendment, with the earlier descriptor preserved, so the sequence of how the records stood when searches were first run remains inspectable. Please do not destroy, weed, or replace the versions as disclosed on 22 September 2026. One small point from my email of 26 August also remains. As item 7 I asked for any recorded information showing the basis on which the Museum concluded that the identified records were unrelated to the reported nineteenth-century discovery. If that conclusion was reached by staff judgement and not written down, please simply confirm that no recorded information is held on that point. I am not asking for a new opinion. Could you also confirm the date by which you expect to respond to FOI 2026-036? Cofion, Requester greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com

Mr Buckler Thank you for your email. Just to clarify, our collections management system records items individually and does not group records together based on similar place names. We are not aware of any recorded information showing that records for Great House Farm, Llandough (near Cowbridge) or Great House Farm, Llandow were ever catalogued or treated within the collections system as relating to Great House Farm, Llandough (near Penarth/Cardiff). The references to similarly named locations arose from our searches for information relevant to your request, rather than from any overlap within the collections records themselves. In relation to item 7 of your email of 26 August, we do not hold any separate recorded information explaining the basis on which staff concluded that the identified records were unrelated to the reported nineteenth-century discovery. That conclusion was reached through staff assessment of the available records, and no further recorded information is held. I hope this helps clarify our position. Cofion cynnes, [A picture containing text, tableware, plate, dishware Description automatically generated] FOI Team ] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

*FORMAL PRESERVATION NOTICE* *Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth* *Titles: WA231076, WA240304, WA513690 and WA735527* *Planning references: 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES* *URL: **greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com <https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com>* *To each recipient separately, in your own capacity as a current or potential holder, custodian or controller of relevant records:* This notice is addressed to each recipient *individually*. It is *not a joint request*, and it does not ask any recipient to speak for, investigate on behalf of, or answer in place of any other person or organisation. Each recipient is asked to respond only in respect of records within that recipient’s own possession, custody or control, including records inherited from a predecessor organisation or retained on its behalf. 1. Nature and purpose of this notice This is a *formal preservation notice* concerning documentary material relating to Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, adjoining St Dochdwy’s, and the subsequent development of the site, including the area now associated with Church View Close. It is *not a claim form, is not service of proceedings, and is not intended to constitute or replace any FOI request, internal review, complaint, subject-access request or other statutory process already made to any recipient.* The purpose of this notice is to require the preservation of potentially relevant material while the documentary history, title chain, registration history, planning history, possession proceedings, demolition and subsequent development are being reconstructed. A separate first-stage preservation notice has been issued or is being issued to Cadw / Welsh Government FOI, HM Land Registry Wales Office and DPO, Heneb / GGAT HER, RCAHMW, Vale of Glamorgan FOI Unit and DPO, Glamorgan Archives, South Wales Police FOI, The National Archives, the Wales Office FOI team, and the National Library of Wales. Persimmon Homes (Wales) Ltd has received a separate preservation letter. *You are receiving this notice separately because the published documentary record places you, or a predecessor whose records may remain in your custody or control, within the documentary, legal, professional, administrative or development chain concerning this land.* 2. Land and documentary scope Please preserve, and do not destroy, alter, overwrite, discard, transfer out of custody without a recorded handover, or otherwise dispose of, any record within your possession, custody or control relating to the land or matters identified below. The scope includes, without limitation, *originals, copies, working papers, drafts, annotations, plans, photographs, negatives, films, tapes, maps, registers, indexes, correspondence, emails and attachments, electronic files, archived mailboxes, databases, metadata, internal notes, meeting records, instructions, client or matter files, survey material and other associated records.* The material requested includes: *1. Historical ownership, occupation and conveyancing* The 1877 split; the 1916 and 1939 tenancies; the 1938 Bute to Western Ground Rents conveyance; the 1969 Western Ground Rents to BP Pension Trust conveyance; and any plans, schedules, abstracts, searches, correspondence or other documents relied upon in relation to those transactions. *2. Possession proceedings and subsequent litigation* The [removed] and [removed] possession orders; the 1974 proceedings; *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2*; House of Lords leave papers, including *YHL/PO/JO/10/11/2536*; and *Buckler v United Kingdom (1989)*, including associated correspondence, instructions, evidence, plans and working papers. *3. Land registration* The first registration of *WA231076*, including the application dated 30 November 1982; the first registration of *WA240304*, including the application dated 23 February 1983; subsequent amalgamation, transfer or closure; and every plan, conveyance, abstract, search, application, correspondence trail or professional file relied upon in connection with those registrations or changes. *4. 1988 possession and demolition* The taking of possession on or about *29 November 1988* and the demolition commenced on or about *6 December 1988*, including any planning, listed-building, heritage, police, enforcement, media, contractor, survey, photographic or inter-agency liaison material. *5. Planning and subsequent development, 1989–1996* Planning application *89/01396/OUT*; reserved matters application *92/00671/RES*; conditions 16–18; GGAT / Cotswold Archaeology material; records concerning any *section 52, section 106, planning obligation, local land charge or equivalent instrument*; and the transfer from BP to Ideal Homes dated *3 December 1993*, together with all associated plans, correspondence, approvals, agreements, searches and completion material. *6. Family records* Records concerning *Mary Doreen Williams (died 1983)* and *William Buckler*, insofar as those records relate to Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, the land described above, its occupation, ownership, possession, disposal, registration, development or demolition. 3. Predecessor and inherited files Where you hold, or may hold, a file originating with a predecessor, successor, merged practice, affiliated practice, client or other entity, that material is also within scope. This includes, without limitation, records originating from: *Loosemores of Cardiff; Robbins Olivey & Blake Lapthorn / Blake Morgan; Linklaters & Paines; Debenham Tewson / DTZ / Cushman & Wakefield; Wyn Thomas + Partners; Ideal Homes Wales; BP Properties; BP Pension Trust; Cotswold Archaeological Trust; Cardiff Bay Development Corporation; and South Glamorgan County Council.* The reference to a predecessor file does not assert that you necessarily hold such a file. It identifies material for which a reasonable custody or succession inquiry should be made where applicable. 4. Preservation steps Please take reasonable steps to prevent the routine destruction, deletion, alteration or overwriting of potentially relevant material, including material held in *archived mailboxes, legacy systems, off-site storage, document-management systems, backup repositories and other electronic or physical stores*. Where relevant material has been transferred to another repository, archive, successor organisation or third party, please preserve the information necessary to identify the transfer and its current location, including any accession, file, box, reference or custody details. Nothing in this notice requires the creation of records that do not exist. The request concerns the preservation of records already held or controlled by you. 5. Purpose and legal position This notice is *not a finding against any recipient*, and I am not asking any recipient to determine title or adjudicate the underlying dispute. The *1987 Court of Appeal judgment* is relied upon here only for matters actually determined by that judgment, including the issues concerning possession, limitation and the October 1974 letters. This preservation notice does not treat that judgment as having determined the complete documentary root of title to the farmhouse parcel. The underlying documentary history, including the relationship between the farmhouse parcel and the agricultural land subsequently dealt with through Western Ground Rents and BP, remains a matter requiring reconstruction from the primary records. Accordingly, preservation is requested precisely so that the documentary record can be established from the records themselves rather than through assumptions based on later registration, later occupation, later planning treatment or secondary descriptions. 6. Acknowledgement and identification of records Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and, in your own capacity, confirm: *(a)* the officer, partner, records manager or other person responsible for implementing the preservation hold; *(b)* what records within your possession, custody or control you have identified as falling within the scope above; and *(c)* where you identify no records within scope, what relevant systems, files, repositories or predecessor records you searched in reaching that conclusion. A substantive assessment of title is not requested from you. The immediate requirement is preservation and identification of the documentary material you hold. The public documentary index and developing evidence record is available at: *https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/ <https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/>* Please monitor that site for subsequent identification of documents, references and specific schedules relevant to your organisation’s records. Where a reliable public email address is unavailable, a postal preservation notice will also be sent. For example, a postal notice will follow to *Loosemores, Nothing in this notice constitutes an abandonment, waiver or limitation of any claim, position or remedy concerning *title, registration, concealment, limitation, reopening, rectification or alteration of the register, or any associated matter.* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

To each recipient, in your own capacity as holder or likely holder of records. Please do not treat this as a joint reply. Answer only for your own holdings. Sirs/Madam, This is a preservation notice. It is not a claim form and not service of proceedings. It does not replace any FOI, review or subject access request already with you. Land: Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, adjoining St Dochdwy’s. Titles WA231076, WA240304 (closed), WA513690, WA735527, and any related title. Planning refs 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES. Please preserve, and do not destroy, transfer out of your custody without a written receipt, or dispose of, any file, plan, photograph, tape or electronic record in your possession, custody or control relating to: 1. The 1877 split, the 1916 and 1939 tenancies, and the 1938 Bute to Western Ground Rents conveyance. 2. The 1955 and 1962 possession orders, the 1974 proceedings, and BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2. 3. First registration: WA231076 application 30 November 1982; WA240304 application 23 February 1983; later amalgamation. 4. The 1988 possession (29 November) and demolition (begun 6 December), including listing, planning, police and any liaison papers. 5. Mary Doreen Williams (died 26 March 1983) and William Buckler, so far as your file concerns this land. Also preserve, if you hold them, the following planning and land-charge classes. Absence from a 2026 file disclosure is not proof they never existed: 6. Any section 52 Town and Country Planning Act 1971 agreement, later section 106 instrument, deed, undertaking or other agreement regulating the development or use of this land, and any corresponding local-land-charge entry. 7. The historic planning-register entries required by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 for 89/01396/OUT and 92/00671/RES (applications, reserved matters, plans and drawings, and decision information). 8. The officer’s report annexes to 89/01396/OUT, including Appendix B (further GGAT comments after discussions with the Trust), and Appendices C–E. 9. The condition chain on 89/01396/OUT: conditions 16–18; the Council’s October 1990 confirmation of condition 17; GGAT’s July 1992 archaeological warning; the September 1992 reserved-matters approval; and the 1993–94 papers on whether condition 18 had been discharged. 10. Any preliminary environmental-assessment / screening determination for the outline application (site described as about 3.4 acres / 1.38 ha). 11. Any record of the statutory consultation route used because the land was, or was treated as, a site of archaeological interest / SMR entry under the 1988 Order. 12. The complete 92/00671/RES file, and any sale, option, conditional-contract or transfer paper on the planning files covering BP Properties to Ideal Homes Wales, including the recorded transfer of 3 December 1993. 13. The application-receipt record for 89/01396/OUT (form dated October 1989; reconstructed Council receipt 8 November 1989). Please stop routine deletion, including archived mailboxes, for anything in that scope. The public evidence index is https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/ . The investigation distinguishes the farmhouse parcel from the eastern fields. The 1987 Court of Appeal decided possession, limitation and the October 1974 letters. It did not decide the documentary root of the farmhouse parcel. These records go to that question. This notice is not a finding against any of you. Please acknowledge, name the officer responsible for the hold, and say what you hold in scope. If you hold nothing, say what you searched. Nothing in this letter abandons any claim concerning title, registration, concealment, limitation, reopening or alteration of the register. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Mr Foulston, Thank you for acknowledging the complaint of 27 September 2026 and for confirming you are the investigating officer. I note the five-week target. Please treat this email as a supplement to that complaint. The attached is my report of GGATs involvement to the extent I know and a current consolidated account of GGAT’s role as curator, advisor, contractor and record-holder at Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough, and of the record now held by Heneb. Attachment GGAT — Forensic Critique, Great House Farm (Tŷ Mawr), Llandough, Version 4.0.3 (Final), 30 September 2026. My AI agent generated report based on the info I hold thus far, does attempt to distinguish established facts, reasonable inferences, matters that cannot be established, and facts that cut against the criticism. I took care not to allege dishonesty, bad faith or criminal conduct by named officers. It records nine defects: the standing building; the 1982–1988 SMR gap; an evaluation method mismatched to GGAT’s own predictive model; specify-price-bid-execute on the same application; a missing representation from a County Councillor identified as a member of GGAT; access converted into a “non-existent to low” zoning; failure to answer the Disused Burial Grounds question GGAT itself raised; a still-misclassified and inconsistently identified HER; and the absence, until your appointment, of any substantive institutional answer. What I ask Heneb to do on this complaint 1. Give me a complaint reference and confirm the target date for a written response. 2. Confirm which legal entity now holds GGAT’s records for this site (Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust Limited, company 01276976 / charity 505609 / Heneb operationally). 3. Correct or formally review HER GGAT02038s, which remains classified as “POST MEDIEVAL – Farm” despite the 1994 cemetery and the 2005 publication of 1,026 burials as the largest early-medieval burial population then recovered in Wales. 4. Reconcile the HER identifiers already supplied to the family (including GGAT02038s, GGAT03586s and GGATE003872) and supply the source file, not a public summary. 5. Search and disclose, or certify as not held: file S387; the 1 October 1982 letter; the 1989 consultee report on 89/01396/OUT; the 8 February 1990 further comments (Appendix B to the officer’s report); the 1990 assessment archive; any emergency building record, watching brief or fabric report on the December 1988 demolition; and any conflicts register or trustee minute for the 1989–90 commission. 6. Address the nine criticisms in the attached report in writing. Our family’s wider case, so the complaint is not read as a cataloguing dispute only Separately from the archaeological record: [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The family has occupied and claimed Great House Farm since at least 1667. In 1988, after BP Properties Ltd v Buckler, we were removed. The farmhouse was demolished on 6 December 1988. About twenty houses now stand on that ground. The narrative that followed treated us as peasant squatters evicted from an old farmhouse. That narrative is false. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The working case is two parcels: Parcel A (house and garden) belonging to Mary Williams; Parcel B treated as if it were the whole farm; a synthetic title built by decades of false assertion that occupation of Parcel A was permissive. Limitation is postponed if concealment is made out. That title case is for the Land Registry, the courts and the other bodies already on notice. It is not for Heneb to adjudicate. It is why the archaeological record matters. The same ground GGAT evaluated as largely empty contained inhumations a few centimetres below the topsoil. RCAHMW’s own file records that the standing building remained partially recorded because of the ownership dispute, and was then destroyed. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am giving each institution that held a public function over this site the opportunity to remedy what it accepts. For Heneb that means putting the record right, producing what it holds, and saying plainly where GGAT’s 1978–1995 conduct and the present HER fail the standards that applied then and apply now. Remedy from Heneb is correction of the record, disclosure, and an accountable written position — not a finding on title. Please confirm receipt of the attached report and that it forms part of the complaint file you are investigating. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester Thank you for your request. Amgueddfa Cymru has previously responded to requests concerning Great House Farm / Ty Mawr / Llandough Farm, Llandough, including FOI 2026-024 and FOI 2026-032. In responding to the present request, further enquiries were undertaken with Archaeology, Industry and Social History Collections. These enquiries built upon the searches already undertaken for the earlier requests. Collections staff reviewed records identified through references to Great House Farm, Ty Mawr and Llandough Farm, Llandough (Vale of Glamorgan), together with records returned through associated place-name searches. Records relating to the wider Llandough area, to other locations sharing the name “Llandough”, or to other properties bearing the name “Great House Farm” were reviewed but were not considered to relate to the location specified in your request. Question 1 A schedule of every object, archive file, accession, loan, enquiry or correspondence record that Amgueddfa Cymru holds which is indexed, provenanced or otherwise recorded as from Great House Farm / Ty Mawr / Llandough Farm, Llandough (Penarth / Vale of Glamorgan). The schedules provided in response to FOI 2026-032 contained the records previously identified as relating to the location specified in your request. The additional enquiries undertaken for this request identified the following records: Reference Title Date Description Ref 13.2 Waterwheel from Llandough Farm Collected 1 April 1979 Waterwheel collected from Llandough Farm. Museum records state that the item was donated by Wales and West Housing Association in connection with development of the site. The item was never formally accessioned and has subsequently been deaccessioned. MS 3360/3 Particulars, Conditions and Plans of the Sale of Nine Well-Known Farms in the Vale of Glamorgan forming part of the Llandough Estate 1924 Photostat copy. Collections staff identified a page relating to Great House Farm within the document. Provided in FOI: 2026-032 No further records relating specifically to Great House Farm / Ty Mawr / Llandough Farm, Llandough were identified. Question 2 The same schedule for Church Farm, Llandough, but only insofar as records were retrieved during the searches undertaken for FOI 2026-024 and can be identified without a new full search. The record identified is: Reference Title Description 63.24 Archaeological accession Details attached No further records were identified from the material retrieved during the searches undertaken for FOI 2026-024. Question 3 Any accession, register entry, day-book, donations book or correspondence in the collections of Amgueddfa Cymru or of its predecessor Cardiff Museum / Welsh Museum of Natural History / National Museum of Wales, dated 1875-1915, recording ironwork, armour, a visor, a lance, a helmet, “armour from Llandough”, or a find from Great House / Llandough Farm. No such records were identified. For clarification, the accession registers maintained by Cardiff Museum form the earliest accession registers of the National Museum of Wales collection. Objects held by Cardiff Museum were not re-accessioned when responsibility for the collections transferred to the National Museum of Wales and the accession numbering sequence continued uninterrupted. Searches of the earliest accession registers therefore encompass the former Cardiff Museum accession records. As part of the enquiries undertaken in response to this request and previous requests concerning the same location, accession records and associated collections documentation were reviewed for the objects and locations specified above. No accession record, register entry, day-book entry, donations book entry or correspondence dated between 1875 and 1915 relating to finds from Great House Farm, Ty Mawr or Llandough Farm was identified. Question 4 Any object record for Llandough ironwork that is not labelled “visor” or “lance” but is or was associated with the farmhouse floor or rear wing / dairy. No such records were identified. Archaeology Collections have confirmed that they hold no record of any additional ironwork from Llandough associated with the farmhouse floor, rear wing or dairy beyond material already considered in previous responses concerning this location. I hope this information is helpful. If you are dissatisfied with the way your request has been handled, you may request an internal review. Requests for an internal review should be submitted within 40 working days of the date of this response. If you remain dissatisfied following the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for a decision. The ICO can be contacted at http://www.ico.org.uk. Cofion cynnes, [A picture containing text, tableware, plate, dishware Description automatically generated] FOI Team ] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Sir, I write in response to your email, “Great House Farm, Llandough, Cardiff”, dated 8 September 2026. I note that you have framed your request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The question of whether Heneb falls within the scope of those Regulations is a matter of legal determination, and nothing in this response should be taken as expressing a view on that matter. Irrespective of that question, access to the information concerned is not restricted and the information is available on request directly from the HER team. Following its digitisation, it is now freely available online via the Archwilio website via record 02038s. The additional information referred to in your email dated 19 September 2026 will require further time to review, insofar as it is held within the HER. We will respond separately in relation to that information. Yours faithfully, Tîm Cofnod yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol | Historic Environment Record Team ​www.heneb.org.uk THE TRUST FOR WELSH ARCHAEOLOGY YMDDIRIEDOLAETH ARCHAEOLEGOL CYMRU ​ ​Cadeirydd / Chair: Dr Carol Bell PSG / CEO: Richard Nicholls Heneb is a Registered Organisation with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Mae Heneb yn Sefydliad Cofrestredig gyda’r Chartered Institute for Archaeologists ​ The Trust is both a Limited Company (1198990) and a Registered Charity (504616) Any of the statements or comments made above should be regarded as personal and not necessarily those of ​Heneb. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or ​entity to whom they are addressed. ​ ​Privacy Policy – Heneb ​ ​Cwmni Cyfyngedig (1198990) ynghyd ag Elusen Gofrestredig (504616) yw’r Ymddiriedolaeth ​Dylai’r datganiadau neu’r sylwadau uchod gael eu trin fel rhai personol ac nid o reidrwydd fel datganiadau neu ​​sylwadau gan Heneb. Mae’r e-bost hwn ac unrhyw ffeiliau a drosglwyddir gydag ef yn gyfrinachol ac at ddefnydd yr unigolyn neu’r corff y cyfeiriwyd hwy atynt yn unig. [quoted text trimmed]

Dear FOI Team, FOI 2026-036 – response of 5 October 2026 Thank you for the letter. I note the additional records identified (Ref 13.2 waterwheel and the page of MS 3360/3). What remains unanswered On 27 September I corrected the place names in the FOI 2026-032 pack, identifying at least PAS 2022.18.1 (NGR SS9934672805) and a separate Great House Farm entry at Llandow as belonging to different properties. Your reply of 28 September accepted the distinction: the collections system does not group by similar names, no recorded cross-attribution is held, and those hits arose from the search rather than catalogue overlap. The 5 October letter does not supply a cleaned / filtered schedule showing which of the FOI 2026-032 items survive that filter. Until that is provided, the cross-reference still carries the Cowbridge and Llandow material. That is the point left open on 28 September and still open now. What you have not said You have not stated, item by item, which of the earlier schedule entries are now excluded as relating to Great House Farm near Cowbridge or Great House Farm, Llandow. You have not confirmed the parish of the page of MS 3360/3 that you identify as relating to Great House Farm (which Llandough, and any vendor / tenant / acreage / parcel detail that identifies the holding). You have not confirmed whether Ref 13.2 (waterwheel collected 1 April 1979 from “Llandough Farm”, donor Wales and West Housing Association) is recorded as the Penarth site opposite the hospital, or as the farmhouse demolished by BP on 6 December 1988. Please therefore supply: 1. A filtered schedule of the FOI 2026-032 records that remain after exclusion of all items relating to Great House Farm / Llandough near Cowbridge and to Great House Farm, Llandow. For each surviving entry: accession or archive number, title, date, and one-line description. 2. Explicit parish confirmation for the page of MS 3360/3 identified as relating to Great House Farm: which Llandough, and any vendor / tenant / acreage / parcel detail that identifies the holding. 3. Confirmation whether Ref 13.2 is recorded as the Penarth site opposite the hospital, or as the farmhouse demolished by BP on 6 December 1988. These are requests for recorded information already within the searches undertaken. I am not seeking new searches or opinions. The unanswered point is the filter that you accepted was necessary on 28 September but have not yet applied in a disclosed schedule. Cofion, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester Thank you for your email. In relation to the filtered schedule, Amgueddfa Cymru does not hold a separate recorded document identifying, item by item, which search results were excluded following review. Search results were reviewed by staff to determine whether they related to the location specified in your request, and the outcome of that review was reflected in our response of 5 October 2026. We do not hold a separate audit schedule of those decisions. In relation to MS 3360/3, the relevant page was previously supplied in response to FOI 2026-032. That page records that “Great House” formed part of the Llandough Estate sale particulars of 1924, was occupied by W.G. Thomas & Sons, comprised approximately 202 acres, was situated in the Parish of Llanfair, and describes the homestead as being situated in the Village of Llandough. No additional recorded information identifying the holding has been identified within the material reviewed. In relation to Ref 13.2, the collections record describes the item as a “Waterwheel from Llandough Farm (opposite hospital)”. No further location information has been identified within the record. We trust this clarifies the position. Cofion cynnes, FOI Team [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

FOI Team, Thank you for the clarification. Your email of 7 October materially clarifies the position, and I have now corrected my records to distinguish the different Llandough farmsteads. Ref 13.2 — Llandough Farm opposite the hospital I understand and accept the distinction in your catalogue description: “Waterwheel from Llandough Farm (opposite hospital)” This refers to the separate *Llandough Farm in the Llandough near Penarth/Cardiff locality*, not to Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr. I am not seeking to attribute the waterwheel to Great House Farm. I will therefore treat Ref 13.2 as a separate Llandough Farm record unless a primary Museum record expressly establishes otherwise. MS 3360/3 — Great House / Llandough Estate The more significant clarification is the information you have now supplied from MS 3360/3. You state that the page records that: – “Great House” formed part of the *Llandough Estate sale particulars of 1924*; – it was occupied by *W.G. Thomas & Sons*; – it comprised approximately *202 acres*; – it was situated in the *Parish of Llanfair*; and – the homestead was situated in the *Village of Llandough*. Those particulars provide a much more specific identification than the earlier catalogue description. I am particularly interested in the combination of *Llandough Estate + Parish of Llanfair + Village of Llandough + approximately 202 acres + W.G. Thomas & Sons*. Could you therefore confirm one narrow point from the record already examined: *Does the MS 3360/3 page or plan itself contain any further recorded identifier which identifies which historical Llandough is meant — for example the specific place-name form, neighbouring farms, estate owner, parish/benefice wording, acreage breakdown, plan number, tenant information, road, church or other geographical feature?* I am not asking the Museum to make a new identification or to provide an opinion. I am asking only whether such information is actually recorded in the page or plan you have already examined. There is an important reason for keeping this distinction precise. There are *two different farmsteads in the Llandough near Penarth/Cardiff locality* relevant to the Museum’s records: 1. *Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr*, beside St Dochdwy’s Church; and 2. *Llandough Farm*, separately described by the Museum as “opposite hospital”. They must not be treated as alternative names for one farm. There is also a separate question concerning the Museum’s wording *“Llandough Church Farm”* in the 1858 provenance of accession 63.24. I now understand that this should not automatically be equated with either of the above merely because it contains the word Llandough. Unless the underlying historical evidence expressly identifies the 1858 “Church Farm”, I will continue to record that identity as unresolved. Filtered schedule I also accept your clarification that the Museum does not hold a separate recorded audit schedule showing, item by item, which search results staff excluded after reviewing the results. I therefore do not ask the Museum to create such a schedule. For the purposes of the record, I will instead distinguish between: – records positively identified as Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr; – records positively identified as the separate Llandough Farm opposite the hospital; – records from other Llandoughs, including Llandough-juxta-Cowbridge; – and source-specific records whose location remains unresolved. The new MS 3360/3 particulars are sufficiently distinctive to make the underlying page and plan an important identification source, so I would be grateful for confirmation of whether any further geographical identifier is actually recorded there. Thank you again for the clarification. Cofion, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester Thank you for your email. The Museum has reviewed the material held under reference MS 3360/3 and has already provided the relevant page identified during that review. There is no catalogue record identifying Great House Farm within this document. Following additional research by Collections staff, one page within the larger document was identified as relating to Great House Farm and was supplied to you. The information contained on that page has already been disclosed and summarised in our previous correspondence. No further recorded information relating to Great House Farm has been identified within the material held under reference MS 3360/3. We therefore have nothing further to add on this matter. Cofion cynnes, [A picture containing text, tableware, plate, dishware Description automatically generated] FOI Team ] [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear FOI Team, Thank you for the disclosures under FOI [removed] September) and [removed] October). On 25 August 2026 you stated that searches had located records of “other archaeological discoveries at Great House Farm and Church Farm” which were withheld as “not in scope”. On 26 August I asked for those records and, specifically, the recorded basis for calling them unrelated (item 7). That question remains unanswered. The later disclosures released certain Church Farm and other-site material but still did not supply the internal note, search-log entry or other record that justified the original classification. I therefore request: 1. The recorded basis (search log, file note, email or other document) that led the Museum to treat the already-found Great House Farm / Church Farm records as unrelated or out of scope on 25 August 2026. 2. If no such written basis exists, an explicit statement to that effect. 3. Confirmation that the full set of records located in the August searches has now been disclosed or, if any remain withheld, the precise exemption relied upon for each. Please treat this as a request for the information that should have been provided under the internal review of 2026-024. This is for the completeness of the evidence library on the public record. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Cotswold Archaeology, A preservation notice has already been served. I request confirmation whether you hold any retained copy of the 1994 early-medieval cemetery excavation archive or report relating to the redevelopment of land formerly part of Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, and, if so, the terms on which a copy may be obtained. Yours sincerely, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

HER Officer, Great House Farm, Llandough — your letter of 6 October 2026, request of 8 September 2026 (GGAT02038s) Thank you. I note that you point to Archwilio record 02038s and that you will reply separately on the 19 September 2026 email. The 8 September request asked for the HER source file, not only the online summary. Archwilio 02038s does not supply: 1. the complete entry text on armour or medieval ironwork found under the rear wing or floor about 1880, with every source code; 2. a copy or transcript of the RCAHMW / Suggett 1988 material on the file; 3. any museum accession, letter, or catalogue slip naming where the ironwork went; 4. any recorded distinction between the c.1880 rear-wing ironwork, the 1979 villa iron south of the church, and the 1994 cemetery iron girdle (Burial 631). Please give the record location before any viewing is discussed: series, accession, box, shelf, and catalogue id for the source file behind 02038s, and whether staff physically checked that the item is there (who, date, store). I am not requesting a screen-room viewing. If any of the four items is not held, please name the systems searched and whether the physical source file was retrieved (EIR reg.5 and reg.9; reg.14 if you refuse). Please also give a date for the separate reply on the 19 September email. The 8 September request was answered on day 20. An extension of the 19 September points should be notified if you need beyond 20 working days from 6 October. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear FOI Team, FOI 2026-036 — your letter of 7 October 2026 Thank you. I note three points from that letter. 1. You do not hold a separate recorded document listing, item by item, which search results were excluded. Please state which systems were searched for that schedule (collections database, search-export, review log, email, paper file) and whether a physical file was retrieved, and by whom and on what date. A not-held answer is incomplete without that (FOIA s.16). 2. MS 3360/3: the page already supplied records Great House as part of the 1924 Llandough Estate sale particulars, occupied by W.G. Thomas & Sons, about 202 acres, Parish of Llanfair, homestead in the Village of Llandough. Please confirm whether the catalogue or the page itself names which Llandough (Llandough-juxta-Penarth or Llandough-juxta-Cowbridge). If that is not on the page or in the catalogue entry, say so. 3. Ref 13.2 is recorded as a waterwheel from Llandough Farm (opposite hospital). I treat that as the Penarth hospital site, not the farmhouse demolished on 6 December 1988, unless a further recorded field says otherwise. I am not asking for a new search or for a document you say you do not hold. I am asking for the systems searched and the physical-file check on the not-held point, and the parish identification if it is already on the page or catalogue entry. Cofion, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester, I can see that the report is available online on the Cotswold Archaeology website. Please follow this link: https://reports.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk/ – select ‘Keyword’, enter ‘Llandough’ in the available field and then press ‘search’. The report should appear below the map and you should see the option to download it on the right-hand side. I hope this helps, but please let me know if you have any issues with downloading the report Best Regards Paolo Paolo Guarino Post Excavation Manager [disclaimer trimmed]

Mr Buckler Thank you for your email. In relation to your request for the recorded basis on which records were treated as outside the scope of FOI 2026-024, Amgueddfa Cymru does not hold a separate search log, file note, internal note or other recorded document setting out the rationale for that assessment. The original response was based on searches which identified no records relating to the reported discovery described in your request, namely the alleged discovery of a soldier, horse remains and associated armour at Great House Farm, Llandough. While searches identified records relating to other archaeological finds from Church Farm and archaeological investigations at Great House Farm, staff concluded that those records did not relate to the specific discovery described in your request and therefore fell outside its scope. No separate record of that assessment was created. We have since provided you with the records referred to as being from Church Farm. No records remain withheld. Cofion cynnes, FOI Team [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Mr Buckler Thank you for your email. In relation to the “filtered schedule”, as previously explained, Amgueddfa Cymru does not hold a separate recorded document identifying, item by item, which search results were excluded following review. The review was undertaken by staff using the records and search results identified during the handling of the request. No separate audit schedule, review log or equivalent record of exclusion decisions was created. In relation to MS 3360/3, following further review we have confirmed that the page previously supplied does not relate to the property that was the subject of FOI 2026-036. While the document refers to a property known as “Great House”, it relates to a holding in the Parish of Llanfair and not to Great House Farm/Tŷ Mawr, Llandough (near Penarth/Cardiff), which was the subject of your request. The document should therefore be regarded as outside the scope of FOI 2026-036. We do not hold any further recorded information linking MS 3360/3 to Great House Farm/Tŷ Mawr, Llandough (near Penarth/Cardiff). In relation to Ref 13.2, our position remains unchanged. The collections record describes the item as a “Waterwheel from Llandough Farm (opposite hospital)”. No further location information has been identified within that record. We have no further recorded information to provide in relation to these matters. Cofion cynnes, FOI Team [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear sir, The information held in the HER source file has now been digitised and uploaded to Archwilio and is accessible via record 02038s as PDF files shown in the Sources section of the record. This includes a copy of Suggett, 1988 as held by the HER. Having undertaken a physical search of our records, I can confirm that no further information is held within the HER source file. We will respond to your additional points raised on 19th September by 21st October. Kind regards, Tîm Cofnod yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol | Historic Environment Record Team ​www.heneb.org.uk THE TRUST FOR WELSH ARCHAEOLOGY YMDDIRIEDOLAETH ARCHAEOLEGOL CYMRU ​ ​Cadeirydd / Chair: Dr Carol Bell PSG / CEO: Richard Nicholls Heneb is a Registered Organisation with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Mae Heneb yn Sefydliad Cofrestredig gyda’r Chartered Institute for Archaeologists ​ The Trust is both a Limited Company (1198990) and a Registered Charity (504616) Any of the statements or comments made above should be regarded as personal and not necessarily those of ​Heneb. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or ​entity to whom they are addressed. ​ ​Privacy Policy – Heneb ​ ​Cwmni Cyfyngedig (1198990) ynghyd ag Elusen Gofrestredig (504616) yw’r Ymddiriedolaeth ​Dylai’r datganiadau neu’r sylwadau uchod gael eu trin fel rhai personol ac nid o reidrwydd fel datganiadau neu ​​sylwadau gan Heneb. Mae’r e-bost hwn ac unrhyw ffeiliau a drosglwyddir gydag ef yn gyfrinachol ac at ddefnydd yr unigolyn neu’r corff y cyfeiriwyd hwy atynt yn unig. [quoted text trimmed]

Gweld yr e-bost hwn yn eich porwr (https://us15.campaign-archive.com/?e=c7a68e9391&i=ec8ea47942&u=81ccc6cb268fcdbd8af9af5ed&id=b695a47fab) // View this email in your browser (https://us15.campaign-archive.com/?e=c7a68e9391&i=ec8ea47942&u=81ccc6cb268fcdbd8af9af5ed&id=b695a47fab) ** Croeso! ———————————————————— Diolch am danysgrifio i gylchlythyr Heneb. Bob mis byddwch yn derbyn diweddariadau a straeon cyffrous o bob rhan o’r Ymddiriedolaeth. Bydd eich cylchlythyr cyntaf yn cyrraedd yn fuan ond, yn y cyfamser, beth am archwilio ein dolenni isod? Porwch ein llyfrgell o fideos (https://www.youtube.com/@HenebArchaeology) Dewch o hyd i ni ar gyfryngau cymdeithasol (https://instagram.com/heneb_twa) Edrychwch ar rai o’n gwaith blaenorol (https://heneb.org.uk/our-projects/) Ystyriwch ymuno â Heneb (https://heneb.org.uk/join-heneb/members/) ** Welcome! ———————————————————— Thank you for subscribing to the Heneb newsletter. Each month you will receive exciting updates and stories from across the Trust. Your first newsletter will arrive soon but, in the meantime, why not explore our links below? Browse our library of videos (https://www.youtube.com/@HenebArchaeology) Find us on social media (https://instagram.com/heneb_twa) Check out some of our previous work (https://heneb.org.uk/our-projects/) Consider joining Heneb (https://heneb.org.uk/join-heneb/members/)

Home

Logo Copyright (C) 2026 Heneb: The Trust for Welsh Archaeology. All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: Heneb: The Trust for Welsh Archaeology [address removed] United Kingdom Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences ([link removed] or unsubscribe (***REDACTED***

Dear Amgueddfa Cymru FOI Team, Thank you for your reply of 12 October. I note that you do not hold a separate recorded basis for treating records as outside the scope of FOI 2026-024. I would be grateful if you could confirm what search terms and systems were used to reach that conclusion, and whether any predecessor records (e.g. from the former National Museum of Wales or GGAT) were included. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Mr Buckler The information requested regarding the searches undertaken was provided in our response of 5 October 2026. As explained in that response, Collections staff reviewed records identified through references to Great House Farm, Ty Mawr Farm and Llandough, together with records returned through associated place-name searches. Records relating to the wider Llandough area, to other locations sharing the name “Llandough”, or to other properties bearing the name “Great House Farm” were also reviewed. We also confirmed that searches of the earliest accession registers encompass the former Cardiff Museum accession records, which became part of the National Museum of Wales collection without re-accessioning. Amgueddfa Cymru does not hold a separate search log, audit schedule or other recorded document providing further detail beyond that already supplied. We therefore have no further recorded information to provide in relation to this matter. Cofion cynnes, FOI Team [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Please find below our response to the schedule of records requested by yourself on the 19th September 2026: 1. This information is publicly available on our website, Archwilio. 2. This information is publicly available on our website, Archwilio. 3/4/5. The HER is a constantly evolving record and is subject to thousands of edits every day. A change log provides an audit trail of edits and updates to tables; it does not store snapshots of the data contained within any of the tables. We are unable to release a copy of this information because it contains personal data that is protected under UK GDPR legislation. 6. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 7. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 8-10. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 11. This information is publicly available on our website, Archwilio. 12. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 13. Information pertaining to the Vale of Glamorgan’s County Treasures can be found on their website, here: https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/en/living/planning_and_building_control/Planning/Heritage.aspx 14. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 15. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 16-21. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 22. The HER does not hold a copy of this document. 23-24. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 25-33. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 34-38. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 39. This is a direct quote from Suggett, 1988, as listed on Archwilio. 40. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 41. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 42. GGAT02038s has only a single grid reference. 43. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 44. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 45. Heneb: The Trust for Welsh Archaeology is the record holder for the former GGAT, following merger of the four WATs in April 2024. 46. Heneb’s data management policy is currently under review. The former GGAT HER paper records are kept at Heneb’s Baglan office. 47. The HER does not hold information relating to this request. 48. Steven Foulston, HR Manager. Kind regards, The Heneb HER Team Tîm Cofnod yr Amgylchedd Hanesyddol | Historic Environment Record Team ​www.heneb.org.uk THE TRUST FOR WELSH ARCHAEOLOGY YMDDIRIEDOLAETH ARCHAEOLEGOL CYMRU ​ ​Cadeirydd / Chair: Dr Carol Bell PSG / CEO: Richard Nicholls Heneb is a Registered Organisation with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists Mae Heneb yn Sefydliad Cofrestredig gyda’r Chartered Institute for Archaeologists ​ The Trust is both a Limited Company (1198990) and a Registered Charity (504616) Any of the statements or comments made above should be regarded as personal and not necessarily those of ​Heneb. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or ​entity to whom they are addressed. ​ ​Privacy Policy – Heneb ​ ​Cwmni Cyfyngedig (1198990) ynghyd ag Elusen Gofrestredig (504616) yw’r Ymddiriedolaeth ​Dylai’r datganiadau neu’r sylwadau uchod gael eu trin fel rhai personol ac nid o reidrwydd fel datganiadau neu ​​sylwadau gan Heneb. Mae’r e-bost hwn ac unrhyw ffeiliau a drosglwyddir gydag ef yn gyfrinachol ac at ddefnydd yr unigolyn neu’r corff y cyfeiriwyd hwy atynt yn unig. [quoted text trimmed]