The National Archives — correspondence with the family (email)

Sirs/Ma’am, I’m writing to raise a concern regarding the integrity of the historical record following disputed dispossession of land i.e. BP vs Buckler 1987 After forced removal and demolition of our home, archaeological excavation and removal of items took place on land whose ownership had never been conclusively adjudicated at the time of registration. BP asserted it, but it was never determined in a ruling beforehand as the July 1974 case between BP and my grandmother was adjourned and the October 31st 1974 appeal and audience with a judge she made just 24 hours before, was squashed by letters sent by BP that same morning. I am not making allegations here, simply stating facts about this landmark legal case. And asking whether this type of circumstance is relevant to archival or historical record considerations. Yours faithfully, Requester

Dear Requester, Thank you for contacting The National Archives of the United Kingdom. It is unlikely The National Archives holds the records of this type of case, and the Central Land Registry<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry&gt;, who hold records of land registration, is a separate body. Some records of land ownership can be found among records at local or county archives. I recommend you consult our guide to searching for records of Land ownership records and deeds: an overview – The National Archives<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/land-ownership-records-and-deeds-an-overview/&gt;. Regarding the court cases you mention, I also recommend you consult: Civil court cases: Chancery Division since 1875 – The National Archives<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/civil-court-cases-chancery-division-since-1875/&gt;, and you may also find Civil courts: appeal cases after 1875 – The National Archives<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/civil-courts-appeal-cases-after-1875/&gt; of use to your research. These guides will help you to use our catalogue<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/&gt;, or other online sources, effectively and focus your search. Records are represented in our online catalogue by a title, a reference and a brief description. When you search our catalogue using keywords you are searching across these titles and descriptions, rather than the contents of the records themselves. By clicking on any search result, you can see whether the record is available online or if you need to visit us to view the original. You can also request copies of records from their catalogue description page. If the record is held by another archive, you will need to contact them directly to find out how you can access it. You can also watch this video<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz4f–o3zUU&gt; for more advice on using our online catalogue. You are welcome to visit us<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/visit-us/> to continue your research here in person, where access to our records is free of charge. Before you visit, please check our website for information regarding our opening hours<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/visit-us/opening-times/&gt; and ID requirements<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/visit-us/researching-here/do-i-need-a-readers-ticket/&gt;. If you are unable to visit, or would like someone to pursue this research on your behalf, please see the available paid search options<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/paying-for-research/&gt; on our website. Yours sincerely, Robert Fleming Remote Enquiries Duty Officer [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Robert Fleming, Thank you for your prompt response and for providing the helpful research guides on land ownership records, To clarify my original enquiry, I am specifically concerned with the historical record surrounding the case of BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2, which involved a disputed land dispossession at Great House Farm in Llandough, South Glamorgan. This stemmed from earlier proceedings in 1974, including an adjourned case in July and an appeal attempt on October 31st that was impacted by correspondence from BP the same day. Following the 1987 ruling, there was forced removal, demolition of our family home, and archaeological activity on the site, despite ongoing questions about the adjudication of ownership prior to land registration. My question is not solely about locating ownership or court documents (though any guidance on whether The National Archives holds physical files from these proceedings would be welcome), but rather whether circumstances like these—where ownership was disputed and not fully resolved before registration or excavation—raise any considerations for the integrity or completeness of the archival record. For instance, do such disputes prompt reviews or annotations in historical land records, or are there protocols for archiving related materials from corporate entities like BP or local authorities involved? I understand your resources are focused on national-level holdings, but any further direction would greatly assist my research. Sincerely, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thank you for clarifying the nature of your enquiry. In answer to your main enquiry, in general we would not add notes to, or review, records in light of unresolved disputes or other matters. The records are left to speak for themselves. In fact, those records are often incomplete and patchwork in character, meaning that they may not enable the enquirer to know what the final determination or outcome of any dispute was. Since you refer to a reported Court of Appeal (Civil Division) case, I have conducted a quick search of our, admittedly limited holdings. The main record series in which you might expect to find archival material here are J 157<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9764&gt;, J 83<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9691&gt; and J 84<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9692&gt;. Unfortunately, none contain records relevant to the case. Yours sincerely, Charlotte Smith Principal Records Specialist, Modern Legal Records [signature block trimmed]

Ms Smith, Thanks for your reply and for explaining The National Archives’ position regarding annotation and review of records. I fully accept that archives do not resolve disputes and that records are often incomplete or patchwork in character. My purpose in writing is not to seek amendment, adjudication, or retrospective commentary, but to raise a specific concern about how absence, silence, and fragmentation within the archival record should be understood where material public consequences clearly followed. By way of clarification, my concern relates to the historical record surrounding Great House Farm, Llandough, and the proceedings culminating in *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler* [1987] EWCA Civ 2. In particular: – Ownership and occupation of the farmhouse and garden were actively contested in 1974, with a defence asserting adverse possession filed on behalf of Mary Williams, and the matter adjourned without a final determination of title. – Enforcement of earlier possession orders was deferred, a warrant was withdrawn on 31 October 1974, and the occupier remained in possession until her death in 1983. – Despite this, land registration, demolition (1988), and archaeological intervention proceeded without a High Court determination of ownership and without disclosure of earlier, locally known archaeological discoveries. – A Roman burial reportedly discovered beneath the farmhouse in 1888 by the occupying family appears not to have been reflected in later “rescue” excavations (1978–1980) or the major 1994 excavation, which treated Roman and early medieval burials as newly revealed. Taken together, this produces an archival landscape in which: – court files relating to decisive events appear absent or incomplete; – later records imply finality where proceedings were in fact unresolved; – and the destruction of a long-occupied medieval structure occurred before the site’s known archaeological significance was formally acknowledged. I note and appreciate your confirmation that the principal judicial series (J 157, J 83, J 84) contain no relevant material. Given the scale of the consequences flowing from the dispute—forced removal, demolition of an occupied dwelling, and loss of heritage fabric—the absence of supporting court or administrative files is itself significant for researchers. Accordingly, I would be grateful for guidance on the following procedural points: – how researchers are expected to interpret gaps or silence in the archival record where substantial actions plainly occurred; – whether related non-judicial records (for example, departmental, planning, regulatory, or corporate records connected to land registration, planning consent, or archaeological works) are more likely to sit outside the obvious court series; and – whether there is an appropriate mechanism for flagging concerns about record completeness or contextual risk, without seeking alteration of the records themselves. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not alleging impropriety on the part of The National Archives or its staff. My concern is to ensure that the historical record is approached with appropriate caution where absence may unintentionally convey certainty or closure that did not exist at the time. Thank you again for your time and professionalism. Yours sincerely, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Ms Smith, Thank you for your detailed response regarding selection policies and retention schedules. I appreciate the procedural clarity you have provided. However, I must respectfully indicate that your reply does not address the substantive concerns I have raised, and I am now compelled to escalate this matter formally. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] You correctly note that archival silences are well-documented in academic literature. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 2. The Computerised Records Question You direct me to search your catalogue. I have done so. However, I now ask specifically: – Does The National Archives hold any digitised or microfilmed copies of the Bute Estate records that might contain references to the Daniel Thomas quarrying agreement (circa 1895-1905) or the 1938 auction at the Bear Hotel? – Are there any internal indices or finding aids (particularly from the 1970s-1980s) that might reference Great House Farm, Llandough, or the BP/Western Ground Rents acquisition records that are not reflected in the current online catalogue? The 1994 archaeological excavation report (Cotswold Archaeological Trust) confirms the site’s national significance. The absence of corresponding land transaction records from the same period is itself an anomaly requiring explanation. 3. The BP Corporate Records Question You note that parties are generally responsible for maintaining their own records. However, BP Properties Ltd and BP Pension Trust Ltd were corporate entities with statutory filing obligations. I ask: – Were any BP corporate records relating to land acquisition in South Glamorgan (1969-1988) selected for preservation under the Companies Act or as part of the public record? – Has The National Archives ever received or sought records from BP regarding the Great House Farm acquisition, demolition, or the 1987 litigation? The Court of Appeal judgment [1987] EWCA Civ 2 notes that BP issued letters on 31 October 1974, not received until November 4th 1974 —letters that were allegedly “accepted by silence.” [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] If these were not preserved, I ask under what authority they were destroyed and whether this occurred before or after the litigation concluded. 4. Request for Formal Investigation I am not seeking annotation of records. I am seeking: 1. A formal review of whether records relating to Great House Farm, Llandough (ST 168 733) were selected for preservation, destroyed, or remain non accessioned; 2. A search of microfilm, digitised, or legacy finding aid holdings for any reference to the 1938 auction, Western Ground Rents acquisition, or the Daniel Thomas quarrying agreement; 3. Confirmation of whether The National Archives has ever received complaints regarding missing Bute Estate records or BP land acquisition documents from other researchers; 4. Guidance on the appropriate authority to investigate allegations of document removal from Cardiff Library (1984) and potential fraud in the 1982 land registration. 5. Public Interest and Parliamentary Scrutiny This matter involves: – The forced removal of a family from land occupied since at least 1667 [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – A Court of Appeal decision ([1987] EWCA Civ 2) that may have relied on incomplete or fraudulent evidence I am copying my MP and the Parliamentary Ombudsman in this correspondence. I will also be submitting a Subject Access Request to HM Land Registry regarding the 1982 registration and a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding potential destruction of records relevant to ongoing property disputes. I request a substantive response addressing the specific questions above within 20 working days. Should The National Archives be unable to assist further, I request a formal referral to the appropriate body with jurisdiction over historical record fraud and spoliation. Yours sincerely, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Correction In my previous correspondence, I referenced documents missing from Cardiff Library as “reported missing in 1984.” I wish to clarify that this date derives from my family’s own chronology and recollection, not from an official report or confirmed archival record. I should not have stated this as an established fact, and I apologise for any confusion caused. New Evidence Since my last email, I have obtained a Forensic Evaluation and Assessment of Restitutionary Claims (dated February 8, 2026) regarding the dispossession of the Williams family from Great House Farm, Llandough. This professional assessment provides additional context that may assist in understanding the archival gaps previously identified. The forensic report specifically examines: 1. The “Mrs. Buckler” nomenclature: The analysis characterises the consistent use of “Mrs. Buckler” in court records and correspondence as “strategic misnaming” rather than clerical error, given that Mary Williams never adopted her husband’s surname. This raises questions about whether The National Archives holds any records indicating her formal objection to this identification or her consistent use of “Mary Williams” in legal proceedings. 2. The 1974 license letters: The report notes that letters dated October/November 1974 were addressed to a “non-existent legal persona,” facilitating a judicial finding of “silence as consent.” I ask again whether The National Archives holds any corporate records from BP Properties Ltd or BP Pension Trust Ltd regarding this correspondence, or any indication that such records were considered for preservation. 3. The 1974 adjournment: The forensic assessment questions why proceedings were adjourned part-heard on July 3, 1974, given your confirmation that principal judicial series contain no relevant material. I request clarification on whether any Cardiff County Court records from 1974-1975 were transferred to The National Archives under subsequent protocols, or whether they remain with the court. Revised Request Given this additional professional analysis, I renew my request for guidance on: – Whether The National Archives has received any complaints or inquiries regarding missing Bute Estate records or Great House Farm documents from other researchers; – Whether corporate records from BP entities relating to this acquisition were ever selected for preservation; and – Whether any mechanism exists for flagging concerns about record completeness where forensic analysis suggests potential irregularities in the historical record. I remain grateful for your time and professionalism, and I hope this clarification assists in addressing my inquiry. Yours sincerely, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Dear Sir/Madam, This Notice is issued for placement on official record and for reliance. It is not informal correspondence. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Please report any suspicious activity and discrepancies identified. This Notice is issued in pursuit of narrative justice at this stage; formal judicial remedies are expressly reserved. It serves to document our family’s side of the story before it is completely erased and history rewritten, ensuring awareness among custodians of land, heritage, heraldry, archaeology, and public records. My elder brother, Rhys Buckler, and I are the sons of the late William Buckler (d. 1991), defendant in the landmark legal case *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler* (1987), and the grandchildren of the late Mary Williams, whose dispossession, marginalisation, and exclusion from judicial determination remain unresolved matters of record. Mary Williams was repeatedly and materially falsely addressed/mislabeled in legal and administrative records as “Mrs Buckler,” a misidentification that was never judicially tested and which directly affected the handling, scope, and outcome of proceedings. The Williams/Buckler family held claim to the land title, having acquired and occupied Great House Farm continuously since 1667, based on family records, historical evidence, and centuries of resistance to adverse claims. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] This culminated in the 1988 demolition of an 800-year-old farmhouse amid police standoffs, leaving the family homeless and the site scarred, now buried under Church View Close. Archaeological vindication came too late—1994 excavations revealed over 1,000 Roman and medieval burials, confirming family warnings (e.g., the 1870 Roman soldier discovery under the living room floor[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case])—yet heritage records celebrate the site while omitting our dispossession. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] In 1974, Mary Williams was twice prevented from presenting her case and obtaining a judicial determination of superior ownership, despite claims grounded in long occupation, intent, and possession. The court confined inquiry to *animus possidendi* (intention to possess) and excluded *animus domini* (intention to own), reclassifying her from putative owner to mere occupier and foreclosing title adjudication. BP sought possession only, not ownership rulings—a choice unexplained and significant. Proceedings were adjourned or quashed without resolution. This occurred despite evidence of ownership intent, including: – Centuries-long occupation and resistance (e.g., failed 1938 auction due to local support; post-1945 rent disputes). – Roman-era remains and historical significance (e.g., Guglielmo Marconi’s 1897 residence during radio experiments, with family aid erased from records). – Unformalized deals like the 1895–1905 Daniel Thomas quarrying permission for promised title, undermined by vanished deeds. Judicial ownership examination would have engaged archaeological/heritage protections, incompatible with redevelopment—consequences avoided, raising credibility concerns. Serious unresolved anomalies persist, indicating something is still not right with the record: – Licence correspondence dated 31 October 1974 surfacing only on 4 November, potentially interrupting proceedings to prevent hearings. – Claims of 1974 benevolent withdrawal under press scrutiny unsupported by verifiable coverage. – Land registration before Mary Williams’s 1983 death without title determination[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. – Inconsistent treatment of BP entities across proceedings to family detriment. – Procedural barriers preventing effective defense (e.g., interrupted essential services post-licence; 1960–1987 court rulings dismissing ancestral title as “notion” without evidence). – Knowing bypass of archaeological constraints (e.g., 1978 trenches ignored; no contemporaneous 1970s/1990s press on discoveries amid development). – Missing key documents (e.g., 1667 conveyance, 1811–1835 Lambert Williams agreements proving status, 1982–84 library deeds vanishing). – Risks of further erasure: Heritage databases celebrate “Llandough Roman villa cemetery” while omitting our saga; modern residents unaware of the “battleground” site. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Preliminary assessment indicates cumulative benefits from redevelopment (absent title extinguishment) exceed £100 million, forming a basis for reparations[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. I require relevant public servants, custodians, and office-holders (including Land Registry, heraldry bodies, museums, archaeologists, MPs, historians, and councillors) to cease delay, engage substantively, review/correct/annotate records where defective, and prevent further rewriting of history. Justice delayed is denied, especially with verifiable evidence available. This Notice: – Challenges the record’s accuracy, completeness, and legitimacy. – Place assertions of title/standing on record pending adjudication. – Reserves all rights without prejudice. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester On behalf of the Buckler–Williams family [removed], Wales. https://bpvsbuckler.datro.xyz [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester, Thank you for your e-mail of 10 February whose contents are noted. The National Archives does not hold any records relating to your enquiry. The Manorial Documents Register which this department administers is a register for the location of manorial documents and not of the ownership and descent of manorial titles: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/archives-sector/finding-records-in-discovery-and-other-databases/manorial-documents-register/ A similar position holds for The National Archives responsibilities for public records and concerns about the past management of official records is a matter for the relevant government department such as HM Land Registry. Yours sincerely [The National Archives logo] Philip Gale | Head of the Collections and Cultural Property Team [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr Gale, Thank you for your reply of 12 February. I would like to clarify and narrow my request to ensure there is no misunderstanding regarding the records I am trying to locate. My correspondence is *not* seeking an adjudication of ownership or title — I fully accept the stated remit boundaries of the Manorial Documents Register (MDR). Rather, my enquiry concerns the existence of *any archival reference, index card, catalogue entry, or pointer to a document historically known as the “Williams Title”*, which was, according to contemporaneous testimony [wiki edit, 19 Oct 2026: speaker not yet identified, SOURCE PENDING], at one point: 1. Held in the *local public library* in the first half of the twentieth century; and 2. Indexed in some manner (e.g., an index card or catalogue reference) that persisted even after the original document could not be located. My understanding of the MDR — as described on your own website — is that it exists to provide brief descriptions of manorial records and details of their locations: “An official index of English and Welsh manorial records providing brief descriptions of documents and details of their locations… It does *not* include title deeds or conveyances, and is *not* a register of ownership of manorial lordships or rights.” https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/manor-search <[link removed] Based on that description, I would be grateful if you could confirm whether: 1. *Any catalogue entries, index cards, reference pointers, or archival descriptions* relating to the *Manor of Llandough* or the *Williams family title* exist in the MDR or related archival catalogues. 2. If so, the *reference identifiers* and information on how these can be consulted in person or via digitised records. To be precise, I am looking for historical references to the *index card or listing* for the Williams Title — whether held in a library, local record office, or other institutional archive — rather than a claim for ownership judgment itself. If such a reference does not currently appear in the MDR, I would greatly appreciate guidance on where any known catalogue cards or entry lists for manorial documents from *Glamorgan / Llandough* prior to 1950 might now reside (e.g., regional archives, National Archives holdings, or affiliated local repository catalogues). Anyway I anticipate your forgiveness, if I have erred in writing to you earlier. Thank you again and in advance for your assistance. Yours sincerely, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thank you for your e-mail and for clarifying the subject of your enquiry. As you know the Manorial Documents Register (MDR) only gives general descriptions of the content, extent and location of the manorial records recorded in the register: LLANDOUGH MANOR | The National Archives<[link removed] The manorial records for the Manor of Llandough are held at the National Library of Wales, Glamorgan Archives and West Glamorgan Archives, and their catalogues can be accessed on-line : NLW Catalogue<https://discover.library.wales/discovery/search?vid=44WHELF_NLW:44WHELF_NLW_NUI&gt; , Glamorgan Archives Catalogue<https://canfod.glamarchives.gov.uk/en/&gt; and Archive Collections – Swansea<https://www.swansea.gov.uk/archivecollections?lang=en&gt; The Welsh entries in the online MDR were added in the 1990’s were based on the survey returns to the Manorial Documents Committee received from institutions and private owners during the 1920’s. These were subsequently passed to the custody of the Historical Manuscripts Commission in 1959 which amalgamated with the Public Record Office to form The National Archives in 2003. I have requested to see the original returns for Manor of Llandough to see if they can provide any additional information on the documentation relating to the manor (Ref. HMC 9/311: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5879336 ) There are several other manors with a similar name in Glamorgan and a MDR search using the search term “Llandough” gives the following result: Search results: Llandough Glamorgan | The National Archives<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/c?_q=Llandough&_sf=text_man&_ocn=Glamorgan&_naet=M&_st=mdrc&gt; Sometimes the administration of different manors were brought together and this appears to have occurred with the Llandough and St May’s Church Manors : https://archives.library.wales/index.php/manors-of-llandough-and-st-mary-church I will contact you again once I have had an opportunity to look at the original returns sent to Manorial Documents Committee. I hope this preliminary information is of assistance. Yours sincerely [The National Archives logo] Philip Gale | Head of the Collections and Cultural Property Team [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

You are a delight. My family thanks you. This means a great deal. Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, I have had an opportunity to view the file of original returns to the Manorial Documents Committee (Ref. HMC9/311) and the single return for the Manor of Llandough (see the attached image), and it provides less information than the existing entries on the on-line MDR. The information on the other manors in the return is equally sparse This may be because many of the surviving manorial records were not in custody of the National Library of Wales at the time of the original survey. The best course of action is to search the archive service catalogues, and particularly the on-line catalogue of the National Library of Wales. Is it difficult to advise you further without more information, for example do you have rough date for the document called ‘Williams’s Title? A particularly relevant archive collection appears to be the Penrice and Margam Estate Records, [c. 1147]-[19 cent.] / Penrice and Margam estate. – National Library of Wales<https://discover.library.wales/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma99193071102419&context=L&vid=44WHELF_NLW:44WHELF_NLW_NUI&lang=en&search_scope=In_The_Library&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=In_The_Library&query=any,contains,Talbots%20of%20margam%20archives&offset=0&gt; as it includes the surviving manorial records for Llandough. There is useful guidance on the different types of title deeds published by the University of Nottingham which might be helpful when searching catalogues and consulting original property records: Introduction to deeds in depth – The University of Nottingham<https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscriptsandspecialcollections/researchguidance/deedsindepth/introduction.aspx&gt; I am sorry not to be able to provide any additional sources for your continuing research. Kind regards [The National Archives logo] Philip Gale | Head of the Collections and Cultural Property Team [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Mr. Gale, Thank you again for your helpful reply and for viewing the original Manorial Documents Committee returns (HMC9/311). I entirely understand that it is difficult to advise further without more specifics, and I am grateful for the steer toward the Penrice and Margam Estate Records and the NLW catalogue. To answer your question directly: the document historically referred to within the family as the *“Williams Title”* (or the equitable interest conveyance that underpinned it) dates to the period *c. 1900–1915*. It arises from an agreement between John Williams (occupier of Great House Farm / Ty Mawr / Cedfin) and Daniel Thomas & Son (Bute Estate quarry operators / limestoners). In essence, the Williams family granted permission for quarrying on part of the farm in return for equitable title / permanent security of tenure once quarrying was complete. Daniel Thomas is said to have formalised his side by a land-swap deed with the Bute Estate (copy formerly held in Cardiff Library, now reported missing along with its index card in 1984). This places the key transaction squarely in the early 20th-century Bute estate rationalisation period, immediately before the 1916 agricultural tenancy to John Williams and the 1915 death of Daniel Thomas. [1915 wording removed by Cedwyn editors: no record of an eviction in 1915 is found]. Testimony [wiki edit, 19 Oct 2026: Mary Williams, witness statement c.1974, Mary Williams testimony], supported by the 1876 limeworks severance (Glamorgan Archives D153/4-8) and the known industrial quarrying context, points to this narrow window as the origin of the modern title dispute. *Why this matters now* The 1987 Court of Appeal decision (*BP Properties Ltd v Buckler*) turned on the technical effect of 1974 unilateral licence letters addressed to “Mrs Buckler” – a name my grandmother Mary Williams (née Williams) never used in her marriage or death records. By addressing her under this legal fiction, the proceedings bypassed any adjudication of the Williams equitable title that had been recognised as late as 1915. As the principle “fraud unravels all” makes clear, once the foundational misnomer is identified, the entire chain of subsequent possession orders, licences and registration falls to be re-examined. My grandmother and her heirs therefore retain the superior land claim; the 1988 dispossession and demolition of the 800-year-old farmhouse constitute actionable loss for which reparations are now sought. To strengthen the evidential base I have prepared a one-page interactive timeline (hosted at [insert your hosted link here after uploading]) that highlights every event directly relevant to the “Williams Title” period. With your elevated archival access, you will immediately see where to focus searches in the Penrice and Margam or Bute collections (e.g., 1895–1916 leases, conveyances, limeworks/quarrying files, and any Daniel Thomas references). I would be most grateful if you could now guide me to the precise sub-series or box references within those collections that cover Llandough manorial transactions in the 1900–1916 window. Any surviving index cards, rental entries, or correspondence mentioning John Williams / Daniel Thomas in connection with Great House Farm would be transformative. Thank you once more for your time and expertise. I look forward to your further assistance. Kind regards Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thank you for your e-mail and additional information explaining the background to your enquiry. Unfortunately, apart from the pre-war survey returns The National Archives has only the only information recorded on-line MDR, and the following entry appears most pertinent to your enquiry held at the Glamorgan Archives: court book, with other manors D/D B M/3<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/N14274780&gt; for 1884-1937 held at Glamorgan Archives. We do not hold any other finding manorial finding aids such as old index cards as the entries were updated in 1990’s summarising the archive services catalogues of the time. Also, I have no more access or information relating to the various archive collections held outside of The National Archives than any other researcher. The Bute Estate Archives held at the Glamorgan Archive Service are catalogued under collection reference DB: Bute, Glamorgan Estate<https://canfod.glamarchives.gov.uk/en/records/DB&gt; The only physical source we hold is a paper copy of the catalogue of 370 pages of the ‘Stuart family, Marquesses of Bute Archives: manorial records and estate papers, mainly rel to Glamorgan and Monmouthshire estates’ deposited at the National Library of Wales (NLW) in July 1950 (Ref. NRA 581) which submitted to the National of Register of Archives which now has a summarised entry in our on-line catalogue Discovery: Glamorganshire (Cardiff, Llantrisant, etc) and Monmouthshire (Newport, Machen, etc, NRA Stuart 581<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/N13577100&gt; The reference to the Manors of Leckwith, Llandough, Cogan Cosmeston and Walterson is M17, pages 113-116 of the catalogue although most of the material predates 1900. This can be viewed at the library reading room at The National Archive by prior appointment. The Bute Estate archives for Glamorgan appear to be held at the National Library of Wales and the Glamorgan Archive Service. The NLW paper catalogue (Ref. NRA 581) broadly mirrors the NLW on-line catalogue: Bute Estate Records, – National Library of Wales Archives and Manuscripts<https://archives.library.wales/index.php/bute-estate-records&gt; A possibility worth bearing in mind is that the property, Great House Farm / Ty Mawr / Cedfin may ceased to have been held by copyhold tenure by 1900 and instead may have been held instead by a leasehold tenancy which if this was the case the manorial records will not be relevant to your research. As you mentioned the Bute estate interests were steadily disposed of from c1900 culminating in sale of the estate’s leasehold interest to the Western Ground Rents Company in 1938. This led to the widespread dispersal and possibly destruction of the Bute estate records which makes it particularly challenging to track down and identify individual documents. Furthermore, catalogues often include bundle lists with individual documents concealed by a general description of the contents of the whole bundle. I regret I cannot be of any further assistance; however I hope your further research proves fruitful. Kind regards [The National Archives logo] Philip Gale | Head of the Collections and Cultural Property Team [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Information Rights / Archives Team, I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (or equivalent records access) regarding my grandfather, Mr. Williams, who worked in the engineering department of the Cardiff Post Office / General Post Office around 1897. Specifically, I seek any records, personnel files, correspondence, reports, or mentions confirming his involvement in Guglielmo Marconi’s wireless telegraphy experiments at Lavernock Point (including erecting the 120-foot pole and related tests to Flat Holm). This relates to contemporary newspaper reports from May 1897. Please provide: – Any personnel or service records for Mr. Williams in the Cardiff engineering department circa 1897. – Documents referencing “Mr. Williams” in connection with Marconi’s demonstrations. – Any other relevant historical files from the GPO telegraph/engineering teams. Grandson I am ultimately seeking any record about my great grandfather Mr Williams of Great House Farm, Llandough, Cardiff (formerly Vale of Glamorgan). Not to be confused with Great House Farm, Llandough, Cowbridge, Vale of Glamorgan. And his role in the Marconi experiment. And before and after Marconis stay with our family in our home in 1897. I am happy to provide further identification if required. Thank you for your assistance. Best regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I request the following recorded information held by the National Library of Wales: Any manorial court rolls, surveys, rentals, terriers, or related documents for the Manor of Llandough (Glamorgan) covering the period c.1600–1670 that list or refer to occupants, customary tenants, or holders of land later known as Great House Farm (or equivalent contemporary descriptions). Any estate papers, correspondence, leases, rentals, account books, or surveys of the Vaughan family of Llandough (or related Vaughan holdings) that mention a lease, renewal, confirmation, surrender, or new grant of land at Great House Farm / Llandough around or before 1667. Any catalogue descriptions, finding aids, or indexes that identify pre-1667 deeds, court-roll entries, or estate surveys referring to the family’s holding at this property. Please confirm whether such material is held and, if so, provide the relevant catalogue references and any available descriptions or copies (or advise on access arrangements). If any information is exempt, please state the exemption(s) relied upon. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester, Thank you for contacting The National Archives of the United Kingdom. I’m afraid we are not the right place to come to for your enquiry. We hold historical records sent to us by central government departments and law courts for permanent preservation. I regret, therefore, that I’m unable to help you with your enquiry. I suggest you contact The National Library of Wales<https://www.library.wales/&gt;. I wish you every success with your research. Yours sincerely, Patricia Reynolds Remote Enquiries Duty Officer http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk&lt;http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/&gt; Please complete our brief, three question survey<https://emea.dcv.ms/1PncPtnWn7&gt; to let us know what you think about your recent contact. Your views are important in helping us improve our service. Enquiry: You don’t often get email from [removed]. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification&gt; EXTERNAL: This email originates from outside of The National Archives. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I request the following recorded information held by the National Library of Wales: Any manorial court rolls, surveys, rentals, terriers, or related documents for the Manor of Llandough (Glamorgan) covering the period c.1600–1670 that list or refer to occupants, customary tenants, or holders of land later known as Great House Farm (or equivalent contemporary descriptions). Any estate papers, correspondence, leases, rentals, account books, or surveys of the Vaughan family of Llandough (or related Vaughan holdings) that mention a lease, renewal, confirmation, surrender, or new grant of land at Great House Farm / Llandough around or before 1667. Any catalogue descriptions, finding aids, or indexes that identify pre-1667 deeds, court-roll entries, or estate surveys referring to the family’s holding at this property. Please confirm whether such material is held and, if so, provide the relevant catalogue references and any available descriptions or copies (or advise on access arrangements). If any information is exempt, please state the exemption(s) relied upon. Yours faithfully, Requester Please don’t print this e-mail unless you really need to. ———————————————————————————– National Archives Disclaimer This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it. ————————————————————————————

Dear Patricia Reynolds, Thank you for your response of 30 July 2026 (Case number CAS-343481-X5H3M6). I note your advice that The National Archives is not the primary repository for the material described in my original enquiry. However, my enquiry also concerns whether The National Archives holds any recorded information relating to the existence, transfer, retention, destruction, or absence of such records. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request confirmation of any recorded information held by The National Archives relating to Great House Farm / Ty Mawr, Llandough (Glamorgan), including historical references under alternative descriptions such as Cedfin or equivalent contemporary descriptions. Specifically, please confirm whether The National Archives holds: 1. *Manorial and estate records* Any catalogue entries, Manorial Documents Register information, finding aids, transfer records, or related documentation concerning: – the Manor of Llandough (Glamorgan); – pre-1667 references to occupants, customary tenants, holdings, surveys, rentals, terriers, or court rolls; – Vaughan family estate holdings at Llandough; – Great House Farm / Ty Mawr or any earlier description of the holding. Please include any references to HMC9/311 or related archival series. 2. *Records concerning disposal, destruction, or transfer of records* Any recorded information showing: – whether records relating to Great House Farm, Llandough, the Bute Estate, Vaughan family papers, or associated land records were ever transferred to The National Archives; – whether any such records were destroyed, and if so: – what records were destroyed; – when they were destroyed; – under which retention schedule, disposal authority, or policy; – which body authorised or carried out the destruction. If no such records are held, please confirm whether any disposal or transfer records indicate that relevant material was never deposited or was destroyed elsewhere. 3. *Legal and court records* Any central court records, indexes, correspondence, or administrative records concerning: – possession or title disputes involving Great House Farm / Ty Mawr; – Western Ground Rents Ltd; – BP Pension Trust Ltd; – BP Properties Ltd; – Mountjoy Ltd; – the proceedings connected with *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler* [1987] EWCA Civ 2. 4. *Estate transfers and ownership records* Any government-held correspondence, files, or records relating to: – the Bute Estate; – the 1938 sale or transfer of Great House Farm; – Western Ground Rents Ltd acquisition; – BP Pension Trust/BP Properties involvement; – any government department involvement in the property. 5. *Family correspondence and related records* Any correspondence, reports, enquiries, or administrative records held by The National Archives involving: – Mary Williams; – Fred Buckler; – William Buckler; – the Williams/Buckler family; – Great House Farm / Ty Mawr; – Bute Estate representatives; – Western Ground Rents; – BP entities. 6. *1980–1988 period and demolition/eviction matters* Any records concerning: – the public campaign regarding Great House Farm; – parliamentary correspondence or government enquiries; – the 1988 eviction/demolition; – Cadw or government communications; – European Commission of Human Rights Application 14464/88 (Buckler v United Kingdom). If any relevant information is held, please provide catalogue references, descriptions, and access arrangements. If no relevant information is held, please confirm: – the searches undertaken; – the catalogues, databases, and record series searched; – whether any relevant records were ever held and subsequently transferred, destroyed, or disposed of. I am pursuing parallel enquiries with the National Library of Wales, Glamorgan Archives and other repositories. This request is specifically directed at recorded information held by The National Archives. Yours sincerely, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thank you for contacting The National Archives of the United Kingdom. Records relating to the transfer, retention or destruction of material can be found on our catalogue within the record series created by the Public Record Office (departmental code PRO) and The National Archives (departmental code RW). I have searched our catalogue, via the advanced search page<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/advanced-search&gt; for records using (“Great House Farm” OR “Ty Mawr” OR Llandough OR Cedfin) AND Glamorgan as search terms within the file series PRO and RW. As you can see here, this search did not yield any results<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_aq=%28%22Great%20House%20Farm%22%20OR%20%22Ty%20Mawr%22%20OR%20Llandough%20OR%20Cedfin%29%20AND%20Glamorgan&_cr=pro%7Crw&_dss=range&_ro=any&_st=adv&gt;. You can try some similar searches yourself. I recommend you consult our guides to searching for records relating land and maps<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/?research-category=land-and-maps&gt; and civil court records<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/?research-category=criminals-courts-and-prisons&sub-category%5B%5D=civil-court-cases-and-litigation&gt; to assist with other aspects of your enquiry. These guides will help you to use our catalogue<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/&gt;, or other online sources, effectively and focus your search. Records are represented in our online catalogue by a title, a reference and a brief description. When you search our catalogue using keywords you are searching across these titles and descriptions, rather than the contents of the records themselves. By clicking on any search result, you can see whether the record is available online or if you need to visit us to view the original. You can also request copies of records from their catalogue description page. If the record is held by another archive, you will need to contact them directly to find out how you can access it. You can also watch this video<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz4f–o3zUU&gt; for more advice on using our online catalogue. You are welcome to visit us<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/visit-us/> to continue your research here in person, where access to our records is free of charge. Before you visit, please check our website for information regarding our opening hours<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/visit-us/opening-times/&gt; and ID requirements<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/visit-us/researching-here/do-i-need-a-readers-ticket/&gt;, and videos with tips on how to handle and photograph original documents<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlJ1OKfXWOg&list=PLddhSH7bW0pVBzNFsPIaUVs9mMFsA0utJ&gt;. If you are unable to visit, or would like someone to pursue this research on your behalf, please see the available paid search options<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/paying-for-research/&gt; on our website. Yours sincerely, Sarah Abbott Remote Enquiries Duty Officer http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk&lt;http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/&gt; Please complete our brief, three question survey<https://emea.dcv.ms/1PncPtnWn7&gt; to let us know what you think about your recent contact. Your views are important in helping us improve our service. Enquiry: You don’t often get email from [removed]. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification&gt; EXTERNAL: This email originates from outside of The National Archives. Dear Patricia Reynolds, Thank you for your response of 30 July 2026 (Case number CAS-343481-X5H3M6). I note your advice that The National Archives is not the primary repository for the material described in my original enquiry. However, my enquiry also concerns whether The National Archives holds any recorded information relating to the existence, transfer, retention, destruction, or absence of such records. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request confirmation of any recorded information held by The National Archives relating to Great House Farm / Ty Mawr, Llandough (Glamorgan), including historical references under alternative descriptions such as Cedfin or equivalent contemporary descriptions. Specifically, please confirm whether The National Archives holds: 1. Manorial and estate records Any catalogue entries, Manorial Documents Register information, finding aids, transfer records, or related documentation concerning: * the Manor of Llandough (Glamorgan); * pre-1667 references to occupants, customary tenants, holdings, surveys, rentals, terriers, or court rolls; * Vaughan family estate holdings at Llandough; * Great House Farm / Ty Mawr or any earlier description of the holding. Please include any references to HMC9/311 or related archival series. 1. Records concerning disposal, destruction, or transfer of records Any recorded information showing: * whether records relating to Great House Farm, Llandough, the Bute Estate, Vaughan family papers, or associated land records were ever transferred to The National Archives; * whether any such records were destroyed, and if so: * what records were destroyed; * when they were destroyed; * under which retention schedule, disposal authority, or policy; * which body authorised or carried out the destruction. If no such records are held, please confirm whether any disposal or transfer records indicate that relevant material was never deposited or was destroyed elsewhere. 1. Legal and court records Any central court records, indexes, correspondence, or administrative records concerning: * possession or title disputes involving Great House Farm / Ty Mawr; * Western Ground Rents Ltd; * BP Pension Trust Ltd; * BP Properties Ltd; * Mountjoy Ltd; * the proceedings connected with BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2. 1. Estate transfers and ownership records Any government-held correspondence, files, or records relating to: * the Bute Estate; * the 1938 sale or transfer of Great House Farm; * Western Ground Rents Ltd acquisition; * BP Pension Trust/BP Properties involvement; * any government department involvement in the property. 1. Family correspondence and related records Any correspondence, reports, enquiries, or administrative records held by The National Archives involving: * Mary Williams; * Fred Buckler; * William Buckler; * the Williams/Buckler family; * Great House Farm / Ty Mawr; * Bute Estate representatives; * Western Ground Rents; * BP entities. 1. 1980–1988 period and demolition/eviction matters Any records concerning: * the public campaign regarding Great House Farm; * parliamentary correspondence or government enquiries; * the 1988 eviction/demolition; * Cadw or government communications; * European Commission of Human Rights Application 14464/88 (Buckler v United Kingdom). If any relevant information is held, please provide catalogue references, descriptions, and access arrangements. If no relevant information is held, please confirm: * the searches undertaken; * the catalogues, databases, and record series searched; * whether any relevant records were ever held and subsequently transferred, destroyed, or disposed of. I am pursuing parallel enquiries with the National Library of Wales, Glamorgan Archives and other repositories. This request is specifically directed at recorded information held by The National Archives. Yours sincerely, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Sarah Abbott, Thank you for your response. I have considered it carefully. Unfortunately, it does not appear to answer the FOI enquiry I submitted. My request was deliberately framed more broadly than a simple catalogue search for the words “Great House Farm”, “Ty Mawr”, “Llandough” or “Cedfin”. I specifically asked The National Archives to identify recorded information concerning the *existence, transfer, retention, destruction, disposal or absence of records*, including records that might not be catalogued under the property’s later or local names. Your response confirms only that you searched the PRO and RW series using: “Great House Farm” OR “Ty Mawr” OR Llandough OR Cedfin combined with “Glamorgan”, and that this produced no catalogue results. You also correctly state that Discovery searches catalogue titles and descriptions rather than the contents of records. That qualification is important, because it means the search described cannot establish that relevant records did not exist, were never transferred, or were destroyed. In particular, your response does not appear to address the other categories expressly identified in my request, including searches or recorded information relating to: – Western Ground Rents Ltd; – BP Pension Trust Ltd; – BP Properties Ltd; – Mountjoy Ltd; – the proceedings in *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler* [1987] EWCA Civ 2; – the 1982–1983 registration and associated government or administrative records; – the 1980–1988 public campaign and governmental correspondence; – the 1988 eviction and demolition; – Cadw or central-government communications concerning the property; – European Commission of Human Rights Application 14464/88; – records concerning transfer, destruction or disposal of potentially relevant material; and – HMC9/311 or related archival references. These alternative lines of enquiry are intentional. The purpose is to establish whether relevant information can be identified through the *government bodies, corporate entities, court proceedings, administrative processes and archival transfers associated with the property*, rather than relying solely upon the modern name by which the property is known. I am conducting corresponding enquiries with other repositories and public bodies. This is specifically intended to triangulate the documentary history where records may have been catalogued under a different creator, department, legal proceeding, estate, corporate body or administrative function. I therefore ask that you do not treat the absence of a Discovery keyword hit as an answer to the substantive questions raised. Please clarify: 1. *Whether the searches undertaken were limited to the PRO and RW catalogue series and the four property/location search terms identified in your email.* 2. *Whether The National Archives searched for the named corporate bodies, court proceedings and application references identified in my request*, rather than only searching the property names. 3. *Whether The National Archives holds any recorded transfer, accession, disposal, destruction or retention information* indicating that records concerning the relevant property, estate, companies, litigation or government involvement were transferred elsewhere, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of. 4. If such information is not held, *whether this is because no such records are held, because no relevant records were ever transferred to TNA, or because TNA’s catalogue/search systems contain no discoverable description of them.* 5. Whether *HMC9/311* or related series have been checked, or whether that reference falls outside the search undertaken. 6. Whether there are *central-government, court, departmental or administrative records relating to the litigation and entities identified above which may contain references to the property without using “Great House Farm”, “Ty Mawr”, “Llandough” or “Cedfin” in the catalogue description.* For the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking The National Archives to infer the contents of uncatalogued records or to undertake an unlimited research project. I am asking for confirmation of the *recorded information held by TNA concerning the existence, provenance, transfer, retention, destruction or disposal of potentially relevant records*, and for the searches undertaken to locate that information. That distinction is particularly important because a catalogue search returning no result is not equivalent to a finding that no relevant historical, governmental or archival records existed. I would therefore be grateful if this could be reconsidered as a response to the scope of the original FOI enquiry rather than treated solely as a request for assistance with a Discovery keyword search. I am continuing parallel enquiries with the National Library of Wales, Glamorgan Archives, Cadw, RCAHMW, HM Land Registry and other relevant bodies. The purpose of these enquiries is to establish the documentary chain independently and to identify where records were created, transferred, retained or potentially destroyed. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] It’s possible I discovered a major mistake or oversight was made in our landmark legal case BP vs Buckler 1987, which resulted in our ownership claim of our 800 year old home, on land we’d occupied since 1667, being ignored [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] The first time we’d been out of our house since the 16th century. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] is a matter of public interest not just a family matter, because of the historic and archelogical significants of our land and property, subsequently characterised by GGAT as a “county treasure”, which CADW, under very questionable and unanswered circumstances refused to list to prevent its demolition, least of all while we were still living in it as a family for the 3rd consecuting century. The planning/development process did not correctly engaged with the archaeological significance and a significant site of national interest was demolished. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] CADW have admitted destroying records after not listing. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] My dads ECHR (Buckler vs United Kingdom 1989) was dismissing in lieu of BP’s rights, citing them as the owners – yet there has never a ruling of their ownership claim and our ownership claim has never been estinguished. I really do not mean to burden you or your office with this matter more than is welcomed by yourselves. I’m merely just emphasising the importance and significanfs of any and every crumb of information that can be located and disclosed. Every detail is instrumental in my investigation and research and quest for justice for my family. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] All I can do at this juncture is appeal to your offices and look forward to any clarification of the searches undertaken and the recorded information held by The National Archives and your offices final position on this matter, for the history books and record. And I thank you in advance and for your co-operation. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thank you for your request received on 13/08/2026 06:00 for corporate information (business records) held by The National Archives. We are handling your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and have given it reference number CAS-347296-M0V4Y1 We will respond to you by 11/09/2026 18:00 in accordance with the 20 working-day time period laid down by section 10 of the Act. You can find out more about Freedom of Information on our website: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/foi/&lt;http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/foi/&gt; Yours sincerely, FOI Centre Service Advisor Freedom of Information Centre Public Access and Government Services Directorate The National Archives [signature block trimmed]

Records Enquiries Team, Case reference: CAS-344046-K1S1R2 I wrote to you on 12 August 2026 with a follow-up refining my earlier enquiry concerning National Farm Survey / MAFF records relating to Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan (Williams / Buckler family interest). I have not yet received a substantive reply to that follow-up and would be grateful for an update on progress and the expected timescale for a full response. In addition, please expand the scope of the search to include any records held relating to the Glamorgan War Agricultural Executive Committee (“War Ag” / CWAEC) and Great House Farm / the relevant land at Llandough, covering approximately 1936–1950 (with particular focus on 1939–1945). This should include, where held: Any orders, notices or decisions taking possession of, directing cultivation of, or otherwise requisitioning land forming part of Great House Farm (or the specific parcel now associated with Llandough Motor Sales / Llandough Trading Estate). Any compensation claims, assessments, payments or settlements under the Compensation (Defence) Act 1939 or related wartime legislation, including the identity of the recipient(s). Relevant minutes, correspondence or case files of the Glamorgan CWAEC concerning the farm or land in question. Any related material in the MAF series that links the National Farm Survey entries with wartime agricultural possession or compensation. I hold original documents recording compensation payments in connection with this land and am seeking to identify the wartime status of the holding and the party recognised as entitled to compensation. Please link this expanded request to the existing case reference CAS-344046-K1S1R2 so that the searches can be coordinated. Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to your reply. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester, Thank you for your enquiry of 13/08/2026 regarding a review of: We are handling your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. From our initial assessment it is clear that we will not be able to answer your request without further clarification. Under section 1(3) of the Act, a public authority need not comply with a request unless any further information reasonably required to locate the information is supplied. In order to progress your request, we require clarification on the scope of your request. The FOI Centre has received a request for the following: My request was deliberately framed more broadly than a simple catalogue search for the words “Great House Farm”, “Ty Mawr”, “Llandough” or “Cedfin”. I specifically asked The National Archives to identify recorded information concerning the existence, transfer, retention, destruction, disposal or absence of records, including records that might not be catalogued under the property’s later or local names. Your response confirms only that you searched the PRO and RW series using: “Great House Farm” OR “Ty Mawr” OR Llandough OR Cedfin combined with “Glamorgan”, and that this produced no catalogue results. You also correctly state that Discovery searches catalogue titles and descriptions rather than the contents of records. That qualification is important, because it means the search described cannot establish that relevant records did not exist, were never transferred, or were destroyed. In particular, your response does not appear to address the other categories expressly identified in my request, including searches or recorded information relating to: * Western Ground Rents Ltd; * BP Pension Trust Ltd; * BP Properties Ltd; * Mountjoy Ltd; * the proceedings in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2; * the 1982–1983 registration and associated government or administrative records; * the 1980–1988 public campaign and governmental correspondence; * the 1988 eviction and demolition; * Cadw or central-government communications concerning the property; * European Commission of Human Rights Application 14464/88; * records concerning transfer, destruction or disposal of potentially relevant material; and * HMC9/311 or related archival references. These alternative lines of enquiry are intentional. The purpose is to establish whether relevant information can be identified through the government bodies, corporate entities, court proceedings, administrative processes and archival transfers associated with the property, rather than relying solely upon the modern name by which the property is known. I am conducting corresponding enquiries with other repositories and public bodies. This is specifically intended to triangulate the documentary history where records may have been catalogued under a different creator, department, legal proceeding, estate, corporate body or administrative function. I therefore ask that you do not treat the absence of a Discovery keyword hit as an answer to the substantive questions raised. Please clarify: 1. Whether the searches undertaken were limited to the PRO and RW catalogue series and the four property/location search terms identified in your email. 1. Whether The National Archives searched for the named corporate bodies, court proceedings and application references identified in my request, rather than only searching the property names. 1. Whether The National Archives holds any recorded transfer, accession, disposal, destruction or retention information indicating that records concerning the relevant property, estate, companies, litigation or government involvement were transferred elsewhere, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of. 1. If such information is not held, whether this is because no such records are held, because no relevant records were ever transferred to TNA, or because TNA’s catalogue/search systems contain no discoverable description of them. 1. Whether HMC9/311 or related series have been checked, or whether that reference falls outside the search undertaken. 1. Whether there are central-government, court, departmental or administrative records relating to the litigation and entities identified above which may contain references to the property without using “Great House Farm”, “Ty Mawr”, “Llandough” or “Cedfin” in the catalogue description. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking The National Archives to infer the contents of uncatalogued records or to undertake an unlimited research project. I am asking for confirmation of the recorded information held by TNA concerning the existence, provenance, transfer, retention, destruction or disposal of potentially relevant records, and for the searches undertaken to locate that information. That distinction is particularly important because a catalogue search returning no result is not equivalent to a finding that no relevant historical, governmental or archival records existed. I would therefore be grateful if this could be reconsidered as a response to the scope of the original FOI enquiry rather than treated solely as a request for assistance with a Discovery keyword search. I am continuing parallel enquiries with the National Library of Wales, Glamorgan Archives, Cadw, RCAHMW, HM Land Registry and other relevant bodies. The purpose of these enquiries is to establish the documentary chain independently and to identify where records were created, transferred, retained or potentially destroyed. An acknowledgment email was sent on 17/08/2026, informing you we are handling your request under the FOI Act and that the request has been given a reference number: CAS-347296-M0V4Y1. Today (20/08/2026) we have received the following: I wrote to you on 12 August 2026 with a follow-up refining my earlier enquiry concerning National Farm Survey / MAFF records relating to Great House Farm (Ty Mawr), Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan (Williams / Buckler family interest). I have not yet received a substantive reply to that follow-up and would be grateful for an update on progress and the expected timescale for a full response. In addition, please expand the scope of the search to include any records held relating to the Glamorgan War Agricultural Executive Committee (“War Ag” / CWAEC) and Great House Farm / the relevant land at Llandough, covering approximately 1936–1950 (with particular focus on 1939–1945). This should include, where held: Any orders, notices or decisions taking possession of, directing cultivation of, or otherwise requisitioning land forming part of Great House Farm (or the specific parcel now associated with Llandough Motor Sales / Llandough Trading Estate). Any compensation claims, assessments, payments or settlements under the Compensation (Defence) Act 1939 or related wartime legislation, including the identity of the recipient(s). Relevant minutes, correspondence or case files of the Glamorgan CWAEC concerning the farm or land in question. Any related material in the MAF series that links the National Farm Survey entries with wartime agricultural possession or compensation. I hold original documents recording compensation payments in connection with this land and am seeking to identify the wartime status of the holding and the party recognised as entitled to compensation. Please link this expanded request to the existing case reference CAS-344046-K1S1R2 so that the searches can be coordinated. Please can you clarify if the above (received on 20/08/2026) should be treated as clarification on the scope of your FOI request referenced CAS-347296 or a separate research enquiry about the collection. Please provide as much information possible as this will assist us in providing a more guided response and possibly assist you in getting the information you require. Please send your clarification by reply this email, or by contacting: FOI Centre The National Archives [address removed] We have now placed your request on hold until we receive clarification from you. Please quote the reference number CAS-347296-M0V4Y1 in all correspondence. If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request or the decision which has been reached, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests must be submitted within two months of the date of this response and should be addressed to: Quality Manager The National Archives [address removed] Please mark your complaint clearly. You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner to investigate any aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the Information Commissioner is likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning his investigation. Yours sincerely, FOI Assessor Freedom of Information Centre The National Archives [signature block trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thank you for your enquiry in which you asked for the information concerning the existence, provenance, transfer, retention, destruction or disposal of records relating to Ty Mawr / Great House Farm. Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000. The FOI Act gives you the right to know whether we hold the information you want and to have it communicated to you, subject to any exemptions which may apply. I can confirm that The National Archives holds some information relevant to your request. We are pleased to be able to provide some of this information to you. Our response The initial response from our records enquiries team looked for the four terms (“Great House Farm”, “Ty Mawr”, “Llandough” or “Cedfin”) within the PRO and RW series and did not find any relevant information. We have now tried those terms and the further twelve terms that you have specified in a wider catalogue search. We have provided the results of our search below. The crux of your query is local land ownership dispute in Glamorgan and the demolition of some buildings by a private company; generally speaking, these are not matters dealt with by central government and we would not expect to see anything within our collections. As such, there would have been no records to transfer. The exception is the court case relating to BP properties, which generated some papers. Links to the catalogue pages for these records can be seen below. There are likely to be records of the farm in the 1940s as part of the National Farm Survey series but these cannot all currently be searched online by farm. We are unable to conduct this research on the archival collections on your behalf without charging fees to conduct research on your behalf (Paid Search). A public authority is allowed to charge fees under section 9 of the Freedom of Information Act and within this section of the Act it states: “provision is made by or under any enactment as to the fee may be charged by the public authority for the disclosure of the information” (S9(5) FOIA). The Public Records Act (1958) enables a statutory instrument to be made setting out the fees which may be made in connection with the supply of information from The National Archives. The prices we charge are set out by our Fees Regulations<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/1243/made&gt;. If you are interested in paying for research to be conducted on your behalf, then details of our Paid Search service and other options for paying for research are available here: Paying for research – The National Archives<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/paying-for-research/&gt; If you would prefer to conduct this research yourself then you may find the following research guide to be of assistance: National Farm Survey of England and Wales 1941-1943 – The National Archives<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/national-farm-survey-england-wales-1941-1943/&gt; There are Agricultural Executive Committee minutes and papers for Glamorgan; but again, these cannot be searched online by name of farm and we are unable to conduct this research without charging a fee: Browse records of other archives | The National Archives<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/C42711&gt; We can provide the following advice regarding the search terms you have specified: 1. Western Ground Rents Ltd Relevant information not found. 1. BP Pension Trust Ltd Relevant information not found. 1. BP Properties Ltd Judicial Papers A-C 1-63 | The National Archives<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/74c935f9-563a-4c1b-8643-ed3eed68ad98&gt; (House of Lords as court of appeal) 1. Mountjoy Ltd Relevant information not found. 1. Proceedings in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2 Judicial Papers A-C 1-63 | The National Archives<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/74c935f9-563a-4c1b-8643-ed3eed68ad98&gt; (House of Lords as court of appeal) 1. 1982–1983 registration and associated government or administrative records Relevant information not found. 1. 1980–1988 public campaign and governmental correspondence Relevant information not found. 1. 1988 eviction and demolition Relevant information not found. 1. Cadw or central-government communications concerning the property Relevant information not found. 1. European Commission of Human Rights Application 14464/88 Relevant information not found. 1. Records concerning transfer, destruction or disposal of potentially relevant material Within the results of our search, it revealed a record within the parliamentary collection. This is Judicial Papers A-C 1-63<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/74c935f9-563a-4c1b-8643-ed3eed68ad98&gt; . The parliamentary records and the provision of a service for them by The National Archives, was done in phases, with their collections loaded into Discovery in stages. The series that this record formed part of were released on our catalogue on Discovery on 20th May 2026. This is an open record and available to the public here at The National Archives, Kew. To note, this record requires preparation for production and will take four working days to prepare TNA holds transfer paperwork for YHL/PO/JO/10/11/2536 – Judicial Papers A-C 1-63<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/74c935f9-563a-4c1b-8643-ed3eed68ad98&gt;. The below table is a schedule of the documents that we have attached to this response. Document Title Document Description TNA’s Notes Item 01 Release Schedule: On Discovery This schedule shows the release date of 20th May. Relevant information to request provided. Some of the information is additionally redacted as ‘out of scope’ and not relevant to the request. Item 02 Release Schedule: High Level Delivery Schedule This schedule shows that it was scheduled for release in May Relevant information to request provided. Some of the information is additionally redacted as ‘out of scope’ and not relevant to the request. Item 03 Collect 27 Series 11 Spreadsheet: Manifest This spreadsheet is the manifest TNA received from the Parliamentary Archives Relevant information to request provided. Some of the information is additionally redacted as ‘out of scope’ and not relevant to the request. 1. HMC9/311 or related archival references This is Manorial Documents register returns the county of Glamorgan organised by Manor alphabetically. The Manorial Documents Register<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/manor-search&gt; can now be searched online, by manor or parish and the results display in Discovery. This search summary says it lists records 1189-1925 held at National Library of Wales, Glamorgan Archives and West Glamorgan Archive Service: Search results: llandough | The National Archives<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/c?_q=llandough&_sf=text_man&_naet=M&_st=mdrc&gt;. This date range is too early, individual farm names are not listed in the titles, and the records are not held at TNA. This is the limit of what our catalogue metadata and corporate records allow us to confirm. This concludes our response to your request. If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request or the decision which has been reached, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests must be submitted within two months of the date of this response and should be addressed to: Quality Manager Visitor Experience The National Archives [address removed] Please mark your complaint clearly. You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner (ICO) to investigate any aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning his investigation. Yours sincerely, FOI Assessor The Freedom of Information Centre Government and Archives Leadership The National Archives Your request Original email dated 13/08/2026: My request was deliberately framed more broadly than a simple catalogue search for the words “Great House Farm”, “Ty Mawr”, “Llandough” or “Cedfin”. I specifically asked The National Archives to identify recorded information concerning the existence, transfer, retention, destruction, disposal or absence of records, including records that might not be catalogued under the property’s later or local names. Your response confirms only that you searched the PRO and RW series using: “Great House Farm” OR “Ty Mawr” OR Llandough OR Cedfin combined with “Glamorgan”, and that this produced no catalogue results. You also correctly state that Discovery searches catalogue titles and descriptions rather than the contents of records. That qualification is important, because it means the search described cannot establish that relevant records did not exist, were never transferred, or were destroyed. In particular, your response does not appear to address the other categories expressly identified in my request, including searches or recorded information relating to: * Western Ground Rents Ltd; * BP Pension Trust Ltd; * BP Properties Ltd; * Mountjoy Ltd; * the proceedings in BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2; * the 1982–1983 registration and associated government or administrative records; * the 1980–1988 public campaign and governmental correspondence; * the 1988 eviction and demolition; * Cadw or central-government communications concerning the property; * European Commission of Human Rights Application 14464/88; * records concerning transfer, destruction or disposal of potentially relevant material; and * HMC9/311 or related archival references. These alternative lines of enquiry are intentional. The purpose is to establish whether relevant information can be identified through the government bodies, corporate entities, court proceedings, administrative processes and archival transfers associated with the property, rather than relying solely upon the modern name by which the property is known. I am conducting corresponding enquiries with other repositories and public bodies. This is specifically intended to triangulate the documentary history where records may have been catalogued under a different creator, department, legal proceeding, estate, corporate body or administrative function. I therefore ask that you do not treat the absence of a Discovery keyword hit as an answer to the substantive questions raised. Please clarify: 1. Whether the searches undertaken were limited to the PRO and RW catalogue series and the four property/location search terms identified in your email. 1. Whether The National Archives searched for the named corporate bodies, court proceedings and application references identified in my request, rather than only searching the property names. 1. Whether The National Archives holds any recorded transfer, accession, disposal, destruction or retention information indicating that records concerning the relevant property, estate, companies, litigation or government involvement were transferred elsewhere, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of. 1. If such information is not held, whether this is because no such records are held, because no relevant records were ever transferred to TNA, or because TNA’s catalogue/search systems contain no discoverable description of them. 1. Whether HMC9/311 or related series have been checked, or whether that reference falls outside the search undertaken. 1. Whether there are central-government, court, departmental or administrative records relating to the litigation and entities identified above which may contain references to the property without using “Great House Farm”, “Ty Mawr”, “Llandough” or “Cedfin” in the catalogue description. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking The National Archives to infer the contents of uncatalogued records or to undertake an unlimited research project. I am asking for confirmation of the recorded information held by TNA concerning the existence, provenance, transfer, retention, destruction or disposal of potentially relevant records, and for the searches undertaken to locate that information. That distinction is particularly important because a catalogue search returning no result is not equivalent to a finding that no relevant historical, governmental or archival records existed. I would therefore be grateful if this could be reconsidered as a response to the scope of the original FOI enquiry rather than treated solely as a request for assistance with a Discovery keyword search. I am continuing parallel enquiries with the National Library of Wales, Glamorgan Archives, Cadw, RCAHMW, HM Land Registry and other relevant bodies. The purpose of these enquiries is to establish the documentary chain independently and to identify where records were created, transferred, retained or potentially destroyed. Follow-up email dated 20/08/2026 In addition, please expand the scope of the search to include any records held relating to the Glamorgan War Agricultural Executive Committee (“War Ag” / CWAEC) and Great House Farm / the relevant land at Llandough, covering approximately 1936–1950 (with particular focus on 1939–1945). This should include, where held: * Any orders, notices or decisions taking possession of, directing cultivation of, or otherwise requisitioning land forming part of Great House Farm (or the specific parcel now associated with Llandough Motor Sales / Llandough Trading Estate). * Any compensation claims, assessments, payments or settlements under the Compensation (Defence) Act 1939 or related wartime legislation, including the identity of the recipient(s). * Relevant minutes, correspondence or case files of the Glamorgan CWAEC concerning the farm or land in question. * Any related material in the MAF series that links the National Farm Survey entries with wartime agricultural possession or compensation. I hold original documents recording compensation payments in connection with this land and am seeking to identify the wartime status of the holding and the party recognised as entitled to compensation. Clarification email dated 02/09/2026 In summary, I am seeking recorded information held by The National Archives concerning: * Existence, transfer, retention, destruction or disposal of records relating to Great House Farm / Ty Mawr (and earlier descriptions) and associated entities, litigation and administrative processes (as previously detailed). * National Farm Survey / MAFF records for the holding. * Any Glamorgan CWAEC / War Ag records, possession/requisition orders, cultivation directions, and compensation claims/payments under the Compensation (Defence) Act 1939 or related wartime legislation in respect of the land (or the parcel now associated with Llandough Motor Sales / Llandough Trading Estate), including identity of any compensation recipients. I am not asking for an open-ended research exercise. I am asking for confirmation of what recorded information (including transfer, accession, disposal or destruction records) is held, the series searched, and the results of those searches. Please don’t print this e-mail unless you really need to. ———————————————————————————– National Archives Disclaimer This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it. ————————————————————————————

FOI Team, I write in response to your disclosure dated 23 September 2026 concerning my Freedom of Information request regarding Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr and records relating to BP Properties Ltd v Buckler. I appreciate the additional catalogue references and the release information provided. However, your response also identifies a number of matters concerning the scope, timing and methodology of the searches undertaken which require clarification. Please therefore treat this email as a *formal request for internal review*, as well as a request for clarification of the matters set out below. 1. Physical accession/transfer of YHL/PO/JO/10/11/2536 Your response states that: “The series that this record formed part of were released on our catalogue on Discovery on 20th May 2026.” You also state that TNA *holds transfer paperwork* for: *YHL/PO/JO/10/11/2536 – Judicial Papers A-C 1-63* Please therefore confirm, insofar as the information is recorded in TNA’s transfer/accession records: – the date on which the physical records comprising YHL/PO/JO/10/11/2536 were transferred into the custody of The National Archives; – the accession/transfer reference associated with that transfer, if recorded; – whether the transfer paperwork identifies the transferring body or institution; – whether the physical records were already in TNA’s custody during my earlier enquiries in August 2026, notwithstanding that their catalogue description was only released on Discovery on 20 May 2026; and – whether the *20 May 2026* date refers solely to publication/release of catalogue metadata on Discovery, rather than the date on which the physical records entered TNA custody. I am particularly seeking to distinguish *physical custody/accession* from *catalogue publication*, as these are not necessarily the same event. 2. Scope and methodology of the initial search Your response states: “The initial response from our records enquiries team looked for the four terms (‘Great House Farm’, ‘Ty Mawr’, ‘Llandough’ or ‘Cedfin’) within the PRO and RW series and did not find any relevant information.” My original request, however, expressly identified a number of alternative search routes, including: – Western Ground Rents Ltd; – BP Pension Trust Ltd; – BP Properties Ltd; – Mountjoy Ltd; – BP Properties Ltd v Buckler; – the 1982–1983 registration; – the 1980–1988 government/public campaign; – the 1988 eviction and demolition; – Cadw and central-government communications; – ECHR Application 14464/88; – transfer, destruction or disposal records; and – HMC9/311 and related archival references. Your present response confirms that a wider catalogue search was subsequently undertaken and that searching *BP Properties Ltd* produced the House of Lords judicial record. Please therefore clarify: – whether the *initial search* was in fact limited to the four property/location terms and the PRO/RW series stated in your response; – why the named corporate litigant *BP Properties Ltd*, expressly identified in my request, was not included in that initial search; – whether any search log, enquiry record, search worksheet or other recorded audit trail exists showing the terms, series and dates searched at each stage; and – whether the later wider search was materially different from the initial search in a way that explains why the judicial record was not identified earlier. I recognise that TNA cannot necessarily undertake an unlimited historical research exercise. My question here is narrower: *what searches were actually undertaken, when, and against which terms/series?* 3. Search undertaken after 20 May 2026 Your response states that the relevant parliamentary series had been released onto Discovery on *20 May 2026*, yet the subsequent correspondence records a negative result until the search parameters were expanded to include the named legal/corporate party. Please explain, insofar as this is recorded: – whether any searches of Discovery or relevant TNA catalogue data concerning this matter were conducted between *20 May 2026 and 13 August 2026*; – if so, whether those searches included “BP Properties Ltd” or the case title *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler*; and – if no such search was undertaken before 13 August 2026, please confirm that fact. This is important because the chronology appears to be: *20 May 2026 – catalogue release of the relevant series* *earlier enquiries – negative result* *13 August 2026 – explicit instruction to search the named corporate/legal party* *subsequent wider search – judicial record identified* I am seeking to establish the documentary search history accurately, rather than infer the reason for the earlier negative result. 4. Transfer, retention, destruction or disposal records Your response states that TNA holds transfer paperwork for YHL/PO/JO/10/11/2536 and has disclosed three documents concerning its release/manifest arrangements. Please confirm whether those records contain, or whether TNA otherwise holds, information showing: – the date of transfer or accession; – the previous custody/location of the records; – whether the records were transferred directly from the Parliamentary Archives or another repository; – whether any associated material was excluded, withheld, destroyed, disposed of or retained elsewhere; and – whether the transfer documentation identifies any earlier repository or custodial history. I am not asking TNA to reconstruct the contents of uncatalogued material. I am asking what *recorded provenance and custody information* TNA holds concerning the records now identified. I would also take this opportunity to ask again, if you hold any more information I’ve asked for, not disclosed to me, please disclose in your next reply. This case went before ECHR (Buckler vs United Kingdom 1989) and their window to reopen that ruling based on such matters as concealment, is as I understand, 6 months. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] 5. Internal-review outcome Please review the original response in light of the above and confirm whether TNA considers that the searches undertaken adequately addressed the scope of my original request. Where TNA considers that information is not held, please distinguish where possible between: *(a)* information establishing that no such records were ever transferred to TNA; *(b)* information showing that records were transferred elsewhere; *(c)* information showing that records were destroyed/disposed of; and *(d)* the absence of a discoverable catalogue reference or search hit. These are materially different conclusions for the purposes of my documentary research. I would be grateful for the internal-review response within 14 working days. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

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]

FOI Centre, Reference CAS-347296-M0V4Y1 Thank you for your email of 20 August asking me to clarify scope. I apologise for the delay in replying. Please take the request off hold on the following basis. 1. The FOI request (CAS-347296) is limited to the six numbered questions in my email of 13 August: whether the searches were limited to the PRO and RW series and four place-name terms; whether the named companies, court proceedings and application references were searched; whether TNA holds any transfer, accession, retention, destruction or disposal information for records concerning the property, companies or litigation; the reason for any “not held” answer; whether HMC9/311 was checked; and whether there are central-government, court or departmental records on the litigation or entities that would not be found by a place-name search. 2. My email of 20 August about the National Farm Survey and the Glamorgan War Agricultural Executive Committee (1936–1950) is not part of this FOI request. Please treat it as a records enquiry under the existing case CAS-344046-K1S1R2. My chase of that case on 20 August bounced from [removed], so I would be grateful if you could pass it to the Records Enquiries team. I am not asking TNA to research the contents of uncatalogued records, only to tell me what recorded information it holds about the searches, the catalogue and the transfer or disposal of relevant records. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester, Thank you for your email, dated 30th September. To clarify, you provided The National Archives with clarification to your FOI request on the 2nd September 2026 and we provided a final response on 23rd September 2026. Also on 23rd September 2026, you requested an internal review into the handling of your FOI request. This case reference for this internal review is CAS-356384. For ease of reference, please find attached the final response to your original request which contains details of your original request and the clarification you provided. Please note, the request with case reference CAS-344046 relates to your original enquiry to The National Archives. We decided to handle this as an FOI request, with the new case reference CAS-347296. Yours sincerely, FOI Manager Freedom of Information Centre Government and Archives Leadership The National Archives [quoted text trimmed]

Quality Manager The National Archives [removed] cc: [removed] Sirs/Madam, Internal review of CAS-347296-M0V4Y1 / CRM:007302479, disclosure dated 23 September 2026. Requester: Requester. I am not asking TNA to decide title. I am asking whether the disclosure answered the request. The request asked whether records relating to Great House Farm / Tÿ Mawr and to BP Properties Ltd v Buckler exist in your systems, where they came from, and whether they were transferred, retained, destroyed or disposed of. A finding that TNA does not itself hold a court file is not a finding that no transfer, accession or destruction entry exists. Please determine, on review: 1. Which catalogues, transfer lists and destruction registers were searched. 2. Whether any WELSH OFFICE, court-administration, HO or DEFE series was considered and excluded, and why. 3. Whether the destroyed European Commission file in Buckler v United Kingdom, Application 14464/88 (file destroyed in 2000; decision of 14 April 1989 remains on HUDOC), has any TNA counterpart or transfer note. 4. What, if anything, is held about the existence or disposal of those records, as distinct from the records themselves. The public evidence index is https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com/ . The 1987 Court of Appeal decided possession, limitation and the October 1974 letters. It did not decide the documentary root of the farmhouse parcel. Transfer and destruction entries go to that separate question. They are evidential questions, not findings against TNA. Please preserve anything in scope while the review is open. Nothing in this letter abandons any claim. This is not a claim form. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Freedom of Information Team, This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is a location request only. I am not asking for a copy of the plan, a screen-room appointment, or production of the item until the location and physical-check status are confirmed. Context. Glamorgan Archives, in reply 2026/4097b of 30 September 2026, identified Ordnance Survey sheet Glamorgan XLVII.6 as the sheet relevant to Great House Farm / Ty Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, and directed me to the Valuation Office Survey 1910-1915 maps held by The National Archives. Please state, for the Valuation Office field book, plan, and index covering that sheet for the parish of Llandough (Llandough-juxta-Penarth, Glamorgan): 1. The series, piece, and item references (including any IR 58, IR 121, IR 124, IR 125, IR 126, IR 127, IR 128 or successor reference that applies). 2. The accession, box, shelf, or other store location used by your staff. 3. The Discovery catalogue identifier. 4. Whether a member of staff has physically checked that the item is in that location: yes, no, or not answered. If yes, who checked it and on what date, and which store. 5. Whether the item is open, closed, or retained by another department, and if closed the series and the FOI route for a closed record. 6. The systems searched, and whether a physical file or plan was retrieved rather than a catalogue-only search. I am not asking you to interpret ownership or to comment on any legal proceedings. Please treat a “not held” answer as incomplete unless you name the systems searched and whether a physical item was retrieved. Please quote this email as the request and give the statutory deadline. Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Dear Requester, Thank you for your email. Based on the information you have provided, we believe that this is the Valuation Office map covering the property you have referred to: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C1667398 (IR 131/4/96). Unfortunately, there is no way of identifying the relevant IR field book on our catalogue without additional information. We would need the income tax parish and the assessment number, which we would expect to be found via the map linked above (IR 131/4/96). We have checked the Genealogist website which has digitised some of these records, but its coverage appears not to include Glamorgan. We have made a guess that the income tax parish is Penarth, but we would still need the assessment number of the individual farm in order to identify the right field book: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r/1?_q=penarth&_cr=IR%2058&_dss=range&_ro=any&_srt=1) Your options for accessing information from IR 131/4/96 is to either travel to Kew to review it and ascertain the field book number yourself, or to request a paid search by TNA staff, or hire an independent researcher. Details on the options available for paid research can be found via the following pages: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/paying-for-research/ A public authority is allowed to charge fees for access to information under section 9 of the FOI Act. The prices we charge are set out by the Fees Regulations under the Public Records Act (1958), and are based on recovering the costs of providing the services. Fees are typically charged for research and provision of information within open records in TNA’s collection. Information on booking a visit to The National Archives and how to register for a reader’s ticket can be found here: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/visit/researching-here/booking-a-visit-to-view-documents/ If you are able to identify the relevant records from our catalogue to which your enquiry below relates, you are welcome to request information regarding their production history or any other recorded metadata held in relation to them. Please submit a new request to [removed] We hope this advice is of assistance in your research. Yours sincerely, FOI Manager Freedom of Information Centre The National Archives ————– [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thank you for contacting The National Archives of the United Kingdom. We may hold records related to your enquiry. The map you mention is listed in our catalogue. I have searched our catalogue<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/&gt; for records using Glamorgan XLVII as search terms. You can view the results of the search here and try some similar searches yourself. Search results: (Glamorgan AND XLVII) AND 6 | The National Archives<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_aq=Glamorgan%20XLVII&_or1=6&_d=IR&_dss=range&_ro=any&_hb=tna&_st=adv&gt; Penarth field books …. Search results: penarth | The National Archives<https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_srt=1&_aq=penarth&_cr=ir58&_d=IR&_dss=range&_ro=any&_hb=tna&_st=adv&gt; Further advice about using Valuation Office records can be found here…. Land use, value and ownership: Valuation Office Survey 1910-1915 – The National Archives<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/valuation-office-survey-land-value-ownership-1910-1915/&gt; Records are represented in our online catalogue by a title, a reference and a brief description. When you search our catalogue using keywords you are searching across these titles and descriptions, rather than the contents of the records themselves. By clicking on any search result, you can see whether the record is available online or if you need to visit us to view the original. You can also request copies of records from their catalogue description page. If the record is held by another archive, you will need to contact them directly to find out how you can access it. You can also watch this video<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz4f–o3zUU&gt; for more advice on using our online catalogue. You are welcome to visit us<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/visit-us/> to continue your research here in person, where access to our records is free of charge. Before you visit, please check our website for information regarding our opening hours<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/visit-us/opening-times/&gt; and ID requirements<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/visit-us/researching-here/do-i-need-a-readers-ticket/&gt;, and videos with tips on how to handle and photograph original documents<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlJ1OKfXWOg&list=PLddhSH7bW0pVBzNFsPIaUVs9mMFsA0utJ&gt;. If you are unable to visit, or would like someone to pursue this research on your behalf, please see the available paid search options<https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/paying-for-research/&gt; on our website. Yours sincerely, Michael McGrady Remote Enquiries Duty Officer http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk&lt;http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/&gt; Please complete our brief, three question survey<https://emea.dcv.ms/1PncPtnWn7&gt; to let us know what you think about your recent contact. Your views are important in helping us improve our service. Enquiry: [You don’t often get email from [removed]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] EXTERNAL: This email originates from outside of The National Archives. Freedom of Information Team, This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is a location request only. I am not asking for a copy of the plan, a screen-room appointment, or production of the item until the location and physical-check status are confirmed. Context. Glamorgan Archives, in reply 2026/4097b of 30 September 2026, identified Ordnance Survey sheet Glamorgan XLVII.6 as the sheet relevant to Great House Farm / Ty Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, and directed me to the Valuation Office Survey 1910-1915 maps held by The National Archives. Please state, for the Valuation Office field book, plan, and index covering that sheet for the parish of Llandough (Llandough-juxta-Penarth, Glamorgan): 1. The series, piece, and item references (including any IR 58, IR 121, IR 124, IR 125, IR 126, IR 127, IR 128 or successor reference that applies). 2. The accession, box, shelf, or other store location used by your staff. 3. The Discovery catalogue identifier. 4. Whether a member of staff has physically checked that the item is in that location: yes, no, or not answered. If yes, who checked it and on what date, and which store. 5. Whether the item is open, closed, or retained by another department, and if closed the series and the FOI route for a closed record. 6. The systems searched, and whether a physical file or plan was retrieved rather than a catalogue-only search. I am not asking you to interpret ownership or to comment on any legal proceedings. Please treat a “not held” answer as incomplete unless you name the systems searched and whether a physical item was retrieved. Please quote this email as the request and give the statutory deadline. Requester Please don’t print this e-mail unless you really need to. ———————————————————————————– National Archives Disclaimer This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it. ————————————————————————————

Freedom of Information Team, Two cases are live: CAS-359317-Q8Q4R9 (Valuation Office field book, plan and index, Glamorgan XLVII.6, Llandough-juxta-Penarth) and CAS-347296-M0V4Y1 (National Farm Survey / MAFF and Glamorgan CWAEC records, c.1936-1950, including Compensation (Defence) Act 1939 material). This is not a new request. It is a preservation flag. The 1988 demolition removed the building; the paper trail is what remains. I am concerned that routine disposal or weeding of IR 58 / IR 121-128 series material, MAFF National Farm Survey records, or CWAEC cultivation and compensation files could remove items before location and physical-check status are confirmed. Please confirm: (1) whether any retention or disposal schedule has been or will be applied to these series in relation to this holding; (2) whether any item has been reported missing, transferred or destroyed; (3) the physical-check status of the Glamorgan XLVII.6 field book and plan as previously requested. Public working evidence catalogue: https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com Title and chronology index: https://dartboard.bucklerfamily.estate and https://bpvsbuckler.bucklerfamily.estate Long-term archive: https://wayback.bucklerfamily.estate Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Freedom of Information Team, Thank you for the reply of 14 October 2026 under case CAS-359317-Q8Q4R9. The reply provides Discovery catalogue search links for Glamorgan XLVII and Penarth field books. It does not answer the location request. Please treat this as a follow-up under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the s.45 code. The original request was a location request only. I am still not asking for a copy, a screen-room appointment, or production until location and physical-check status are confirmed. Please state, for the Valuation Office field book, plan and index covering Ordnance Survey sheet Glamorgan XLVII.6 for the parish of Llandough (Llandough-juxta-Penarth, Glamorgan): 1. The series, piece and item references (IR 58, IR 121, IR 124, IR 125, IR 126, IR 127, IR 128 or successor). 2. The accession, box, shelf or other store location used by staff. 3. The Discovery catalogue identifier. 4. Whether a member of staff has physically checked that the item is in that location: yes, no, or not answered. If yes, who, date, and which store. 5. Whether the item is open, closed or retained by another department, and if closed the series and FOI route. 6. The systems searched, and whether a physical file or plan was retrieved rather than a catalogue-only search. A catalogue-only answer is incomplete unless the systems and physical-check status are stated. Please quote the statutory deadline for this follow-up. Public working evidence catalogue: https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com Title and chronology index: https://dartboard.bucklerfamily.estate and https://bpvsbuckler.bucklerfamily.estate Long-term archive: https://wayback.bucklerfamily.estate Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]

Freedom of Information Team, This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is a location and content request only. It is separate from CAS-347296-M0V4Y1 and its review CAS-356384-B2F5L9. PLEASE NOTE: DUPLICATE PLACE AND FARM NAMES IN GLAMORGAN Glamorgan has two parishes called Llandough, and each had a farm called Great House. IN SCOPE: Llandough-juxta-Penarth (Llandough near Penarth and Cardiff), hundred of [removed]. Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr stood beside St Dochdwy’s church, approx. ST 168 733. OUT OF SCOPE: Llandough-juxta-Cowbridge (Llandough near Cowbridge), and the Great Houses at nearby Llandow and Aberthin. Please do not send or rely on records for the Cowbridge-area places. If an entry says only “Llandough” or “Great House” and the parish cannot be told, please say so rather than assume. Records: 1. E 179/221/297 — Glamorgan hearth tax assessment, c.1663–1667 (possibly 1666), roll of 105 rotulets. 2. E 179/221/294 — Glamorgan hearth tax assessment, [1671], roll of 45 rotulets. Please tell me: (a) For each roll, which rotulet or membrane covers the parish of Llandough-juxta-Penarth ([removed] hundred), if this is recorded in any finding aid, schedule or index you hold. (b) Whether any finding aid, index or transcript you hold lists the householders named for Llandough-juxta-Penarth in either roll, and if so, those names and their hearth counts. (c) Whether either roll is digitised or available on microfilm, and the cost and route for ordering a copy of only that entry. If you consider any of this reasonably accessible by other means under section 21, please say exactly where and how, so I can obtain it. I am not asking to book a reading room visit. Public working evidence catalogue: https://greathousefarmwiki.wordpress.com Title and chronology index: https://dartboard.bucklerfamily.estate and https://bpvsbuckler.bucklerfamily.estate Long-term archive: https://wayback.bucklerfamily.estate Thank you, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]