Senedd Members — correspondence with David Buckler (email)

Hi, I have something below you maybe interested in. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester [signature block trimmed] ———- Forwarded message ——— [quoted text trimmed]

Aelodau Anrhydeddus y Senedd, Rwy’n ysgrifennu atoch i dynnu eich sylw at yr hyn yr wyf yn ei ystyried yn anghyfiawnder hanesyddol difrifol, yn ymwneud â’m teulu, y Bucklers, a dinistr Great House Farm yn Llandough — safle fferm a chartref o dros 800 mlynedd o hanes, gan gynnwys cysylltiadau mynachaidd a chysylltiad uniongyrchol â Guglielmo Marconi yn ystod datblygiad cynnar radio. Mae’r mater hwn yn codi cwestiynau difrifol ynghylch hawliau tir, gweithdrefnau cyfreithiol, cofrestru tir, a hawliau dynol yng Nghymru. Er enghraifft, mewn datganiad i’r wasg yn 1974, dywedodd fy nain yn gyhoeddus: *“It’s my home.”* Mae’r datganiad hwn, sydd yn fater o gofnod cyhoeddus, yn gwrth-ddweud yn uniongyrchol ganfyddiad Llys Apêl 1987 yn *BP v Buckler*, lle dywedwyd ei bod wedi bod yn “ddistaw” ac wedi derbyn trwydded BP a gyhoeddwyd yn 1974. Yn yr un achos, gwrthodwyd apêl fy nhad ar y sail bod BP Pension Trust Ltd a BP Properties Ltd yn “effeithiol yr un cwmni”. Fodd bynnag, yn y dyfarniad yr oedd yn ei herio, nododd y barnwr nad oedd ymatebion fy nain i BP Pension Trust Ltd yn cyfrif gan mai BP Properties Ltd oedd yr hawlydd, ac mai cwmnïau ar wahân oeddent. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Ar y sail hon, rwy’n gofyn yn ffurfiol am *Ddeiseb i sefydlu Ymchwiliad Cyhoeddus* i’r achos hwn, fel mater o ddwyn tir hanesyddol ac o dorri hawliau dynol yng Nghymru. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Ceir honiadau bod sylw sylweddol yn y wasg yn 1974 o blaid fy nain a’n teulu, ynghyd â deiseb o tua 1,700 o bobl yn ceisio atal dymchwel y fferm. Ymhellach, mae’n ymddangos bod CADW wedi methu ag ymyrryd lle dylai’r safle fod wedi cael statws Adeilad Rhestredig Gradd II. Nid wyf yn sicr a gofnodwyd erioed yn briodol yn y Gofrestrfa Tir fod y tir — a gofrestrwyd gan BP yn 1982 — dan anghydfod. Yn fy nealltwriaeth i, cafodd ei drin fel pe na bai mewn anghydfod o gwbl. Nid oes unrhyw lys wedi penderfynu’n derfynol mai BP oedd perchnogion cyfreithiol y tir; cafodd hynny ei honni yn hytrach na’i brofi. Mae hefyd fater pwysig o hanes diwylliannol. Arhosodd Marconi gyda’n teulu yn y fferm wrth iddo ddatblygu radio. Mae cynghorwyr a’r plwyf yn Llandough yn gwrthod cydnabod hyn. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Gofynnaf i’r Senedd gymryd y mater hwn o ddifrif, ac ystyried sefydlu Ymchwiliad Cyhoeddus llawn, tryloyw ac annibynnol. Nid er budd fy nheulu yn unig y mae hyn, ond er uniondeb hanes, cyfiawnder tir, a hawliau dynol yng Nghymru. Yn gywir, *Requester* *—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-* Sirs/Ma’am, I am writing to you regarding a significant historical injustice involving my family, the Bucklers, and the destruction of Great House Farm (an 800-year-old site of monastic and Marconi history). For example, in a 1974 press statement my grandmother said publically ‘It’s my home’—that directly contradicts the 1987 Court of Appeal ruling that she was ‘silent’ and accepted of BP license issued in 1974. My dad’s appeal for the BP vs Buckler 1987 case also got dismissed on grounds both BP Pension Trust Ltd and BP Properties Ltd were effectively the same company. But in the ruling he was appealing, the judge said that my nans replies to BP Pensions Trust Ltd didn’t count as BP Properties Ltd were the claimant, and the two were seperate companies. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am requesting a *Petition for a Public Inquiry* into this case as a matter of historical land theft and human rights violations in Wales. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There was allegedly press covering the 74 case and supporting my nan and family and farm. There was a petition of 1700 people trying to defend us and the farm from demolishment. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I’m not even sure the land registry recorded that our land, being registered in 1982 by BP , was in dispute. I believe it was treated as if it wasn’t dispited. No court actually definitively determined that BP were the landowners. It was just asserted. Marconi stayed with our family at our farm when inventing radio. The councillors and parish at Llandough won’t even acknowledge this. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] But please do not let history be rewritten here. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There’s tens of counts of fraud and concealment from what I can gather. Which means the statute of limitation doesn’t apply in this instance. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I look forward to your reply, Regards, Requester

Aelodau Anrhydeddus y Senedd, Rwy’n ysgrifennu atoch i dynnu eich sylw at yr hyn yr wyf yn ei ystyried yn anghyfiawnder hanesyddol difrifol, yn ymwneud â’m teulu, y Bucklers, a dinistr Great House Farm yn Llandough — safle fferm a chartref o dros 800 mlynedd o hanes, gan gynnwys cysylltiadau mynachaidd a chysylltiad uniongyrchol â Guglielmo Marconi yn ystod datblygiad cynnar radio. Mae’r mater hwn yn codi cwestiynau difrifol ynghylch hawliau tir, gweithdrefnau cyfreithiol, cofrestru tir, a hawliau dynol yng Nghymru. Er enghraifft, mewn datganiad i’r wasg yn 1974, dywedodd fy nain yn gyhoeddus: *“It’s my home.”* Mae’r datganiad hwn, sydd yn fater o gofnod cyhoeddus, yn gwrth-ddweud yn uniongyrchol ganfyddiad Llys Apêl 1987 yn *BP v Buckler*, lle dywedwyd ei bod wedi bod yn “ddistaw” ac wedi derbyn trwydded BP a gyhoeddwyd yn 1974. Yn yr un achos, gwrthodwyd apêl fy nhad ar y sail bod BP Pension Trust Ltd a BP Properties Ltd yn “effeithiol yr un cwmni”. Fodd bynnag, yn y dyfarniad yr oedd yn ei herio, nododd y barnwr nad oedd ymatebion fy nain i BP Pension Trust Ltd yn cyfrif gan mai BP Properties Ltd oedd yr hawlydd, ac mai cwmnïau ar wahân oeddent. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Ar y sail hon, rwy’n gofyn yn ffurfiol am *Ddeiseb i sefydlu Ymchwiliad Cyhoeddus* i’r achos hwn, fel mater o ddwyn tir hanesyddol ac o dorri hawliau dynol yng Nghymru. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Ceir honiadau bod sylw sylweddol yn y wasg yn 1974 o blaid fy nain a’n teulu, ynghyd â deiseb o tua 1,700 o bobl yn ceisio atal dymchwel y fferm. Ymhellach, mae’n ymddangos bod CADW wedi methu ag ymyrryd lle dylai’r safle fod wedi cael statws Adeilad Rhestredig Gradd II. Nid wyf yn sicr a gofnodwyd erioed yn briodol yn y Gofrestrfa Tir fod y tir — a gofrestrwyd gan BP yn 1982 — dan anghydfod. Yn fy nealltwriaeth i, cafodd ei drin fel pe na bai mewn anghydfod o gwbl. Nid oes unrhyw lys wedi penderfynu’n derfynol mai BP oedd perchnogion cyfreithiol y tir; cafodd hynny ei honni yn hytrach na’i brofi. Mae hefyd fater pwysig o hanes diwylliannol. Arhosodd Marconi gyda’n teulu yn y fferm wrth iddo ddatblygu radio. Mae cynghorwyr a’r plwyf yn Llandough yn gwrthod cydnabod hyn. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Gofynnaf i’r Senedd gymryd y mater hwn o ddifrif, ac ystyried sefydlu Ymchwiliad Cyhoeddus llawn, tryloyw ac annibynnol. Nid er budd fy nheulu yn unig y mae hyn, ond er uniondeb hanes, cyfiawnder tir, a hawliau dynol yng Nghymru. Yn gywir, *Requester* *—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-* Sirs/Ma’am, I am writing to you regarding a significant historical injustice involving my family, the Bucklers, and the destruction of Great House Farm (an 800-year-old site of monastic and Marconi history). For example, in a 1974 press statement my grandmother said publically ‘It’s my home’—that directly contradicts the 1987 Court of Appeal ruling that she was ‘silent’ and accepted of BP license issued in 1974. My dad’s appeal for the BP vs Buckler 1987 case also got dismissed on grounds both BP Pension Trust Ltd and BP Properties Ltd were effectively the same company. But in the ruling he was appealing, the judge said that my nans replies to BP Pensions Trust Ltd didn’t count as BP Properties Ltd were the claimant, and the two were seperate companies. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I am requesting a *Petition for a Public Inquiry* into this case as a matter of historical land theft and human rights violations in Wales. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There was allegedly press covering the 74 case and supporting my nan and family and farm. There was a petition of 1700 people trying to defend us and the farm from demolishment. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I’m not even sure the land registry recorded that our land, being registered in 1982 by BP , was in dispute. I believe it was treated as if it wasn’t dispited. No court actually definitively determined that BP were the landowners. It was just asserted. Marconi stayed with our family at our farm when inventing radio. The councillors and parish at Llandough won’t even acknowledge this. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] But please do not let history be rewritten here. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There’s tens of counts of fraud and concealment from what I can gather. Which means the statute of limitation doesn’t apply in this instance. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I look forward to your reply, Regards, Requester

Sirs/Ma’am, Any response about my request for a public enquiry of BP Vs Buckler 1987 and possible fraud & consealment, collusion, conspiracy and deception? Fraud unravels all. And begins when the fraud is discovered, not occured. Yes? Furthermore, I am writing to invite interest in review of a potential coordinated action concerning historic adverse possession cases in England and Wales. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Son of the late defendant, the possibly disspossed and victim of fraud; Mr. William Buckler. Myself and my lawyers and team are investigating circumstances in which long-term occupiers were issued licence letters (often described as “rent-free life licences” or similar instruments) during or after limitation periods, and whether in certain instances such licences may not have constituted legally effective interruption of adverse possession. The investigation concerns cases primarily between 1950 and 2000 where: Long-term occupation had exceeded 12 years; Possession proceedings were either adjourned or unresolved; A licence letter was issued and relied upon to defeat a possessory claim; Questions may arise regarding identity, acceptance, or material disclosure. At this stage, we are seeking: A preliminary view as to whether a coordinated group litigation strategy (GLO or similar) could be viable; Advice on limitation, concealment, and fraud thresholds; Guidance on structured claimant intake if sufficient common issues are identified. This enquiry is investigative only and no public allegations are being made. We are seeking professional assessment before any formal steps are taken. If this is of potential interest, I would welcome a confidential discussion at your convenience. Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Dear Requester, Thank you for your message. Senedd petitions are created and managed through an online system<https://petitions.senedd.wales/petitions/check&gt;, and must meet the standards for petitions<https://senedd.wales/senedd-business/petitions/standards-for-petitions/&gt;, and full rules on proper form<https://petitions.senedd.wales/rules&gt;. We would encourage you to check these first, as a Senedd petition may not be the most appropriate channel to pursue your issue. Cofion/Regards, Lara. ] Lara Date Ail Glerc, Pwyllgor Deisebau, Senedd Cymru Second Clerk, Petitions Committee, Welsh Parliament [disclaimer trimmed]

Lara, Diolch am eich arweiniad. Rwyf wedi mireinio fy mhethos arfaethedig ymhellach er mwyn ehangu ei gwmpas. Mae’n cynnwys nawr alwadau am ymchwiliad i achosion hanesyddol tebyg lluosog yng Nghymru, gan gynnwys archwilio problemau systemig posibl fel twyll, gorthrymu tystiolaeth, neu anwybyddu/gweithio o amgylch gwarchodaethau amaethyddol a threftadaeth mewn anghytundebau meddiannu anghyfreithlon—gan o bosibl atal y cloc cyfyngu ar feddiannu anghyfreithlon yn anghyfreithlon neu yn anghyfansoddiadol—tra’n defnyddio Fferm Great House (BP v Buckler 1987) fel prif enghraifft. Mae’r ffocws yn parhau i fod yn gadarn ar faterion datganoledig: polisi amgylchedd hanesyddol Cymru, gwarchodaethau amaethyddol, rôl CADW, a diwygiadau i fynd i’r afael ag unrhyw fylchau a nodir, heb geisio ailymweld â dyfarniadau llys penodol. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] rwyf wedi ysgrifennu at yr AS presennol a’r Cynghorydd Carroll yn Llandochau; maent yn ymwybodol o’r mater a chredaf eu bod yn edrych i mewn iddo. Os caiff ei fframio fel hyn—gan bwysleisio “dosbarth” posibl o ffermydd/teuluoedd Cymreig yr effeithir arnynt a methiannau polisi ehangach—a ydych chi’n credu y byddai’n bodloni’r safonau’n ddigonol i ennill sylw’r Pwyllgor a mynd ymlaen i gyflwyno/cyhoeddi? Nid yw twyll byth yn rhy bell yn y gorffennol, gan nad yw’r cyfnod cyfyngu yn berthnasol mewn amgylchiadau o’r fath ac fe’i datodolir i gyd yn ôl y gyfraith. Mae hefyd yn gyfyngedig o’r dyddiad y cafodd ei ddarganfod—ac rwyf newydd ei ddarganfod—ac nid o ddyddiad y twyll honedig. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Os na, pa gamau eraill y byddech chi’n eu hargymell (er enghraifft, ymgysylltu ag Aelod o’r Senedd, adrannau Llywodraeth Cymru fel CADW, neu sianeli eraill ar gyfer codi materion systemig tir/amaethyddol)? Byddai unrhyw gyngor ar gryfhau’r geiriad neu’r dystiolaeth ategol yn cael ei werthfawrogi’n fawr cyn i mi gyflwyno. Diolch—mae’r mater hwn o bwysigrwydd sylweddol i gyfanrwydd diwylliannol, amaethyddol a hanesyddol Cymru. Cofion cynhes, Requester [removed] ………………. [SAESNEG/ ENGLISH] ………………… Thanks for your guidance. I’ve further refined my proposed petition to broaden its scope, incorporating calls for an inquiry into multiple similar historical cases in Wales. This includes examining the possibility of systemic issues like fraud, suppression of evidence, or ignoring/working around agricultural and heritage protections in adverse possession disputes—potentially to unlawfully or unconstitutionally stop limitation clock on adverse possession—while using the Great House Farm (BP v Buckler 1987) as a key example. The focus remains on devolved matters: Welsh historic environment policy, agricultural safeguards, CADW’s role, and reforms to address gaps without revisiting specific court judgments. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I have written to the current MP and councillor Carroll in Llandough, they are aware and I trust they are looking into it. If framed this way—emphasizing a possible “class” of affected Welsh farms/families and broader policy failures—do you believe it would meet the standards to gain the Committee’s attention and proceed to submission/publication? Fraud is never too far in the past as the statute of limitation doesn’t apply in such circumstances and furthermore it unravels all according to law. It is also only limited from the date it was discovered and I recently discovered, not from the date of occurrence of the alleged fraud. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Failing that, what alternative steps do you recommend (e.g., approaching a Member of the Senedd, Welsh Government departments like CADW, or other channels for raising systemic land/agricultural issues)? Any advice on strengthening wording or evidence would be appreciated before submission. Thank you—this matter holds significant importance for Welsh cultural, agricultural, and historical integrity. Regards, [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Requester, Diolch am eich neges. Fel dwedodd Lara, y ffordd gorau nawr bydd i greu deiseb trwy ein system arlein. https://deisebau.senedd.cymru/deisebau/gwirio Mwy o manylion yma, Gareth Oddi wrth: Requester <[removed]> Anfonwyd: 17 February 2026 13:32 At: Petitions Committee | Y Pwyllgor Deisebau <[removed]> Pwnc: Re: Cais am Ddeiseb ac Ymchwiliad Cyhoeddus: Achos Buckler v BP (1987) a Dinistr Great House Farm, Llandough / Formal Request for Inquiry: The Great House Farm Dispossession (BP vs Buckler) Lara, Diolch am eich arweiniad. Rwyf wedi mireinio fy mhethos arfaethedig ymhellach er mwyn ehangu ei gwmpas. Mae’n cynnwys nawr alwadau am ymchwiliad i achosion hanesyddol tebyg lluosog yng Nghymru, gan gynnwys archwilio problemau systemig posibl fel twyll, gorthrymu tystiolaeth, neu anwybyddu/gweithio o amgylch gwarchodaethau amaethyddol a threftadaeth mewn anghytundebau meddiannu anghyfreithlon—gan o bosibl atal y cloc cyfyngu ar feddiannu anghyfreithlon yn anghyfreithlon neu yn anghyfansoddiadol—tra’n defnyddio Fferm Great House (BP v Buckler 1987) fel prif enghraifft. Mae’r ffocws yn parhau i fod yn gadarn ar faterion datganoledig: polisi amgylchedd hanesyddol Cymru, gwarchodaethau amaethyddol, rôl CADW, a diwygiadau i fynd i’r afael ag unrhyw fylchau a nodir, heb geisio ailymweld â dyfarniadau llys penodol. Rwy’n cadarnhau bod gennyf gyfeiriad yng Nghymru: [removed]. Rwy’n etholwr yn Nyffryn Morgannwg ac rwyf wedi ysgrifennu at yr AS presennol a’r Cynghorydd Carroll yn Llandochau; maent yn ymwybodol o’r mater a chredaf eu bod yn edrych i mewn iddo. Os caiff ei fframio fel hyn—gan bwysleisio “dosbarth” posibl o ffermydd/teuluoedd Cymreig yr effeithir arnynt a methiannau polisi ehangach—a ydych chi’n credu y byddai’n bodloni’r safonau’n ddigonol i ennill sylw’r Pwyllgor a mynd ymlaen i gyflwyno/cyhoeddi? Nid yw twyll byth yn rhy bell yn y gorffennol, gan nad yw’r cyfnod cyfyngu yn berthnasol mewn amgylchiadau o’r fath ac fe’i datodolir i gyd yn ôl y gyfraith. Mae hefyd yn gyfyngedig o’r dyddiad y cafodd ei ddarganfod—ac rwyf newydd ei ddarganfod—ac nid o ddyddiad y twyll honedig. Er gwaethaf hynny, rydym yn dal yn deulu Cymreig brodorol dadfeddiannol ar ein tir geni hynafiaid. Rydym yn dal yma. Os na, pa gamau eraill y byddech chi’n eu hargymell (er enghraifft, ymgysylltu ag Aelod o’r Senedd, adrannau Llywodraeth Cymru fel CADW, neu sianeli eraill ar gyfer codi materion systemig tir/amaethyddol)? Byddai unrhyw gyngor ar gryfhau’r geiriad neu’r dystiolaeth ategol yn cael ei werthfawrogi’n fawr cyn i mi gyflwyno. Diolch—mae’r mater hwn o bwysigrwydd sylweddol i gyfanrwydd diwylliannol, amaethyddol a hanesyddol Cymru. Cofion cynhes, Requester [removed] ………………. [SAESNEG/ ENGLISH] ………………… Thanks for your guidance. I’ve further refined my proposed petition to broaden its scope, incorporating calls for an inquiry into multiple similar historical cases in Wales. This includes examining the possibility of systemic issues like fraud, suppression of evidence, or ignoring/working around agricultural and heritage protections in adverse possession disputes—potentially to unlawfully or unconstitutionally stop limitation clock on adverse possession—while using the Great House Farm (BP v Buckler 1987) as a key example. The focus remains on devolved matters: Welsh historic environment policy, agricultural safeguards, CADW’s role, and reforms to address gaps without revisiting specific court judgments. And yes I have an address, it’s [removed]. I am a constituent in the Vale of Glamorgan and I have written to the current MP and councillor Carroll in Llandough, they are aware and I trust they are looking into it. If framed this way—emphasizing a possible “class” of affected Welsh farms/families and broader policy failures—do you believe it would meet the standards to gain the Committee’s attention and proceed to submission/publication? Fraud is never too far in the past as the statute of limitation doesn’t apply in such circumstances and furthermore it unravels all according to law. It is also only limited from the date it was discovered and I recently discovered, not from the date of occurrence of the alleged fraud. Notwithstanding we are still an dispossessed indigenous Welsh family on our ancestral birthland. We are still here. Failing that, what alternative steps do you recommend (e.g., approaching a Member of the Senedd, Welsh Government departments like CADW, or other channels for raising systemic land/agricultural issues)? Any advice on strengthening wording or evidence would be appreciated before submission. Thank you—this matter holds significant importance for Welsh cultural, agricultural, and historical integrity. Regards, [signature block trimmed]

Dear Requester Thank you for writing to Heledd. She has asked me to respond on her behalf. We were sorry to read of your difficulties. Unfortunately, we are unable to offer help with your case. From May the 8th Heledd became a Senedd Member for Pontypridd Cynon Merthyr. I used the postcode [removed] to check your constituency with this tool Welsh Parliament<https://constituency.senedd.wales/&gt; and found you live in Pen-y-bont Bro Morgannwg. Your local Senedd Members are: Sarah Rees (Plaid Cymru) Sarah Rees MS<https://senedd.wales/people/sarah-rees-ms/&gt; Andrew RT Davies ( Conservative) Andrew RT Davies MS<https://senedd.wales/people/andrew-rt-davies-ms/&gt; (Copied in already) Sarah Murphy (Labour) [removed] Mark Hooper (Plaid Cymru) [removed] Sarah Cooper-Lesadd (Reform UK) (Sorry I cannot find this address yet) Gareth Thomas (Reform UK) (Sorry I cannot find this address yet) If you check back on the Senedd website tomorrow all addresses should be available. This is the link Find a Member Search<https://senedd.wales/find-a-member-of-the-senedd&gt; I hope this is useful. Yours Sincerely Eleri Eleri Griffiths Rheolwr Polisi, Gwaith Achos ac Ymgyrchu Policy, Casework and Campaigns Manager ] Swyddfa Heledd Fychan AS [address removed] [[removed]]<https://www.facebook.com/HeleddFychanPlaidCymru/&gt; [Llun yn cynnwys testun, olwyn, gêr, awyr y nos Wedi cynhyrchu’r disgrifiad yn awtomatig]<https://twitter.com/heleddfychan&gt; [Icon Description automatically generated]<https://www.instagram.com/heledd_plaid/&gt; Os nad wyf ar gael cysylltwch â / If I am not available please contact [removed] Caiff yr wybodaeth bersonol yr ydych wedi’i darparu ei thrin yn ôl gofynion GDPR. Os ydych am dderbyn copi o’n Hysbysiad Preifatrwydd, mynnwch gopi drwy ymateb i’r e-bost hwn. The personal data you have provided will be treated in accordance with GDPR. If you would like to receive a copy of our GDPR Privacy Notice, you can request one by replying to this email [quoted text trimmed]

Sir/Madam, I write on behalf of myself and my siblings, who are the heirs and successors of Mary Williams of the Williams family, the rightful owners and occupiers of Great House Farm, Llandough, since 1667 until our unlawful, unconstitution and inhumane dispossession by armed force in 1988. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I write to summarise our position regarding the historical and ongoing dispossession of Great House Farm, Llandough, following the landmark legal case *BP v Buckler* [1987], which I allege involved: – **Denial of the right to be heard by the Land Registry.** My grandmother, Mary Williams (falsely named “Mrs Buckler” on the licence letter produced by BP in 1974, in order to diminish the Williams ancestral superior land claim), conveniently died while our family was in mourning during the limited window granted by the Land Registry to challenge BP’s registration of our land and property in their name in 1982/83. Similarly, my grandfather died before he was able to clarify—even to my grandmother—how her fee simple absolute title deed ended up in BP’s possession. Until her dying breath, she maintained her ownership claim, despite repeated unlawful attempts over decades to dislodge the firm position she held regarding her and our undisputed ancestral and superior land claim. The official records and narrative are wrong; there are court errors, suppressed evidence, procedural unfairness, fraud, and the list goes on. The *BP v Buckler* [1987] ruling applied the licence my deceased grandmother held to my father and mother. They never had, nor entered into, any such agreement with BP. The ruling also alleged that my grandmother accepted BP’s licence letters by non-response, which was untrue. It further stated that any objection should have been directed to the BP Pension Trust rather than the claimant, BP Properties, which were deemed separate companies. Yet in my father’s subsequent appeal against the *BP v Buckler* ruling, his appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the BP companies were effectively the same—so “heads BP wins, tails we lose.” Our 800-year-old home was then demolished and all money and possessions removed, despite a court injunction ordering that nothing be removed. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Other media coverage alleged by UK courts to exist from 1974 seems non-existent or suppressed too. Much is behind paywalls. This whole case needs to be in the public eye. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Fraud and procedural unfairness are ultimately rampant in the case of my family’s dispossession. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I still have major concerns regarding how the MOJ took months to respond only to fob me off last week; how the MP fobbed me off and will not provide a proper response; how CADW and Llandough Parish allege this is nothing to do with them, despite CADW failing to list the farmhouse as Grade II so it could be demolished (as per a 1,700-signature petition, which was practically the whole town at the time); the current councillor for Llandough failing to reply properly; and the fact that the National Archives report gaps, missing records, and suppressed records. Notwithstanding that Marconi was staying with us while inventing radio, and the town will not even put a plaque up to commemorate this, which is further erasure of the history and known (but suppressed) archaeological and historic significance of the site. In BP’s planning application records, they state that our 800-year-old former courthouse home was merely an old, dilapidated building. Notwithstanding the suppression of the 1870 Roman soldier remains we discovered when changing our floor from stone to timber, also suppressed to hide the site’s archaeological significance so that housing development could be unlawfully approved. BP did not even seek a ruling on ownership; they only sought possession, most likely so that the discovery and significance of the site’s archaeology could be pretended not to be known until the excavation of our land in 1994[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There are court errors too. The fancy Latin words diminish and falsely describe my grandmother’s land claim and superior ownership (it was “older than man can remember,” not merely a “claim to the land”). The language used by the court clearly demonstrates bias prior to the ruling—language implying that my late grandmother, Mrs Williams (*not* Mrs Buckler, as they falsely named her in document fraud), was imagining her ancestral superior land claim, in order to discredit her through carefully selected judicial wording. My siblings and I remain the heirs and successors and landowners. Nothing has lawfully broken or undone that claim. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There should be a Senedd public inquiry into this. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] In 1667 we acquired the land and property in a 999-year lease (virtual freehold). In the early 1900s we obtained the superior paper title—free and clear, outright equitable ownership—via the deal with Bute Estate quarryman Daniel Thomas, which led to the tree-planting ceremony to affirm this in history. *(See attached.)* Frederick Buckler’s transfer of Mrs Williams’s equitable title to BP and their predecessors, without her knowledge or consent, is not legitimate and should never have stood, nor does it stand to reason. His inability to clarify the details of the alleged transaction due to his convenient death afterwards does not make it right, as Mary Williams maintained her position after his death. It was never his title to sell, even if he did. My grandmother was left unable to prove her standing, and the 1974 hearing was adjourned. The dismissal of the second hearings in 1974 due to the licence letter issued by BP (resorting to identity and document fraud) does not negate the fact that there was never a ruling stating BP owned our land, despite their purchasing my grandmother’s stolen fee simple absolute title deed. BP only ever sought possession. They could not obtain a ruling because it would have meant discovery, unveiling the archaeological significance that would have prevented land and housing development. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] **Summary of the Fraudulent Dispossession:** **The Title Theft:** Evidence supports that a “Title-for-Quarrying” agreement existed with Daniel Thomas of the Bute Estate. We obtained this fee simple absolute title lawfully, but it was later secretly and fraudulently taken and sold back to Bute / Western Ground Rents / BP without the knowledge or consent of the rightful owner, Mary Williams. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] **Procedural Fraud (The 1974 Licence):** The 1987 Court of Appeal ruling was predicated on a unilateral “licence letter” issued by the landlords’ solicitors. We reject this ruling. It should be set aside on grounds of fraud. **Identity Erasure:** Throughout all legal proceedings, Mary Williams was intentionally misidentified as “Mrs Buckler.” This was a calculated tactic to strip her of her ancestral “Williams” lineage and the superior land rights and claim associated with it. **Exploitation of Mortality:** – **Frederick Buckler:** Died before the circumstances of how Mary was dispossessed of her title—and how the other parties regained possession after the lawful Daniel Thomas (and/or Anthony Williams) dealings with Bute Estate—could be clarified. This is inconsequential, much like Mary’s own death; neither changed her position on the matter, which she did voice, despite what the 1987 ruling falsely alleges. – **Mary Williams:** Died during the precise two-week window required to rebut the Land Registry’s registration of the land in BP’s name—a window we believe was exploited to finalise this theft. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] **Our Position:** The Williams family (now the Buckler family) has never ceased our claim. We maintain that the land was taken through criminal stealth and that the current registered titles are poisoned by this original fraud. We seek full reparations for the loss of ancestral wealth, the destruction of the Roman archaeological site on the property, and the systematic denial of our right to a fair trial. Please provide a formal response and update regarding your position on this matter within 14 days. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Marconi was staying with us in Llandough when he invented radio. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, **Requester** [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] On behalf of and as one of the Heirs and Successors of Mary Williams, Great House Farm, Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan —

Sirs/ Ma’ams, I write on behalf of myself and my siblings, who are the heirs and successors of Mary Williams of the Williams family, the rightful owners and occupiers of Great House Farm, Llandough, since 1667 until our unlawful, unconstitution and inhumane dispossession by armed force in 1988. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I write to summarise our position regarding the historical and ongoing dispossession of Great House Farm, Llandough, following the landmark legal case *BP v Buckler* [1987], which I allege involved: – **Denial of the right to be heard by the Land Registry.** My grandmother, Mary Williams (falsely named “Mrs Buckler” on the licence letter produced by BP in 1974, in order to diminish the Williams ancestral superior land claim), conveniently died while our family was in mourning during the limited window granted by the Land Registry to challenge BP’s registration of our land and property in their name in 1982/83. Similarly, my grandfather died before he was able to clarify—even to my grandmother—how her fee simple absolute title deed ended up in BP’s possession. Until her dying breath, she maintained her ownership claim, despite repeated unlawful attempts over decades to dislodge the firm position she held regarding her and our undisputed ancestral and superior land claim. The official records and narrative are wrong; there are court errors, suppressed evidence, procedural unfairness, fraud, and the list goes on. The *BP v Buckler* [1987] ruling applied the licence my deceased grandmother held to my father and mother. They never had, nor entered into, any such agreement with BP. The ruling also alleged that my grandmother accepted BP’s licence letters by non-response, which was untrue. It further stated that any objection should have been directed to the BP Pension Trust rather than the claimant, BP Properties, which were deemed separate companies. Yet in my father’s subsequent appeal against the *BP v Buckler* ruling, his appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the BP companies were effectively the same—so “heads BP wins, tails we lose.” Our 800-year-old home was then demolished and all money and possessions removed, despite a court injunction ordering that nothing be removed. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Other media coverage alleged by UK courts to exist from 1974 seems non-existent or suppressed too. Much is behind paywalls. This whole case needs to be in the public eye. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Fraud and procedural unfairness are ultimately rampant in the case of my family’s dispossession. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I still have major concerns regarding how the MOJ took months to respond only to fob me off last week; how the MP fobbed me off and will not provide a proper response; how CADW and Llandough Parish allege this is nothing to do with them, despite CADW failing to list the farmhouse as Grade II so it could be demolished (as per a 1,700-signature petition, which was practically the whole town at the time); the current councillor for Llandough failing to reply properly; and the fact that the National Archives report gaps, missing records, and suppressed records. Notwithstanding that Marconi was staying with us while inventing radio, and the town will not even put a plaque up to commemorate this, which is further erasure of the history and known (but suppressed) archaeological and historic significance of the site. In BP’s planning application records, they state that our 800-year-old former courthouse home was merely an old, dilapidated building. Notwithstanding the suppression of the 1870 Roman soldier remains we discovered when changing our floor from stone to timber, also suppressed to hide the site’s archaeological significance so that housing development could be unlawfully approved. BP did not even seek a ruling on ownership; they only sought possession, most likely so that the discovery and significance of the site’s archaeology could be pretended not to be known until the excavation of our land in 1994[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There are court errors too. The fancy Latin words diminish and falsely describe my grandmother’s land claim and superior ownership (it was “older than man can remember,” not merely a “claim to the land”). The language used by the court clearly demonstrates bias prior to the ruling—language implying that my late grandmother, Mrs Williams (*not* Mrs Buckler, as they falsely named her in document fraud), was imagining her ancestral superior land claim, in order to discredit her through carefully selected judicial wording. My siblings and I remain the heirs and successors and landowners. Nothing has lawfully broken or undone that claim. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There should be a Senedd public inquiry into this. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] In 1667 we acquired the land and property in a 999-year lease (virtual freehold). In the early 1900s we obtained the superior paper title—free and clear, outright equitable ownership—via the deal with Bute Estate quarryman Daniel Thomas, which led to the tree-planting ceremony to affirm this in history. *(See attached.)* Frederick Buckler’s transfer of Mrs Williams’s equitable title to BP and their predecessors, without her knowledge or consent, is not legitimate and should never have stood, nor does it stand to reason. His inability to clarify the details of the alleged transaction due to his convenient death afterwards does not make it right, as Mary Williams maintained her position after his death. It was never his title to sell, even if he did. My grandmother was left unable to prove her standing, and the 1974 hearing was adjourned. The dismissal of the second hearings in 1974 due to the licence letter issued by BP (resorting to identity and document fraud) does not negate the fact that there was never a ruling stating BP owned our land, despite their purchasing my grandmother’s stolen fee simple absolute title deed. BP only ever sought possession. They could not obtain a ruling because it would have meant discovery, unveiling the archaeological significance that would have prevented land and housing development. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] **Summary of the Fraudulent Dispossession:** **The Title Theft:** Evidence supports that a “Title-for-Quarrying” agreement existed with Daniel Thomas of the Bute Estate. We obtained this fee simple absolute title lawfully, but it was later secretly and fraudulently taken and sold back to Bute / Western Ground Rents / BP without the knowledge or consent of the rightful owner, Mary Williams. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] **Procedural Fraud (The 1974 Licence):** The 1987 Court of Appeal ruling was predicated on a unilateral “licence letter” issued by the landlords’ solicitors. We reject this ruling. It should be set aside on grounds of fraud. **Identity Erasure:** Throughout all legal proceedings, Mary Williams was intentionally misidentified as “Mrs Buckler.” This was a calculated tactic to strip her of her ancestral “Williams” lineage and the superior land rights and claim associated with it. **Exploitation of Mortality:** – **Frederick Buckler:** Died before the circumstances of how Mary was dispossessed of her title—and how the other parties regained possession after the lawful Daniel Thomas (and/or Anthony Williams) dealings with Bute Estate—could be clarified. This is inconsequential, much like Mary’s own death; neither changed her position on the matter, which she did voice, despite what the 1987 ruling falsely alleges. – **Mary Williams:** Died during the precise two-week window required to rebut the Land Registry’s registration of the land in BP’s name—a window we believe was exploited to finalise this theft. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] **Our Position:** The Williams family (now the Buckler family) has never ceased our claim. We maintain that the land was taken through criminal stealth and that the current registered titles are poisoned by this original fraud. We seek full reparations for the loss of ancestral wealth, the destruction of the Roman archaeological site on the property, and the systematic denial of our right to a fair trial. Please provide a formal response and update regarding your position on this matter within 14 days. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Marconi was staying with us in Llandough when he invented radio. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, **Requester** [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] On behalf of and as one of the Heirs and Successors of Mary Williams, Great House Farm, Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan —

Hi Requester I used your correct postcode and you are actually in a Caerdydd Penarth NOT Penybont Bro Morgannwg so the contacts in the previous email are wrong. Your Senedd Members are Leticia Gonzalez MS Plaid Cymru ( no known email yet) Anna Brychan MS Plaid Cymru [removed] Kiera Marshall MS Plaid Cymru (no known email yet) Huw Thomas ( Labour) No known email yet Joe Martin (Reform UK) [removed] Sorry for giving you the incorrect information – for your interest the postcode was provided by Royal Mail Postcode finder when I typed in the address of Great House Farm. Best wishes Eleri [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]

Thanks, Regards, Requester [quoted text trimmed]

Sirs/ Ma’ams, I write on behalf of myself and my siblings, who are the heirs and successors of the late Mary Williams of the Williams family, the rightful owners and occupiers of Great House Farm, Llandough, since 1667 until our unlawful, [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] dispossession by armed force in 1988. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I write to summarise our position regarding the historical and ongoing dispossession of Great House Farm, Llandough, following the landmark legal case *BP v Buckler* [1987], which I allege involved a myriad of fraud, theft, crimes and proceedural unfairness, gaps in records, supressed and concealed records, human rights violations and [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] – **Denial of the right to be heard by the Land Registry.** My grandmother, Mary Williams (falsely named “Mrs Buckler” on the licence letter produced by BP in 1974, in order to diminish the Williams ancestral superior land claim), conveniently died while our family was in mourning during the limited window granted by the Land Registry to challenge BP’s registration of our land and property in their name in 1982/83. Similarly, my grandfather died before he was able to clarify—even to my grandmother—how her fee simple absolute title deed ended up in BP’s possession. Until her dying breath, she maintained her ownership claim, despite repeated unlawful attempts over decades to dislodge the firm position she held regarding her and our undisputed ancestral and superior land claim. The official records and narrative are wrong; there are court errors, suppressed evidence, procedural unfairness, fraud, and the list goes on. The *BP v Buckler* [1987] ruling applied the licence my deceased grandmother held to my father and mother. They never had, nor entered into, any such agreement with BP. The ruling also alleged that my grandmother accepted BP’s licence letters by non-response, which was untrue. It further stated that any objection should have been directed to the BP Pension Trust rather than the claimant, BP Properties, which were deemed separate companies. Yet in my father’s subsequent appeal against the *BP v Buckler* ruling, his appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the BP companies were effectively the same—so “heads BP wins, tails we lose.” Our 800-year-old home was then demolished and all money and possessions removed, despite a court injunction ordering that nothing be removed. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Other media coverage alleged by UK courts to exist from 1974 seems non-existent or suppressed too. Much is behind paywalls. This whole case needs to be in the public eye. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Fraud and procedural unfairness are ultimately rampant in the case of my family’s dispossession. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] I still have major concerns regarding how the MOJ took months to respond only to fob me off last week; how the MP fobbed me off and will not provide a proper response; how CADW and Llandough Parish allege this is nothing to do with them, despite CADW failing to list the farmhouse as Grade II so it could be demolished (as per a 1,700-signature petition, which was practically the whole town at the time); the current councillor for Llandough failing to reply properly; and the fact that the National Archives report gaps, missing records, and suppressed records. Notwithstanding that Marconi was staying with us while inventing radio, and the town will not even put a plaque up to commemorate this, which is further erasure of the history and known (but suppressed) archaeological and historic significance of the site. In BP’s planning application records, they state that our 800-year-old former courthouse home was merely an old, dilapidated building. Notwithstanding the suppression of the 1870 Roman soldier remains we discovered when changing our floor from stone to timber, also suppressed to hide the site’s archaeological significance so that housing development could be unlawfully approved. BP did not even seek a ruling on ownership; they only sought possession, most likely so that the discovery and significance of the site’s archaeology could be pretended not to be known until the excavation of our land in 1994[personal passage omitted — not about the farm case]. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There are court errors too. The fancy Latin words diminish and falsely describe my grandmother’s land claim and superior ownership (it was “older than man can remember,” not merely a “claim to the land”). The language used by the court clearly demonstrates bias prior to the ruling—language implying that my late grandmother, Mrs Williams (*not* Mrs Buckler, as they falsely named her in document fraud), was imagining her ancestral superior land claim, in order to discredit her through carefully selected judicial wording. My siblings and I remain the heirs and successors and landowners. Nothing has lawfully broken or undone that claim. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] There should be a Senedd public inquiry into this. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] In 1667 we acquired the land and property in a 999-year lease (virtual freehold). In the early 1900s we obtained the superior paper title—free and clear, outright equitable ownership—via the deal with Bute Estate quarryman Daniel Thomas, which led to the tree-planting ceremony to affirm this in history. *(See attached.)* Frederick Buckler’s transfer of Mrs Williams’s equitable title to BP and their predecessors, without her knowledge or consent, is not legitimate and should never have stood, nor does it stand to reason. His inability to clarify the details of the alleged transaction due to his convenient death afterwards does not make it right, as Mary Williams maintained her position after his death. It was never his title to sell, even if he did. My grandmother was left unable to prove her standing, and the 1974 hearing was adjourned. The dismissal of the second hearings in 1974 due to the licence letter issued by BP (resorting to identity and document fraud) does not negate the fact that there was never a ruling stating BP owned our land, despite their purchasing my grandmother’s stolen fee simple absolute title deed. BP only ever sought possession. They could not obtain a ruling because it would have meant discovery, unveiling the archaeological significance that would have prevented land and housing development. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] **Summary of the Fraudulent Dispossession:** **The Title Theft:** Evidence supports that a “Title-for-Quarrying” agreement existed with Daniel Thomas of the Bute Estate. We obtained this fee simple absolute title lawfully, but it was later secretly and fraudulently taken and sold back to Bute / Western Ground Rents / BP without the knowledge or consent of the rightful owner, Mary Williams. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] **Procedural Fraud (The 1974 Licence):** The 1987 Court of Appeal ruling was predicated on a unilateral “licence letter” issued by the landlords’ solicitors. We reject this ruling. It should be set aside on grounds of fraud. **Identity Erasure:** Throughout all legal proceedings, Mary Williams was intentionally misidentified as “Mrs Buckler.” This was a calculated tactic to strip her of her ancestral “Williams” lineage and the superior land rights and claim associated with it. **Exploitation of Mortality:** – **Frederick Buckler:** Died before the circumstances of how Mary was dispossessed of her title—and how the other parties regained possession after the lawful Daniel Thomas (and/or Anthony Williams) dealings with Bute Estate—could be clarified. This is inconsequential, much like Mary’s own death; neither changed her position on the matter, which she did voice, despite what the 1987 ruling falsely alleges. – **Mary Williams:** Died during the precise two-week window required to rebut the Land Registry’s registration of the land in BP’s name—a window we believe was exploited to finalise this theft. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] **Our Position:** The Williams family (now the Buckler family) has never ceased our claim. We maintain that the land was taken through criminal stealth and that the current registered titles are poisoned by this original fraud. We seek full reparations for the loss of ancestral wealth, the destruction of the Roman archaeological site on the property, and the systematic denial of our right to a fair trial. Please provide a formal response and update regarding your position on this matter within 14 days. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Marconi was staying with us in Llandough when he invented radio. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] Regards, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] On behalf of (and as one of) the Heirs and Successors of Mary Williams, Great House Farm, Manor of Llandough, Vale of Glamorgan —

*Editor / Investigations Desk* Dear Editor, I am writing to ask your investigations team to examine what I believe is a significant public-interest story involving one of the most influential adverse possession cases in modern English and Welsh property law: *BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] 2 EGLR 168* (also reported as *(1988) 55 P & CR 337*). This Court of Appeal decision continues to be cited in legal textbooks and case law. It established that a unilateral letter from the paper title owner granting a rent-free licence could prevent adverse possession, even where the occupier had not expressly accepted it. The case has shaped property law for almost forty years. My concern is not simply with the legal judgment itself. It is with what surrounded it. For several years I have been investigating the history of my family’s occupation of *Great House Farm, Llandough, near Penarth*, and the events leading to the litigation. Through hundreds of Freedom of Information requests, archive searches, Land Registry enquiries, historical research and correspondence with public authorities, I have uncovered what I believe are serious inconsistencies, missing records and evidence of institutional concealment that deserve independent scrutiny. Among the matters that I believe warrant investigation are: – Whether material evidence relating to the occupation and ownership of Great House Farm was withheld or never presented. – The circumstances surrounding the registration of title by BP interests in 1982 despite the long-running dispute. – Missing or unexplained historical records across multiple public bodies. – Whether public authorities have failed to preserve records concerning a nationally significant legal case. – Whether subsequent institutions have frustrated attempts to obtain records through Freedom of Information legislation. – The wider implications if a leading legal precedent was built upon an incomplete or inaccurate factual record. My investigation has revealed repeated examples of authorities either claiming records do not exist, directing me elsewhere, or providing documents unrelated to the requests made. Numerous archives acknowledge gaps where relevant material would ordinarily be expected. I have also experienced what I believe to be persistent obstruction. My elected representatives have failed to engage despite repeated requests. Complaints have been redirected without investigation. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] This story extends far beyond a private family dispute. It concerns: – whether powerful institutions have been properly held accountable; – preservation of public records; – transparency within government; – the development of UK property law; – the treatment of ordinary families in litigation against major corporations; – and whether historical injustices can remain effectively hidden because records disappear over time. The human story is equally compelling. My family lived through decades of litigation, uncertainty and eventual displacement. The farmhouse was ultimately demolished, ending centuries of family association with the property. [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] My brother and I are now attempting to reconstruct the historical record before more evidence disappears. The property itself has remarkable historical significance. Great House Farm has connections with the historic Bute Estate, archaeological discoveries including Roman remains, and local accounts associated with the pioneering wireless experiments at Lavernock Point during the Marconi era. Yet the legal battle that made national case law has largely eclipsed that wider history. This investigation is supported by: – extensive documentary evidence; – Land Registry correspondence; – Freedom of Information responses from multiple public authorities; – archive references from national and local repositories; – court documents; – historical maps; – newspaper reports; – and a detailed chronology spanning more than a century. I have also recorded my testimony explaining the evidence, chronology and impact on my family: https://youtu.be/XuArB_vYWWA?si=O7TL2i5ocU3vn5fG I am prepared to provide your journalists with a fully indexed evidence archive, original source documents, timelines, witness information where available, and copies of all official correspondence. I am *not* asking your newspaper to accept my conclusions without question. I am asking you to investigate. If my concerns are unfounded, they should be capable of being disproved through proper scrutiny. If they are substantiated, they raise serious questions about one of the UK’s leading property law authorities, institutional accountability, public record keeping and the treatment of an ordinary family whose story has never properly been told. This is not simply a historical dispute. It is a story about how legal precedents are created, how power operates, whether the historical record can be trusted, and whether ordinary citizens can ever obtain accountability decades after the events in question. I believe it is exactly the kind of investigation that serves the public interest. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with one of your investigative journalists and provide unrestricted access to the evidence I have assembled. *Yours faithfully,* *Requester* [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [signature block trimmed]

Dear Ms James, Thank you for your response confirming the Committee’s position. I acknowledge the Committee’s decision not to take the matter forward. For the record, however, my position remains that the issues raised concern the absence, retention and preservation of the administrative record of Cadw’s 1988 assessment, and the resulting implications for public accountability and the ability to scrutinise significant historical heritage decisions. My correspondence was never intended to ask the Committee to adjudicate the 1988 decision, reopen the original assessment, or intervene in the underlying historical dispute. The specific concern was the near-total absence of the administrative record, as confirmed by Cadw’s FOI response ATISN 27021, and what that absence means for the integrity and scrutiny of the historical public record. I note the routes identified in your correspondence and will now pursue these governance and archival matters through the appropriate administrative and complaints processes and, where appropriate, the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales and relevant archival authorities. I will retain this correspondence as part of the documentary record demonstrating that these concerns were formally raised with the Senedd’s relevant scrutiny committee and that the Committee declined to take the matter forward. Thank you for clarifying the Committee’s procedural position. Yours sincerely, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Haidee, Thanks. I am also asking the Senedd to consider whether the circumstances surrounding the demolition of Great House Farm, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, and the subsequent planning and heritage history of the site warrant independent scrutiny and, ultimately, a public inquiry or Senedd committee inquiry. I am not asking the Senedd to determine a private property dispute or to decide legal questions that properly belong before the courts. My concern is the conduct, decision-making, record-keeping and accountability of public bodies responsible for heritage protection, planning and local government. The surviving evidence presents a series of unusually important questions. Great House Farm was professionally surveyed by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales in 1974. In December 1988, Cadw was considering the building for emergency spot-listing, with a contemporary report stating that inspectors were due to visit and consider the case. The European Commission of Human Rights records that the Convention application had been introduced on 3 May 1988; BP obtained possession on 29 November 1988; demolition began on 6 December 1988; and the application was not registered by the Commission until 12 December 1988. The evidence therefore establishes a very compressed sequence in which emergency heritage protection was being considered, domestic interim relief was refused, possession was obtained and the building was then destroyed within days. That chronology does not, by itself, establish coordination, deliberate suppression or unlawful conduct. It does, however, warrant investigation. There are several specific questions which I believe require answers from an authority independent of the present local authority: 1. What information and records were actually considered by Cadw when the 1988 spot-listing decision was made? 2. Was the 1974 RCAHMW architectural survey considered, and if not, why not? 3. What communications took place between Cadw, South Glamorgan County Council, BP Properties Ltd, the courts and any other public bodies during the critical period immediately preceding demolition? 4. What consideration was given by the local planning authority to the available statutory powers of preservation in circumstances where demolition was imminent? 5. Why was the building destroyed before there could be an independent retrospective architectural examination of the fabric? 6. How should the later archaeological evidence, including the discovery of approximately 1,026 burials in 1994, be understood in assessing the historic significance of the site and the adequacy of the earlier decision-making? I recognise that this later discovery cannot retrospectively prove that the 1988 listing decision was unlawful. 7. A 1989 planning document appears to describe the site as having formerly contained Great House Farm “(a listed building)”. I ask that this apparent discrepancy be investigated and reconciled with the 1988 Cadw decision. 8. What records relating to these decisions still exist, where are they held, and have reasonable steps been taken to preserve and disclose them? I am particularly concerned that the destruction of the physical building in December 1988 permanently removed primary architectural evidence which could otherwise have been examined independently. I also ask the Senedd to consider the wider public-interest question: whether the present mechanisms for accountability are adequate where a historic building is destroyed during a period of rapidly developing legal, planning and heritage proceedings and significant questions remain about what information was available to decision-makers. I would therefore ask the Petitions Committee to consider accepting a petition on this subject and, where appropriate, referring the matter to the relevant Senedd committee or committees for investigation. I would also welcome consideration of whether an independent public inquiry, committee inquiry or other form of external investigation would be appropriate. I am prepared to provide the underlying documents, chronology, court material, heritage records, planning documents and correspondence supporting these questions. I am not asking the Senedd to adopt my conclusions. I am asking that the evidence and unanswered questions be examined independently and that the relevant public bodies be required to account for what they did, what they knew, and what records exist. Please confirm the appropriate route for submitting this formally to the Senedd and whether the material can be referred to the Petitions Committee for consideration. Yours faithfully, Requester [personal passage omitted — not about the farm case] [quoted text trimmed]

Dear Requester, Your correction is noted with thanks. Kind regards, Haidee ] Haidee James] Ail Glerc, Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Cyfathrebu, y Gymraeg a Chwaraeon, Senedd Cymru [signature block trimmed] [quoted text trimmed]