GREAT HOUSE FARM / TŶ MAWR — STATEMENT TO LLANDOUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL
Thursday 22 October 2026, 7.00pm. About three minutes.

Chair, councillors, thank you for allowing me to speak on Item 10.

My grandmother was Mary Williams of Great House Farm, Tŷ Mawr. Our family's case is that its connection to the house goes back to 1667. A 1958 newspaper report and Mary's later statement recorded that claim, but the full chain of occupation and title remains contested. The house was demolished before dawn on 6 December 1988.

I am not asking this Council to decide a land-title dispute or to find that anyone acted improperly. I am asking for the surviving records to be disclosed, preserved and examined, and for Tŷ Mawr to be acknowledged in the history of this community.

First, the heritage. Heneb's Historic Environment Record says the manorial courts of Llandough and Leckwith were held at Great House. The local plan called for the buildings to be retained, but the house was demolished before a complete record of the building was made.

A published archaeological study reports 1,026 early-medieval burials from an excavation in the wider area in 1994. I am not claiming that this proves the burials lay within our particular parcel, or that the monastery's exact location is known. These records make a better account of the wider landscape worthwhile. The Council's published village history does not mention Great House or its demolition.

Second, my grandmother's home and the property records. In February 1983, while Mary was still living there, BP applied to register the farmhouse under a separate title. She died the following month. In February 1987, that title was amalgamated with the adjoining fields while the litigation was continuing. These events should be traced through the original deeds, plans and registration papers.

The family lost the possession proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected our adverse-possession argument, including in light of the 1974 letters. I respect that judgment, and I am not asking this Council to overturn it or determine ownership. My present questions concern the wider conveyance and registration history. They should be tested against the original records, not assumed in our favour.

Third, disclosure. I have made specific records requests to more than twenty bodies. Cadw has supplied two photographs, but a complete 1988 assessment file and a destruction record have not been produced. The Land Registry's schedule of 43 documents does not identify the 1969 deed recited in the title history. A missing record does not, by itself, prove concealment. It does warrant a clear account of what searches were made, what survives and what cannot be found.

So I ask for four practical steps: receive and minute my statement and pack; make Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr a standing agenda item with a named councillor; write to the relevant record-holding bodies in support of disclosure and preservation; and recommend that the Senedd consider an independent inquiry.

We are not seeking anyone's home at Church View Close. We ask for a fair examination of the records and recognition of Tŷ Mawr in our community's history.

Your mission is “Serving our community, preserving our identity”. Tŷ Mawr belongs in that history. Thank you.


SIXTY-SECOND VERSION

Chair, councillors, thank you. Our family's case traces its connection to Great House Farm, Tŷ Mawr, to 1667; that history remains contested, which is why the records matter. The house was demolished before dawn on 6 December 1988. Heneb records the manorial courts of Llandough and Leckwith at Great House. A 1994 excavation in the wider area recorded 1,026 early-medieval burials, but their location within our parcel has not been established. The family lost the possession proceedings, and the Court of Appeal rejected the adverse-possession argument. I am not asking this Council to overturn that judgment. Please minute our statement, make Tŷ Mawr a standing item with a named councillor, support disclosure and preservation, and recommend that the Senedd consider an independent inquiry. We are not seeking anyone's home. Tŷ Mawr belongs in our community's history. Thank you.


THE FOUR ASKS FOR TONIGHT
1. Receive our statement and pack, and minute them.
2. Make Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr a standing item, with a named councillor.
3. Recommend to the Senedd that an independent inquiry be considered.
4. Write to the bodies holding the records in support of disclosure and preservation.


BRIEFING CUE CARD (say the line, move on; expand only if asked)

C1  WHO WE ARE
    SAY: Our family's case traces its connection to Tŷ Mawr to 1667, a date reported in the 1958 press and in Mary's later statement. The full chain of occupation and title remains contested.
    IF ASKED “Weren't you tenants?” The 1939 tenancy plan, now held, depicts the eastern fields only, not the house. Mary refused the tenancies offered for the house.
    AGAINST US: The heritage record says the Vaughans held Great House as the chief freehold farm from the mid-16th to the late 18th century. Both accounts can be true only if the Williamses held under them.
    AGAINST US: A 1904 report says John Williams “succeeded his father in the tenancy of the farm in 1855” (wiki EV-0227): a tenancy, and of “Llandough Farm”, matched to Great House by inference.
    AGAINST US: “Home Farm” appears in no other source, and the 1881 acreage may read 170, closer to the neighbouring Llandough Farm of the Rees family (wiki EV-0228).

C2  WHAT LIES THERE
    SAY: A published study reports 1,026 early-medieval burials from an excavation in the wider area in 1994. It has not been shown that those burials lay within our particular parcel, and the monastery's exact site remains unestablished.
    IF ASKED “Isn't this history already told?” The Council's own village history says 800 burials and does not mention Great House at all.
    AGAINST US: Museum Wales traces the medieval spur and spearhead linked to the “armour” story to Church Farm, 1858, not to Great House.
    AGAINST US: It has not been shown that the 1994 burials lay on the family's own parcel.

C3  MARY'S PARCEL
    SAY: For decades Mary Williams said the house was hers. In February 1983, BP applied to register the farmhouse under a separate title while she lived there; she died the following month. The title was amalgamated with the adjoining fields in February 1987.
    IF ASKED “The register is conclusive.” I accept the register is important. I am asking for the supporting deeds and plans, and a reasoned response from HM Land Registry; I am not asking this Council to decide whether the register is wrong.
    AGAINST US: The 1916 tenancy described the farm as one holding, and later documents repeated that wording.
    AGAINST US: HM Land Registry says there is no evidence of a mistake; its stage-two decision says the title is registered correctly. That decision is with the Independent Complaints Reviewer.

C4  THE COURTS
    SAY: The family lost the possession proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the adverse-possession argument and considered the 1974 letters. I am not asking the Council to retry that case; I am asking for help with disclosure and a full documentary account.
    IF ASKED “The courts have decided this.” They ruled against the family's possession case, including by considering the 1974 letters, and the Strasbourg application was declared inadmissible. I accept those outcomes. My present request is for records to be disclosed and examined, not for this Council to retry the case.
    AGAINST US: The Court of Appeal found the 1974 letters made later occupation permissive, whether or not Mary accepted them.
    AGAINST US: Strasbourg held the interference with William Buckler's home lawful and justified.

C5  THE DISPOSSESSION
    SAY: In 1988 a Welsh family was removed from its home and the house demolished before dawn. It was reported as an eviction.
    IF ASKED “Why has it taken so long?” Witnesses died, papers were lost and the trauma silenced the family. Key records surfaced only in 2026.
    AGAINST US: Press, 1989: one charge was withdrawn as out of time; William Buckler pleaded guilty to the others.

C6  THE HERITAGE ERASED
    SAY: Great House was demolished on 6 December 1988, the day after Cadw refused listing. The local plan called for retention. Cadw has supplied two photographs, but a complete assessment file and a destruction record have not been produced.
    IF ASKED “Missing records prove nothing.” Agreed. Missing records alone do not prove wrongdoing. I ask the bodies concerned to explain what was searched, what survives and what cannot be found.
    AGAINST US: GGAT disclosed its dual role in 1990, recommended recording and protection, and did not advise demolition.
    AGAINST US: Cadw said in 1988 that the house was not of sufficient architectural merit to list.

C7  THE RECORDS WALL
    SAY: More than twenty bodies have received specific records requests over eighteen months. Several identified records remain outstanding; their absence alone does not prove concealment.
    IF ASKED “Isn't this a fishing expedition?” Each request identifies a record or a bounded class of records and seeks a recorded search, not a general trawl. I accept that several bodies have already disclosed material.
    AGAINST US: Several bodies have disclosed material: the Royal Commission, Museum Wales, Cadw's photographs and the Land Registry schedule.
    AGAINST US: A missing record is not, on its own, proof of concealment.

C8  RIGHTS, IDENTITY, PUBLIC INTEREST
    SAY: This is a matter of human rights, Welsh heritage and public interest, not one family's grievance.
    IF ASKED “Why should a community council get involved?” Its own mission is preserving our identity. It is the community's voice to the Senedd and the Vale.
    AGAINST US: Indigenous-rights language is the family's framing; it is not a legal category UK courts currently apply to Wales.

C9  WHAT WE ASK
    SAY: Please minute our statement and pack; make Tŷ Mawr a standing item with a named councillor; support disclosure and preservation; and recommend that the Senedd consider an independent inquiry. We are not seeking anyone's home at Church View Close.
    IF ASKED “What can a community council do?” Record it, write letters, recommend an inquiry, and keep it on the agenda. That is how this starts.