FCG · Our case
Heneb — Forensic Assessment
Chronology and catalogue links — assessed 17-10-2026: Use the Institutional Involvement Roadmap (1877–2026) for the date-ordered institution/people/evidence sequence. Full email dialogue is catalogued at Heneb / HER — Email Correspondence Catalogue.
ASSESSMENT ISOLATION CONTROL — Heneb
Scope: This page assesses only Heneb (The Trust for Welsh Archaeology / Historic Environment Record Team). Other institutions, companies, courts or individuals appear solely as counterparties, sources, predecessors or matters of chronology. Their conduct is assessed on their own pages.
Accountability test: identify the precise act or omission, the source of authority, what record was held, what was disclosed, when, and under what pressure. Documented failure to disclose held material promptly is recorded as such.
Evidence discipline: only linked artefacts and contemporaneous replies. No reconstruction of missing documents. Where the record shows incomplete first response, reactive digitisation after formal request, or continued narrow classification despite the content of the source material itself, that is stated without reservation. 🕒17-10-2026
Heneb — chronological evidence map
Email evidence register — 17 October 2026. The six Heneb / HER Gmail conversations cited on this assessment now have dedicated item-level records: GHF-E183 — source-file request and replies; GHF-E184 — schedule and 16 October response; GHF-E185 — complaint and acknowledgements; GHF-E186 — 1983 warehouse-fire enquiry; GHF-E187 — preservation notice; GHF-E188 — May 2026 FOI position. Source-status caveat: the current descriptions are based on the Wiki’s existing chronology; original Gmail bodies and attachments still need capture and verification. Each item page separates that neutral summary from its interpretation.
Expand the chronological evidence table (11 dated entries)
Every entry links to the corresponding artefact or reply page. Placeholders and missing items are labelled.
| Date / period | Heneb / HER act or record | Direct source |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-2026 | Heneb holds the Historic Environment Record for the former GGAT area, including site record GGAT02038s (Great House Farm, Llandough) and its source file. The online summary on Archwilio classified the site as “POST MEDIEVAL – Farm” and incorporated text from the Suggett December 1988 note. The full source file itself was not publicly digitised. | Archwilio GGAT02038s · Archaeology and Heritage page |
| 22 May 2026 | HER states: “Heneb is not subject to FOI requests as we are a Limited company. However, if you fill out our Enquiry Form then we will be happy to assist as best we can.” | Email catalogue Thread 6 |
| 8 September 2026 | EIR/FOI request to HER Officer seeking the complete HER source file behind GGAT02038s (full entry text, Suggett 1988, museum accession/catalogue slips, distinction of reported finds). | Email catalogue Thread 1 |
| 19 September 2026 | Formal schedule of records sent (item-by-item) to make the request processable. | Email catalogue Thread 2 |
| 24 September 2026 | FOI request concerning the March 1983 fire at the former GGAT warehouse in Neath and any destruction of Llandough finds. | Email catalogue Thread 4 |
| 27 September 2026 | Formal complaint to Heneb concerning HER identifiers and classification of the site (including early-medieval cemetery evidence). | Email catalogue Thread 3 |
| 28 September 2026 | Preservation notice copied to hello@heneb.org.uk and her@heneb.org.uk. | Email catalogue Thread 5 |
| 29 September 2026 | Steven Foulston (HR Manager) acknowledges formal complaint; appointed investigating officer; five-week target. | Email catalogue Thread 3 |
| 6 October 2026 | First substantive reply to 8 Sep request. Points to existing Archwilio summary record 02038s. Does not supply full source-file PDFs. | Email catalogue Thread 1 |
| 10 October 2026 | Family presses for the four specific items and physical record location / confirmation of physical check. | Email catalogue Thread 1 |
| 14 October 2026 | HER states the source file “has now been digitised and uploaded to Archwilio” as PDFs in the Sources section of 02038s (includes Suggett 1988 as held by the HER). Physical search confirmed no further information in the source file. Separate reply on the 19 Sep schedule points promised. | Email catalogue Thread 1 · Direct link to uploaded Suggett 1988 PDF |
| 16 October 2026 | HER response to the 19 Sep schedule of records. Items 1–2 (and others) stated as “publicly available on Archwilio”; remaining items answered collectively as not held or with generic referrals. Confirms former GGAT paper records kept at Baglan; data management policy under review. Does not address ss.194–195 access route under the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 or Heneb’s EIR public-authority status. | Email catalogue Thread 2 |
Documented involvement and implications
Expand the documented findings and reparations relevance
What the record shows, without reservation:
- Held material was not released until after formal pressure. The full HER source file, including the Suggett December 1988 note, existed in Heneb’s custody. It was digitised and uploaded only after the EIR request of 8 September 2026 and further correspondence. The first substantive reply (6 October) did not supply it. That is incomplete first response under the Environmental Information Regulations.
- 38-year delay in public access. A primary source note written in December 1988 about a site demolished amid public controversy remained undigitised and offline until October 2026. For a contested heritage site this is inadequate archival practice.
- No explanation of process or gaps. The 14 October email states the file “has now been digitised and uploaded” but provides no account of earlier search methodology, why digitisation was delayed, or whether any material was lost, weeded or never catalogued.
- Classification remains narrower than the source material itself. GGAT02038s continues to be headed and classified “POST MEDIEVAL – Farm” even though the now-released Suggett note records possible medieval fabric, reported medieval ironwork, and the historic character of the site next to the parish church. The public record does not accurately surface the content of its own source file.
- Release under challenge. Disclosure of the source file occurred only after sustained formal requests and after a complaint about HER identifiers had already been lodged. That sequence is a matter of record.
- 16 October schedule response leaves a practical gap. Generic “publicly available on Archwilio” and collective “not held” answers do not identify the specific record, field or document that answers each numbered item in the 19 September schedule. The former GGAT paper archive at Baglan is confirmed but no catalogue, index or inspection procedure is supplied. Sections 194–195 of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 and Heneb’s EIR status are unanswered.
Liability-relevant note for reparations purposes: The documented failures are process failures under EIR (incomplete first response; delayed release of held environmental information) and archival practice. They establish that held material was not made available promptly. They do not, on the present record, establish that the Suggett note itself was withheld in order to influence the 1988 listing or demolition decisions (the note post-dates the demolition). The ongoing complaint on HER classification remains open (five-week target from 29 September 2026).
Outstanding
Expand the three outstanding items
- Clarification of the 16 October schedule response (specific URLs/identifiers for items said to be public; item-by-item “not held” distinctions; Baglan inspection/index arrangements; ss.194–195 access route; EIR public-authority position).
- Outcome of the formal complaint on HER identifiers and classification (investigating officer Steven Foulston appointed 29 September 2026; five-week target).
- Any further transfer metadata or predecessor-to-successor chain documentation for the inherited GGAT source files and paper collections at Baglan.
Cross-institution boundary: distinguish Heneb’s present custodianship and disclosure conduct from the historic acts of GGAT (1982–1994). Those are assessed on the separate GGAT forensic assessment.
Related navigation: Heneb / HER Email Correspondence Catalogue · FOI & Public-Authority Reply Register · Records Access Chronology · Evidence Library · Archaeology and Heritage
1974 survey, Suggett note and delayed source-file access: relevance to the 1988–89 proceedings
The distinction is between the HER entry’s public citation of R. F. Suggett’s December 1988 note and access to the underlying source-file material. Heneb’s October 2026 correspondence reportedly stated that the source file had been digitised and uploaded to Archwilio. This supports a documented question about access and timing; it does not, by itself, prove that the existence of the note was concealed or that any custodian acted unlawfully.
The HER entry also refers to H. J. Thomas’s 1974 survey, which reportedly identified historic architectural features and considered a possible medieval core, while noting access limitations. The original survey and the Suggett note are distinct records and must not be conflated. The evidential question for the 1988 demolition and the family’s Strasbourg application (14464/88, inadmissibility decision dated 14 April 1989) is whether the survey or its findings were known to the family and their representatives, Cadw, and relevant decision-makers; what was submitted to the Commission; and whether any missing material could have affected a relevant argument.
Limit: historic significance alone did not automatically confer Grade II listing or establish that demolition was unlawful. The surviving material currently identified does not establish what the Commission received or that it would have reached a different decision. Compare the original 1974 survey, the Suggett note and its source-file metadata, the Cadw listing/spot-listing record, the ECHR application and surviving decision, and the planning records. Related records: GHF-E137 — 1974 H. J. Thomas survey; GHF-E183 — Heneb source-file request and replies; GHF-E184 — Heneb schedule of records and response; GHF-E145 — Strasbourg application and decision.
Research update — 1974 survey, HER source-file access and Strasbourg (17 October 2026)
The HER entry GGAT02038s already cited R. F. Suggett’s December 1988 note and referred to H. J. Thomas’s 1974 survey. Heneb reportedly said on 14 October 2026 that the underlying source file had been digitised and uploaded to Archwilio; its 16 October response addressed the schedule of records. The key distinction is between the public HER citation and the later availability of the underlying source-file material. The present evidence does not establish that the existence of the Suggett note was concealed.
The original 1974 survey predates demolition on 6 December 1988; Suggett’s note postdates the demolition. The research question is what the original survey and note actually record, and when those records were available to Cadw, the planning authorities, the family and their representatives. Historic significance does not by itself prove that statutory listing was required or that demolition was unlawful.
Evidence links: GHF-E137 — 1974 survey; GHF-E183 — source-file request and replies; GHF-E184 — schedule and response.
Response Friction Score — 16 October 2026 schedule response
The response is assessed as mixed: it itemises many answers and explains the HER snapshot limitation, while items 3–5 leave a question about the distinction between non-existent snapshots and information held but withheld on data-protection grounds. This is a request for clarification, not a finding that the stated legal basis is invalid. See the message-level score and source transcript.
Page version & change log
Current version: 1.0.0
| Version | Date (UTC) | Editor (human or agent name) | Change | Source / evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0.0 | 2026-10-18T15:28Z | Tab (for Sion Buckler) | Footer standardised; no content change | Editing Protocol, 18 Oct 2026 |
Agents and editors: follow the Editing Protocol.