Project Brief

The Project Office › Parcel A (Phase 1) › Project Brief

Parcel A (Phase 1): Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr evidence recovery. Derived from the Project Mandate of 16 October 2026; restructured 18 October; submitted to the Executive, acceptance not yet recorded.

Project definition

Background, objectives, scope, constraints, tolerances, users, interfaces

Background

Great House Farm / Tŷ Mawr, Llandough-juxta-Penarth, part of the Cedwyn Estate. Possession: BP Properties Ltd v Buckler [1987] EWCA Civ 2 (Court of Appeal, 31 July 1987; EV-0080). Farmhouse first registered 1983 (WA240304), merged into WA231076 on 2 February 1987 (EV-0066, pending). Our case is that the judgment should be reopened on grounds of concealment; no court has so found.

Project objectives

TargetObjective
ScopeEvery record or artefact for the estate identified and given a closure status
TimeS0 complete at G0, 18 Dec 2026; no statutory or review deadline missed
Cost£0 cash until free routes are answered; proposed S0 envelope £0–£800
QualityEvery statement cites an evidence page or is marked PENDING / HYPOTHESIS / SOURCE PENDING
BenefitsAn evidence position sufficient to decide whether to apply to reopen the 1987 judgment
RiskNo limitation, preservation or review window lost

Desired outcomes

A complete, auditable evidence position: every item obtained and checked, or closed as destroyed, missing, classified or withheld, or ruled out.

Project scope and exclusions

In

  • The whole Cedwyn Estate, about 40–45 parcels (CH-004); Parcel A is Phase 1.
  • FOI/EIR, subject access requests, complaints, reviews, the Independent Complaints Reviewer.
  • Archive and HM Land Registry copies once free routes are answered.
  • Public record: the wiki and the bucklerfamily.estate sites.
  • Outbound email under the Executive’s authority of 19 and 21 Oct.
  • Research cycle (6-hourly), debrief and send cycles.

Out

  • Farm history and research narrative (kept on the wiki, not in management products).
  • Legal advice; any court step before written advice.
  • Spending before free routes are answered.
  • Publishing personal data or subject access replies.
  • Phone calls and orders by the Project Manager.
  • Other farms of the same name.

Constraints and assumptions

  • Free admin first (Executive, 18 Oct 23:40).
  • One email per body; at most 1–2 per body per day; UK office hours; no cc/bcc.
  • No accusation stated as fact; no threats; no admissions.
  • The Executive is outside the UK: searchroom-only records need a proxy or paid copying.

Project tolerances

Proposed in this brief. Not yet agreed by the Project Board.

AreaProposed toleranceEscalate to
TimeStatutory and review dates: 0 days. Plan dates: +5 working daysExecutive, same day
Cost£0 until free routes are answered; then S0 £0–£800, each spend approvedExecutive, before any spend
ScopeCedwyn Estate onlyRequest for change
Quality0 unsourced statements; 0 banned phrases; 0 unchecked sendsExecutive, same day
BenefitsThe reopen decision at G0 may be “not yet”At G0
RiskAny high/high risk with no responseExecutive, same day
SustainabilityNot set—

Users and other interested parties

Users: the Executive and the family.

Interfaces

HM Land Registry and the Independent Complaints Reviewer; Glamorgan Archives; National Library of Wales; The National Archives; Vale of Glamorgan Council; Llandough Community Council; Cadw / Welsh Government; Heneb; Wales Office; Ministry of Defence; HMCTS / Ministry of Justice; solicitors (not engaged).

Outline business case

Free routes first

No title, remedy or accountability route can be assessed without a complete evidence base. Selected option: free routes first (Executive, 18 Oct). Full case: Business Case.

Project product description

Closure-tested evidence position

Project Product Description: a closure-tested evidence position.

Project approach

Request, follow up, complain; court only after advice
  • Map every route against each holder’s policy and the law; then request, follow up, complain, and apply to court only after legal advice (DEP-03).
  • Catalogue, check provenance and verify everything obtained (evidence pages).
  • Research cycle every 6 hours for new sources.
  • The Executive authorises external contact; the Project Manager researches, drafts and maintains the record.

Project management team structure

One-person Project Board

Project Board: Executive (also Senior User), Senior Supplier. Project Manager reports to the Project Board; Team Managers report to the Project Manager. Project Assurance and Project Support as below.

Role descriptions

8 roles
RoleHolderResponsible for
ExecutiveThe Executive (role holder named in the private record)Owns the Business Case, tolerances, gate decisions and spending; Change Authority
Senior UserThe Executive, for the familyRequirements; accepts products; benefits
Senior SupplierAI research agents; archives and record holders; solicitors if engaged (none engaged)Quality and feasibility of supplier products
Project ManagerAI agent, interim (I-007 open)Plans, registers, reports, work packages within tolerance
Team ManagersAI workers, one per work packageResearch, send, debrief, publishing, catalogue
Project AssuranceBusiness assurance by the Executive; independent reviewer not appointedIndependent check that the record matches its sources; an independent legal reviewer is recommended before any court step
Change AuthorityThe ExecutiveDecides requests for change beyond the Project Manager’s tolerance
Project SupportAI workersProduct Register, registers, backups, filing

References

Mandate and later instructions
  • Project Mandate, 16 Oct 2026, and later instructions 18–19 Oct (recorded as requests for change CH-004 to CH-016 in the Issue Register).
  • Phase 2: Cedwyn Estate (not yet initiated).

PRINCE2 7 outlines: sources · product set · archive