ANCIENT stone on Barnard Castle’s walls may well crumble before action is taken, according to a fearful former town councillor.
John Watson told Barnard Castle’s annual town meeting of his worries over the castle walls amid ongoing negotiations involving English Heritage, Raby Estates, Durham County Council and archaeology experts over their future fate.
Mr Watson rounded on critics of Lord Barnard and his late father over accusations of Raby Estates ignoring its responsibilities with the walls.
“Neither the late Lord Barnard nor the present Lord Barnard are disputing the actual issue of ownership and the probate process is taking its time,” he said.
“The problem is the lack of documentary evidence.”
A fire at Raby Castle destroyed many documents associated with the castle walls years ago at a time when fire-proof storage did not exist.
This was what Mr Watson believed was causing the impasse.
“That’s the nub of it – English Heritage won’t move unless they can be provided with direction,” added Mr Watson.
But the former town councillor feared the walls “might well collapse” before plans to protect the walls were put in place.
The castle walls have been beset by intermittent landslips, cracks and falls in the past decade.
Campaigners from the Castle Walls Trust secured permission from Raby Estates to repair a section of the walls in 2016.
But the cost was estimated at more than £350,000 and when the 11th Lord Barnard passed away in April 2016, repair efforts were slowed by legal processes which are still ongoing.
Resident Bruce Donald remembered a workforce which regularly repaired problems with the walls.
He said: “They used to maintain the wall and maybe about six or seven lads worked in there.
“When they did away with them the walls just fell down.
“Water is bound to bring them down eventually.”
Mr Watson also told residents and councillors he believed the town garden in the castle grounds was a “town asset” as it was on a list of local authority assets he had kept from the days of Teesdale District Council.
He added: “Where it’s been taken off I do not know.
“The town garden was part of a much larger area which survived after Lord Barnard brought in a custodianship arrangement.
“To give him his due, he arranged that we had passes to access the garden.
“All went well until they launched their archaeological study and the leisure area was torn out incrementally.”
Mr Watson wanted the town council to negotiate and keep an eye on the garden with English Heritage.
“It’s still a worthwhile area and not a piece of waste ground – but it needs a review in future,” he added.
Town mayor Cllr Sandra Moorhouse said the garden situation was “in hand” .
![A COUNTY councillor is backing a campaign to get a pedestrian crossing in Staindrop. Frustrated parish councillors in the village summoned their county council representative Cllr George Richardson to their latest meeting to discuss several issues, including the call for a safe way to cross the A688. Earlier this year their request for a crossing was turned down by the county council’s highways officers. Parish council chairman Jonothan Raper described the reasons for the refusal as “spurious” and called on Cllr Richardson to support their campaign. He added: “One of the arguments they made was there is no clear line of desire when they studied the village – well this isn’t a clear line of desire because there isn’t a crossing, people cross whenever they can. “When the lollipop person was there, one of the things I noticed was people would walk all the way down to the lollipop person to cross the road to go to the shop or to go to the school.” He added a problem of parking at the primary school is exacerbated because people are too afraid to walk their children across the road. Cllr Richardson said he had supported previous attempts for a crossing point with the first being made about 15 years ago. He added: “We went fairly well down the road with that and they looked into it. The only recommended place was where the bus stop is and to get the visibility splays, people on the other side of the road would lose their parking. “That didn’t go down well so it just died a death.” Cllr Raper said he suspected the real reason for the officers’ refusal was the cost of installing a crossing. He added that much of the cost could be recovered from savings made on not having to employ a lollipop patrol. Cllr Raper said: “A lollipop person only provides a benefit of crossing for three hours of the day. You are getting 21 extra hours of crossing time [with a pedestrian crossing].” Cllr Richardson said he would raise the issue with the county council’s cabinet member for highways, Cllr John Shuttleworth.](https://teesdalemercury.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/georgeR-120x86.jpg)
