A controversial case of historic preservation versus modern-day privacy concerns has emerged at the picturesque Middleton Castle estate.
The story begins with a local councillor, Thomas Barclay, who owns a magnificent 15th-century moated castle. Barclay, a Conservative councillor, found himself in a tricky situation with his own authority after erecting fencing around the castle's walls. The reason? To prevent curious onlookers from peering over and photographing the castle, which he rents out for unique Traitors-style experiences.
But here's where it gets interesting...
Barclay applied for retrospective planning permission, acknowledging that he had not sought prior approval for the fencing. However, the councillors refused his application, stating that the fence was an inappropriate boundary treatment for a building of such national importance.
And this is the part most people miss... The planning officers found that the screws drilled into the historic bricks had caused irreversible damage to the structure.
Middleton Castle, or Middleton Towers as it's also known, is a Grade I-listed building dating back to around 1455. It was built by Thomas Scales, a commander during the Hundred Years War. The castle has been in Barclay's family since the 1960s and recently opened its doors to weddings, corporate events, and guest stays.
The castle's website advertises a 'Traitors Experience', promising an atmosphere of deception, strategy, and suspense.
One letter in support of the fencing, written by a relative of Barclay, highlighted the need for privacy for guests, as people often stopped to photograph the castle.
Tom de Winton, a fellow Conservative councillor, acknowledged the privacy concerns, especially for those who might be minor celebrities. However, the majority of councillors were not convinced, with Jim Moriarty of the Independent Partnership stating that the fencing looked unpleasant and inappropriate.
Moriarty went on to say that the application was only before them because Barclay was a councillor, and without that connection, it would have been turned down already.
Barclay, who previously worked as a foreign exchange trader in London, was not present at the meeting to defend his application.
This case raises questions about the balance between preserving our historic sites and accommodating modern-day needs and privacy concerns. Where do you stand on this issue? Feel free to share your thoughts and opinions in the comments below!
