Though Miket suggests this site is the same as no. 154 this seems unlikely since the latter is described as 6 ft from the base on the N side of the S peak. One must suppose the erection of the trig pillar would damage the mound considerably but a geophysical survey might reveal something.

Nothing specific to this find. In general see under no. 154.

No legal human disturbance taking place on tops, but possibly some erosion - there is exposed rock in places on the S hill. Perhaps some poking by geologists lower down, and litter in bushes typical of the urban fringe. Anthony Harding rejected the idea of a geophysical survey as too difficult.

Antiquity of Monkton is confirmed by its street plan and listed buildings. Gap site on N side was carefully filled; W end S side not so.

It is assumed to be covered by the later platform of Clifford's Fort so unless this was removed, or one was very lucky in a small excavation, it is not likely to be found.

This site is masked by badly sited fish-processing etc. buildings, and is prone to vandalism. It requires further consolidation and excavation, constant cleaning, regular monitoring of the fabric, proper display and interpretation. Listed on English Heritage's Register of Buildings at Risk 2002. Listed as being in "poor" condition. Priority C. "Curtain wall survives much masked by later buildings, and is in poor condition. Suffering from vandalism and neglect and threatened by unauthorised works" {EH 2002}. Conservation plan has been prepared by North East Civic Trust. First phase of a programme of works to reveal and conserve the artillery defences was completed in March 2003. The buried artillery positions have been re-opened, having been bricked up in the 1880s when the fort was a base for the River Tyne Submarine Engineers (see HER 150). Behind the brick walls in the embrasures, large quantities of pottery waste from the nearby Low Lights Pottery was found. Future repair work will consolidate the remainder of the sea-ward wall. In 2004 the Loaded Mine Stores and Mine Loading Rooms were archaeologically recorded in advance of conversion. In 2005 two trenches were excavated against the inner and outer faces of the Riverside Battery of the Fort. The aim of the first trench was to ascertain the degree of survival of the sunken mining tramway and associated features and to find any evidence of the inner revetment wall of the original Fort. The second trench was positioned to establish the depth and profile of a postulated exterior ditch, and the depth below present ground level of the foundations of the Fort and counterscarp walls. The evaluation established that the original inner revetment still existed, although severely truncated by the construction of the mining tramway or by the construction of a building in 1985. A small section of the concrete gun emplacements were recorded. The counterscarp wall was found to have been rebuilt in the nineteenth century. There was no exterior ditch at this location. Different builds of the Battery wall were exposed. The earliest chamfered masonry may be the possible remains of the C16 Low Light (John Nolan pers. Com) or part of the original casemate of the 1672 Fort. The battery was heightened pre-1707. Monument on the English Heritage Register of Buildings at Risk 2007, priority F - repair scheme in progress and end use or user identified; functionally redundant buildings with new use agreed but not yet implemented. Heritage At Risk 2008, priority F, condition poor. Environmental work has taken place between the fort wall and the units on the seaward side to allow archaeological access. Conservation plan completed early 2003. Consolidation of the fort walls is in progress. Listed on English Heritage's Heritage At Risk Register 2009. Condition: fair. Priority: F. Conservation Plan completed in 2003. Part-funded by English Heritage, a significant amount of consolidation work has been undertaken on the fort walls in 2008 and will continue in 2009. Heritage at Risk 2011: The curtain wall survives but is masked by later buildings.A Conservation Plan was completed in 2003. Part-funded by English Heritage, a significant programme of consolidation work (including interpretation of the fort walls) commenced in 2008 and this scheme will continue until 2012.
Condition: Good
Priority: F Repair scheme in progress and (where applicable) end use or user identified; functionally redundant buildings with new use agreed but not yet implemented. Heritage At Risk 2012: CONDITION: Good, PRIORITY: F Repair scheme in progress and (where applicable) end use or user identified; functionally redundant buildings with new use agreed but not yet implemented No longer on the Heritage At Risk Register

This site is masked by badly sited fish-processing etc. buildings, and is prone to vandalism. It requires further consolidation and excavation, constant cleaning, regular monitoring of the fabric, proper display and interpretation. Listed on English Heritage's Register of Buildings at Risk 2002. Listed as being in "poor" condition. Priority C. "Curtain wall survives much masked by later buildings, and is in poor condition. Suffering from vandalism and neglect and threatened by unauthorised works" {EH 2002}. Conservation plan has been prepared by North East Civic Trust. First phase of a programme of works to reveal and conserve the artillery defences was completed in March 2003. The buried artillery positions have been re-opened, having been bricked up in the 1880s when the fort was a base for the River Tyne Submarine Engineers (see HER 150). Behind the brick walls in the embrasures, large quantities of pottery waste from the nearby Low Lights Pottery was found. Future repair work will consolidate the remainder of the sea-ward wall. Archaeological evaluation in 2004 established the level of the gun platforms and the partial survival of the north wall of the fort and walls of the central Keep. Evidence for industrial activity, possibly associated with salt panning, pre-dating the construction of the fort. An evaluation in 2005 established that the original inner revetment still existed, although severely truncated by the construction of the mining tramway or by the construction of a building in 1985. Different builds of the Battery wall were exposed. The earliest chamfered masonry may be the possible remains of the C16 Low Light (John Nolan pers. Com) or part of the original casemate of the 1672 Fort. Monument on the English Heritage Register of Buildings at Risk 2007, priority F - repair scheme in progress and end use or user identified; functionally redundant buildings with new use agreed but not yet implemented. Heritage At Risk 2008, priority F, condition poor. Environmental work has taken place between the fort wall and the units on the seaward side to allow archaeological access. Conservation plan completed early 2003. Consolidation of the fort walls is in progress. Listed on English Heritage's Heritage At Risk Register 2009. Condition: fair. Priority: F. Conservation Plan completed in 2003. Part-funded by English Heritage, a significant amount of consolidation work has been undertaken on the fort walls in 2008 and will continue in 2009. Heritage at Risk 2011: The curtain wall survives but is masked by later buildings.A Conservation Plan was completed in 2003. Part-funded by English Heritage, a significant programme of consolidation work (including interpretation of the fort walls) commenced in 2008 and this scheme will continue until 2012.
Condition: Good
Priority: F Repair scheme in progress and (where applicable) end use or user identified; functionally redundant buildings with new use agreed but not yet implemented. Heritage At Risk 2012: CONDITION: Good, PRIORITY: F Repair scheme in progress and (where applicable) end use or user identified; functionally redundant buildings with new use agreed but not yet implemented No longer on Heritage At Risk Register

The site has had various names, Sandyford Park, and latterly Nazareth House. Redeveloped in the 1980s for sheltered housing. Part of the garden remains as informal woodland. A watching brief at the adjacent St. Catherine's Convent site in 2005 did not record any archaeological remains.

Stonework is secure, but as a feature the well is pretty boring. Needs regular tidying in the late autumn/early winter to get rid of dead leaves etc., and perhaps more imaginative planting round about.