Archaeological Desk- Based Assessment Report

Spital Buildings, How Lane, Castleton, Derbyshire

Client: Creative Heritage Consultants Ltd

Technical Report: Ian Miller

Report No: 2016/36

Site Location: The study area lies off How Lane, c 0.6km to the north-east of Castleton, in the White Peak district of Derbyshire

NGR: Centred at NGR 415505 383200

Internal Ref: CfAA/2016/36

Prepared for: Creative Heritage Consultants Ltd

Document Title: Spital Buildings, How Lane, Castleton, Derbyshire

Document Type: Desk-based Assessment

Version: Version 2.1

Author: Ian Miller BA FSA Position: Assistant Director Date: November 2016 Signed:

Contact: Salford Archaeology, Centre for Applied Archaeology, Peel Building, University of Salford, Salford, M5 4WT

Telephone: 0161 295 4467 Email: [email protected]

Disclaimer:

This document has been prepared by Salford Archaeology within the Centre for Applied Archaeology, University of Salford, for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be used or relied upon for any other project without an independent check being undertaken to assess its suitability and the prior written consent and authority obtained from the Centre for Applied Archaeology. The University of Salford accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequences of this document being used for a purpose other than those for which it was commissioned. Other persons/parties using or relying on this document for other such purposes agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm their agreement to indemnify the University of Salford for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. The University of Salford accepts no liability or responsibility for this document to any other party/persons than by whom it was commissioned.

Contents

Summary 1

1. Introduction 2

2. Method Statement 6

3. The Setting 8

4. Historical Background 10

5. Gazetteer of Sites 35

6. Significance 38

7. Impact of Development 42

8. Further Investigation 44

9. Sources 45

Appendix 1: Figures 47

Appendix 2: HER Data Within 500m of the Site Area 60

Summary

Peak Architects are preparing planning and listed building consent applications for the repair and redevelopment of Grade II listed buildings known as Spital Buildings, situated on the north-eastern edge of Castleton, Derbyshire (centred on NGR 415505 383200), in the White Peak area of the Peak District National Park. The Spital Buildings comprise the roofless shell of a three-storey former mill building, and an attached L-shaped range of single-storey, stone-built farm buildings, which together form a three-sided courtyard, open to the south. In order to inform and support the planning application, Creative Heritage Consultants Ltd, acting on behalf of Peak Architects, commissioned Salford Archaeology to undertake an archaeological desk-based assessment of the proposed development site. This was intended to identify the nature, extent and significance of the below-ground archaeological resource to enable informed recommendations to be made for the future treatment of any surviving buried remains. In addition, a measured survey of the interior elevations of the former mill building was carried out. This was intended primarily to identify any features, fixtures or fittings that could be identified with the building’s former use as a cotton mill. The site contains a single heritage asset that is afforded statutory protection as a Grade II listed building. The site does not contain any other designated heritage assets, such Scheduled Monuments, and it does not lie within a conservation area. The Grade II listed building within the proposed development area is currently ruinous, and will almost certainly collapse unless significant structural repair works are undertaken. The interior of this designated heritage asset, moreover, has lost considerable elements of original features, fixtures and fittings, and is thus considered to be of lesser significance. The development proposals allow for the consolidation of the historic fabric, and the refurbishment of the single-storey range for residential use. The assessment has identified some areas of below-ground archaeological interest associated with the eighteenth-century cotton mill. This archaeological interest is greatest within the footprint of the mill, although the presence, extent and significance of any such remains cannot be adequately determined from desk-based sources alone. Nevertheless, considering the potential range of features, fixtures and fittings associated with the mill’s original power-transmission system, there is a possibility that buried remains of medium significance could survive in-situ. These remains are likely to lie within the part of the proposed development area that will be subject to the greatest impact. However, in the first instance, further investigation is merited, once the building has been made safe. An appropriate course of action in the first instance would be to carry out archaeological monitoring during the removal of the rubble mounds from the interior of the mill to enable the presence or absence of archaeological remains to be determined, and enable a strategy to be formulated that would mitigate the impact of development.

1. Introduction

1.1 Planning Background Peak Architects are preparing planning and listed building consent applications for the repair and redevelopment of Grade II listed buildings known as the Spital Buildings, situated on the edge of Castleton, Derbyshire (Fig 1). The buildings comprise the roofless shell of a three-storey former mill building, and an attached L-shaped range of single-storey, stone-built farm buildings, which together form a three-sided courtyard, open on the south side (Plate 1).

Plate 1: View of the Spital Buildings In order to inform and support the planning application, Creative Heritage Consultants Ltd, acting on behalf of Peak Architects, commissioned Salford Archaeology to undertake an archaeological desk-based assessment of the proposed development site (referred to hereafter as the Site Area). This was intended to identify the nature, extent and significance of the below-ground archaeological resource to enable informed recommendations to be made for the future treatment of any surviving buried remains. The significance of the setting of the listed buildings is considered in detail in a Heritage Statement prepared by Creative Heritage Consultants Ltd to support the current proposals, and is thus not addressed in this report. The archaeological desk- based study was coupled with a measured survey of the interior elevations of the three-storey building, which aimed to identify any surviving features, fittings or fixtures associated with the mill’s former use as a cotton mill.

1.2 Government and Local Planning Policies 1.2.1 National Planning Policy Framework The significance of the archaeological resource identified within this report has been assessed as recommended in National Planning Policy Framework (Department for Communities and Local Government, March 2012). The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies and outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is defined by three dimensions: economic; social; and environmental. Of the 12 core planning principles underpinning plan and decision making, conserving ‘heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations’ is one. Section 12 specifically deals with the historic environment (paragraphs 126-41), and local planning authorities should consider:  the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;  the wider, social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;  the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and  opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.

Paragraph 128 states that local planning authorities, when determining applications, should require the applicant to describe the significance of any affected heritage assets. This should be sufficient so as to understand the potential impact on their significance and this should be done using the appropriate expertise where necessary. Paragraph 135 indicates that the effect of a development proposal on non-designated assets (designated assets are covered in paragraphs 132-34) should be taken into account. In addition, Paragraph 141 requires developers to record and advance understanding of heritage assets to be lost, in a manner proportionate to their importance and impact.

1.2.2 Local Development Framework NPPF outlines the need for local planning authorities to create local plans and frameworks to implement NPPF at a local level. The Peak District National Park: Local Development Framework Core Strategy was adopted in 2011, and sets out the vision, objectives and spatial strategy for the Peak District National Park, and core policies to guide development and change in the National Park to 2026. Many of the General Spatial Policies of the Core Strategy are relevant to the proposed redevelopment of the Spital Buildings, as summarised below.

Policy GSP 1: states that all development in the National Park ‘must be consistent with the Park’s legal purposes and duty’ (ie with the conservation purpose of the National Park’s statutory designation) and that ‘where national park purposes can be secured, opportunities must be taken to contribute to the sustainable development of the area’; Policy GSP2: proposals ‘will need to demonstrate that they offer significant overall benefit to the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area. They should not undermine the achievement of other Core Policies’; Policy GSP3: ‘Development must respect, conserve and enhance all valued characteristics of the site and buildings that are subject to the development proposals’, and lists criteria such as ‘impact on the character and settings of buildings’, ‘siting, landscaping and building materials’, and ‘design in accordance with the National Park Authority Design Guide’; Policy GSP4: this relates to the use of planning conditions and legal agreements to secure the benefits of a development. In addition to the General Spatial Policies, Development Strategy Policy DS1, referring to new development, states that there ‘is additional scope to maintain and improve the sustainability and vitality of communities across the National Park’, which specifically includes Castleton. ‘In or on the edge of these settlements new build development will be acceptable for affordable housing, community facilities and small-scale retail and business premises’. Policy DS1 also states that ‘in all settlements and in the countryside outside the Natural Zone, the following forms of development will be acceptable in principle (subject to planning permission):  Agriculture, forestry and other rural enterprises;  Extensions to existing buildings;  Recreation and tourism;  Mineral working;  Conversion or change of use for housing, community facilities and business uses, including visitor accommodation, preferably by re-use of traditional buildings;  Renewable energy infrastructure;  Utilities infrastructure;  Other development and alternative uses needed to secure effective conservation and enhancement.

Similarly, Core Strategy policy L1 refers to protection of the special landscape quality of the National Park and requires that ‘Development must conserve and enhance valued landscape character….’.

Core Strategy policy L3 states that ‘development must conserve and where appropriate enhance or reveal the significance of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic assets and their settings, including statutory designations and other heritage assets of international, national, regional or local importance or special interest. Other than in exceptional circumstances, development will not be permitted where it is likely to cause harm to the significance of any cultural heritage asset of archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic significance or its setting’.

1.2.3 The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is of relevance to the present study, which includes proposals to carry out works to the listed building, as the Act provides specific protection for buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest, over and above that provided by development management. Section 7 of the Act is of particular relevance as its requires the authorisation of works affecting statutorily listed heritage assets (in the form of Listed Building Consent) where they would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. It is thus important to consider the special interest of the listed building as part of the design process, and the potential impact of the proposed works on the fabric and setting of the listed building; this aspect is considered in a separate Heritage Statement that has been prepared by Creative Heritage Consultants Ltd to support the present design proposals.

2. Method Statement

2.1 Research Sources The assessment considers the potential impact of the proposed development upon any buried archaeological remains within the application site (referred to herein as the Site Area), and comprises a desk-based study coupled with a site inspection and measured survey of the interior of the former mill building. The aim of the research was to provide the relevant historical and archaeological background relating to the development of the site. The available sequence of historical mapping was the principal source of information, as this provides evidence for the development of the Site Area since the late eighteenth century. The study focused on the proposed development area (ie the Spital Buildings), although all known designated and non-designated heritage assets (including known archaeological events registered in the Derbyshire Historic Environment Record and the Peak District National Park Authority’s Sites and Monuments Record) within a 500m radius of the site have been taken into consideration to provide contextual background. A 500m ‘buffer zone’ has been chosen, as this forms a study area of a size appropriate to the proposed development, and adequately captures the context of the mill in relation to the historic settlement of Castleton. Nevertheless, some sites of known archaeological interest beyond this 500m buffer zone have also been included, particularly where they lie within Castleton village (Fig 7). The desk-based assessment made use of the following sources:  Published and unpublished cartographic, documentary and photographic sources;  The Derbyshire Historic Environment Record;  Peak District National Park Authority’s Sites and Monuments Record (including the Castleton Historic Landscape Characterisation);  The National Heritage List for England;  The Derbyshire Record Office;  Records and information held by the Castleton Historical Society.

The production of the assessment followed the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) standard and guidance for undertaking archaeological desk-based assessments (Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment, 2014).

2.2 Site Inspection and Survey The aim of the site inspection and survey was to relate the findings of the desk-based study to the existing land use of the Site Area in order to identify any evidence for surviving below-ground remains, and also to consider the potential impact of the development on the historic built environment. In addition, a measured survey of the interior elevations of the former mill building was carried out to supplement existing survey drawings produced by Peak Architects. This was intended primarily to identify any features, fixtures or fittings that could be identified with the building’s former use as a cotton mill, and was consistent with an Historic England Level II-type historic building investigation.

2.3 The Report The following presents the historical and archaeological evidence for the study area. A gazetteer (Chapter 5) is presented of heritage assets and sites of potential archaeological interest identified within the Site Area and this information, along with map regression (Figs 2-6), is used to assess the significance of the remains (Chapter 6) and impact of the development (Chapter 7). A strategy for further investigation is outlined in Chapter 8, based on the assessment presented in the previous chapters.

3. The Setting

3.1 Location The Site Area (centred on NGR 415505 383200) is situated on the north-eastern fringe of Castleton in the White Peak of Derbyshire. Comprising a broadly triangular plot of land of approximately 0.5 hectares, situated c 0.6km from the village centre, the Site Area is bounded by How Lane/Castleton Road to the west, an unmetalled access lane to the south, and the fast-flowing Peakshole Water, which flows around the field to the north and east (Plate 2). The stream rises in Peak Cavern, (known historically as ‘Peak’s Hole’), just to the south-west of the village, and flows eastwards to join the River Noe at Hope (Fig 1). The Spital Buildings comprise a group of structures around a central yard in the centre part of the Site Area. Access to the buildings is afforded via an unsurfaced track off Castleton Road. The fairly level land encompassing the buildings is used for grazing, and slopes gently northwards towards Peakshole Water The buildings lie at a height of approximately 180m above Ordnance Datum (aOD).

Plate 2: Recent aerial view across Castleton, showing the Site Area boundary

3.2 Geology The solid geology of the area comprises Bowland High Group and Craven Group, comprising Mudstone, Siltstone and Sandstone. Castleton village is situated on the shale and clay floor of the Hope Valley (Ordnance Survey Geological Survey 1970).

3.3 Designations 3.3.1 Listed Buildings Statutory listing of buildings means that a building is of special architectural or historic interest and is therefore of heritage significance. Grading of listed buildings reflects their architectural and historic interest: Grade I buildings are of exceptional interest; Grade II* buildings are particularly important buildings of more than special interest; and Grade II buildings are of special interest. The Site Area is occupied by the Spital Buildings, which were afforded statutory protection as a Grade II listed building in December 1973 (List Entry No 1334533). The official list entry describes the site as a ‘water mill, later used as farm buildings, now partly derelict. Late eighteenth century. Rubble sandstone with stone slate roofs. Three sides around a courtyard. Single-storey west and north ranges. Three storeyed mill on east side, now roofless and partially ruinous. Nine bays with off centre cart entrance, the wall above collapsed. Segmental arched windows, mostly blocked. Stable type doors to lower wings.’

3.3.2 Other Designations The site of a medieval hospital, situated a short distance to the north-east of the Site Area, is afforded statutory protection as a Scheduled Monument. However, the Site Area does not contain any designated heritage assets other than the Grade II Spital Buildings, and it does not lie within a conservation area. Similarly, the site is not a Registered Park and Garden or Battlefield.

4. Historical Background

The following section provides an historical and archaeological context to the present study, and is considered by period as detailed in Table 4.1 below. Key sites are summarised in the Gazetteer of Sites (Section 5).

Period Date Range Prehistoric Palaeolithic Pre-10,000 BC Mesolithic 10,000 – 3500 BC Neolithic 3500 – 2200 BC Bronze Age 2300 BC – 700 BC Iron Age 700 BC – AD 43 Romano-British AD 43 – AD 410 Early Medieval AD 410 – AD 1066 Late Medieval AD 1066 – AD 1540 Post-medieval AD 1540 – c 1750 Industrial Period c AD1750 – 1914 Modern Post-1914

Table 4.1: Summary of British archaeological periods and date ranges

4.1 Prehistoric Period 4.1.1 Archaeological Evidence Known prehistoric activity, dating from the Neolithic through to the Iron Age is present across the local landscape and to the south of the Site Area, mainly on the high limestone plateau (Stroud 2002, 3). However, there is a distinct paucity of firm evidence for prehistoric activity in the valley of Castleton. Evidence for Neolithic activity is limited to isolated findspots, including polished stone axes (SMR 3306, NMR 309637) discovered near Peveril Castle, and flint findspots (SMR 3354, SMR 3301) that have been dated to the Neolithic to Bronze Age periods to the south-west of the Site Area. However, there is no evidence for any Neotlithic settlement within the immediate vicinity of Castleton or the Site Area. Evidence of Bronze Age settlement activity has been identified to the south-west of the Site Area at Cave Dale (NMR 309623), Pindale palisaded hilltop enclosure (SMR 3335, NMR 309533, SM 31306) and possible late Bronze Age activity at the Iron Age hillfort of Mam Tor, situated 2.5km north-west of Castleton. Further evidence of Bronze Age activity is represented by burial mounds and Bronze Age axe heads (NMR 309655, SMR 3313), again discovered to the south-west of the Site Area.

Iron Age occupation continues within the area of Castleton at the hilltop palisaded enclosure at Pinfold (SMR 3335, NMR 309533, SM 31306), at possible Iron Age enclosure sites to the west of the Site Area (SMR 3323, NMR 309661), and at the Iron Age hillfort of Mam Tor, situated c 2 km to the north-west. There is very little firm evidence for Iron Age activity in the close vicinity of Castleton (Stroud 2002), although three undated enclosures situated to west of the village (SMR 3349) could potentially be of an Iron Age date; there is no known evidence for Iron Age activity within the Site Area.

4.1.2 Archaeological Potential The potential for buried archaeological remains deriving from prehistoric activity within the Site Area is considered to be low, although the possibility of isolated artefacts should not be dismissed entirely. It is considered most unlikely that any such artefacts will remain in-situ, however, given the agricultural use and development of the area since the eighteenth century.

4.2 Romano-British Period 4.2.1 Archaeological Evidence Areas of Iron Age settlement activity in the local landscape may have continued into the early Romano-British period, and a Roman fort and settlement was established at Brough (Navio), situated 3.2km to the west of Castleton. The main Roman road of Batham Gate takes a course some 2km to the south of the village. Roman material recovered from Castleton has all come from within or close to Peveril Castle (Stroud 2002, 4). During the Roman period, the Castleton area was mined for lead (ibid). Although no workings of Roman date have been identified with any certainty, this is likely to be due to extensive activity by later mining (ibid). A Roman lead pig (SMR 3338) was discovered in the area to the south of the study site (precise location unknown); however there is some doubt whether the find was recovered from Castleton altogether (ibid). Two Roman findspots are present to the south of the Site Area in the vicinity of Peveril Castle (SMR 3350 (stone head); SMR 3321/NMR 309626 (coins)) representing further evidence of Roman activity in the area. An enclosure/hut situated on high ground to the south of Castleton is also attributed to the Roman period (SMR 3322).

4.2.2 Archaeological Potential There are no known Romano-British remains in the Site Area, and the potential for any buried remains dating to this period is considered to be low.

4.3 Early Medieval Period

4.3.1 Historical and Archaeological Evidence There is very little archaeological evidence in the region as a whole that represents the period between the end of the Roman occupation and the Norman Conquest. The Domesday Survey of 1086 records that the Manor of Castleton (described as ‘Terra Castelli of William Peverel, in Peche fers’) belonged to Gundeberne and Hundine during the reign of Edward the Confessor, highlighting the presence of some settlement in the area of Castleton. This settlement may have consisted of little more than a couple of farmsteads (Stroud 2002, 5), although no physical remains of this settlement have been identified. There is some evidence to suggest that St Edmunds Church in Castleton may have late Saxon origins (Peak District National Park 2010), although there is a paucity of records in the SMR relating to this period, other than an Anglo-Saxon coin and lead dies (possibly of a later date) that was discovered at Peveril Castle (NMR 309626). However, recent archaeological work in Castleton carried out by the Castleton Historical Society in conjunction with the University of Sheffield revealed several burials with a date range spanning the seventh to ninth centuries, providing firm evidence for Early Medieval activity.

4.3.2 Archaeological Potential Notwithstanding the recent discovery of Early Medieval burials in Castleton, there is as yet no evidence for any activity during this period within the Site Area, and the potential for surviving buried archaeological remains dating to this period is considered to be low.

4.4 Medieval Period

4.4.1 Historical and Archaeological Evidence Following the Norman Conquest of 1066, William Peveril (son of William I) constructed Peveril Castle between 1066 and 1086 (SM 13268). Castleton is mentioned as ‘Terra Castelli in Peche fers’ in the Domesday Survey in 1086, where ‘Arnbiorn and Hundingr held the land of William Peverel's castle in Castleton’ (Williams and Martin 1992). The castle was initially of timber construction, but was remodelled in stone in the late eleventh to early twelfth century. The castle keep was constructed in 1176, overlaying the site of the original west gate. It is presumed that the outer castle defences fell out of use at this time or may have been abandoned before this date. The castle fell into disuse during the early fifteenth century, although the keep was used as a courthouse during the seventeenth century. Castleton borough was founded in 1196 after Henry II acquired Peveril Castle, and the town defences, comprising a defensive bank and outer ditch, are thought to have been established at this time. These defences marked the town’s limits and the size or intended size of the settlement.

The town ditch and bank are now a Scheduled Monument that survives in two parts of Castleton, the south-eastern and north-western sections; elsewhere the earthwork defences have been levelled, in-filled and encroached on by later development. The settlement of Castleton, in the form in which it survives today, was deliberately planned and fortified approximately 100 years after the construction of Peveril Castle. Centred on St Edmunds Church and the market place, a grid like street pattern was constructed (SMR 3324). The stone routeway may have been present at this time, connecting Castleton with Goose Hill and is considered to be an ancient trackway leading to the outer bailey of Peveril Castle. A medieval hospital, known as ‘The Hospital of the Castle of Peak’ and dedicated to St Mary the Blessed Virgin, was founded just outside Castleton, on the opposite bank of the Peakshole Water to the Site Area (Site 06). The hospital is thought to have been founded in the early twelfth century, supposedly by the wife of one of the Peverels, although it is not known which one. This was a period when the founding of hospitals for lepers and other infirm people had become a popular charitable exercise (Turbutt 1999). The hospital appears as a royal foundation in John of Gaunt's register dated 1372-76 and was one of the lesser hospitals, being valued at £3 and 4 bushels of oatmeal in 1377. By the sixteenth century, the hospital may have served little other function than to provide a small income for a non-resident warden, and in the Valor Ecclesiasticus of 1535 the entry for the ‘Hospital de Spyttelhowse in Alt’ Peke’ stated that the average income was only 40s (Cox 1907, 87). The last warden was in office between 1536-42, after which the hospital was dissolved. Physical remains on the site include three sides of a large sub-rectangular platform defined by a substantial bank, measuring approximately 35 x 27m. A series of geophysical and earthwork surveys of the site carried out in 2007-08 revealed several areas of possible archaeological deposits or structures, although the focus of these was outside the scheduled area. A holloway was firmly identified crossing the site, although other earthwork features were far from certainly medieval and could not be associated with medieval buildings with confidence. More recently, between 2012-14, archaeological investigations by the Castleton Historical Society as part of a HLF Project yielded significant evidence for medieval activity, including fragments of pottery and human remains on the Scheduled Monument. There are documentary references to ‘le Spitilbrugge’ at Castleton in c 1300 (Hart 1981), which is considered to refer to a bridge carrying the Castleton to Hope road across Peakshole Water. It is thought that this lay a short distance to the north-west of the Site Area, based on the location of the existing road bridge, although it should be noted that the medieval crossing point may well have been at a different site to that of the modem bridge (Stroud 2009, 17).

Notwithstanding the proximity of the hospital on the opposite bank of the Peakshole Water, there is no known evidence for medieval activity on the Site Area. A township map produced in 1775 shows the Site Area undeveloped, although land immediately to the south is shown to have been divided into long and relatively narrow strips, consistent with medieval farming practices (Plate 3). Medieval Castleton is thought to have had open fields and meadows lying in the valley to the west, north and east of the village, with commons and waste on the higher ground to the south. There were at least two open arable fields, Mamsitch Field to the north-west, referred to in 1378, and Spittlefield to the north-east, documented in c 1300 (Cameron 1959). Evidence of the medieval field systems survives in the form of earthwork ridge and furrow and in the fossilisation of strips by later field walls (Stroud 2002, 6). It is thus possible that the Site Area was used for agricultural purposes during the medieval period, although surviving physical evidence in the landscape is lacking.

4.4.2 Archaeological Potential There is no archaeological evidence for medieval activity in the Site Area, and the potential for surviving buried archaeological remains dating to this period is considered to be low.

4.5 Post-Medieval Period

4.5.1 Historical Evidence Castleton expanded during the post-medieval period, although the manor remained part of the crown estates, being leased out, in particular to the Dukes of Devonshire (Evans 1948). In the 1630s, freeholders in the Peak Forest petitioned to improve the wastes ‘wishing to be freed from the severity of the Forest Laws…’ and, in 1640, an agreement was made which divided the wastes, including those around Castleton and nearby Hope and Bradwell, into the King’s and the tenants’ parts (Bowles 1902, 40). The area disafforested, although with the onset of the Civil War nothing further happened and the commons remained unenclosed. Several more attempts were made later in the century, although it was not until the early eighteenth century that the Castleton freeholders obtained a grant sealing their rights of common (Somerville 1977). The Hearth Tax records of 1664 suggest a population of 693-770; the population remained fairly static in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and then increased through the second half of the eighteenth century (Stroud 2002). The majority of the present buildings along The Stones date to the eighteenth and nineteenth century, with Castleton Hall possibly containing an earlier core (Peak District National Park 2010, 15). Pottery assemblages from the recent test pits carried out across Castleton points to widespread activity from the eighteenth century to the present day (Cumberpatch 2008 and 2009).

Lead mining grew rapidly in the Castleton area from the sixteenth century onwards (Stroud 2002). Former lead mines are present on the hills surrounding Castleton to the south and west. In terms of occupations, the Castleton marriage registers between 1754 and 1811 record that mining was the largest employer locally, followed by farmers, husbandmen and yeomen. A small number of Castleton’s residents were involved in the textile industry (six weavers, two fustian weavers, three flax dressers, a cotton manufacturer, a clothier, a flax spinner, a packthread spinner and four tailors) with a range of additional craftsmen and tradesmen, including three shoemakers, three coopers, three masons, two ropers, two carpenters and a millwright (Fowkes 1975). It is thus apparent that Castleton was primarily an industrial village during this period, with many more lead miners and mill workers than farmers, and was dependent to a high degree on local tradesmen. The village was certainly of a sufficient size to support extensive ranges of shops, which received a seasonal boost from Castleton’s growing tourist trade. In the late eighteenth century, Pilkington noted that ‘formerly several hands were employed in spinning cotton. But since the invention of the patent machine by Sir Richard Arkwright this business has greatly declined, and with it the population of the town’ (Pilkington 1789, 404). However, some 50 to 60 of Castleton’s residents are known to have secured employment in Edale cotton mill, necessitating a daily walk of several miles across rugged countryside (Stroud 2002, 13). After 1901 Castleton's population began to increase from its low point in the late nineteenth century, rising to 646 by 1921. By 1971, the population of the village had reached 730, although this was still somewhat reduced from its nineteenth-century peak. Mining continued to be of some importance locally, especially fluorspar for use in the chemical and steel industries, and barytes for use in the paint and paper industries. An important source of local employment is still provided by the Lafarge Cement Works at Hope, which forms a dominant feature of the landscape.

4.6 Development of the Site Area The development of the Site Area can be traced reasonable well from the sequence of available historical mapping. The earliest useful cartographic source is a map of the townships of Hope, Bradwell, Thornhill, Aston, Castleton and Upper Shatton, which is dated 1775 (Plate 3). This indicates that the Site Area formed part of the extensive Bagshaw estate, but was seemingly devoid of any buildings or development. The land immediately to the south appears to have been in agricultural use, with long narrow fields reminiscent of a medieval landscape.

Plate 3: Extract from the Map of the Townships of Hope, Bradwell, Thornhill, Aston, Castleton and Upper Shatton, dated 1775, with arrow marking the position of the Spital Buildings (Derbyshire Record Office D7676/BagC/672)

The Site Area is similarly shown as undeveloped on Burdett’s revised map of Derbyshire, which was produced in 1791. Whilst this map was produced at a small scale that does not permit any meaningful analysis of individual buildings, Burdett does mark the position of water-powered mills. One such mill is shown on the western edge of Castleton, but nothing is marked in the vicinity of the Spital Buildings, strongly suggesting that they had not been erected by the time of Burdett’s survey. It is likely, however, that the mill was established within a few years, if not months, of Burdett’s survey.

The earliest reference to a cotton mill in the Site Area is provided by an account book spanning the period 1792-5 and belonging to a Jasper Needham of Perryfoot, near Chapel-en-le-Frith. This records the payment of rent for various land plots, including Plot 312, to Rev Moorwood (DRO/D2575/E/16). Amongst the accounts are listed ‘Building 300, Wheel 50, Machinery 400, Stock 200, Total 950’ with a note beneath stating ‘Spital Buildings insured for’, implying that the mill and machinery were operational by 1795. The Needhams had established a role in the fledgling Derbyshire cotton industry, with family members fulfilling the role of managers at Cressbrook and Litton water-powered cotton mills. It was during this period that JM Hedinger published ‘A Short Description of Castleton, its Natural Curiosities and Mineral Productions’, in which he describes a visit to Castleton and its caverns and mines, and a route approaching the village from Winnnats Pass and travelling eastwards towards Hope. At the end of the description of the village, Hedinger mentions ‘in the middle of this valley is a large white building, which is a cotton mill, worked by a water mill’. This was almost certainly the Spital Buildings. It seems that Jasper Needham operated the mill in partnership with John Champion, Benjamin Pearson and William Newton, trading under the name of Needham, Champion & Company, although the partnership was dissolved in January 1796; a notice in the London Gazette stated ‘the Partnership lately carried on by us the undersigned, under the Firm of Needham, Champion, and Company, was and is dissolved from the 1st Day of January, 1796, by mutual Consent’. (London Gazette, 9 July 1799). Jasper Needham appears to have continued in business with William Newton, who appears in fire policy registers as a partner in a small cotton mill; the mill is referred to as Needham’s Mill. It was insured to a value of £950. However, the millwright’s work (ie the waterwheel and associated gearing for the power transmission) was only valued at £50, which has led to a suggestion that it may have been a horsewheel rather than a waterwheel (Chapman 1969). The mill is captured on a map that was produced in c 1810 (Plate 4). This clearly shows two buildings with a small mill pond connected to the Peakshole Water via a leat. This arrangement is confirmed by the detail shown on a survey of Castleton township that was produced in 1819 (Plate 5). This again shows two buildings, a mill pond with a feeder leat from Peakhole Water, together with a tail race leading from the northern gable of the larger of the two buildings back to the river. The presence and position of the tail race suggest that the mill was powered by a waterwheel placed against the northern gable of the building. The records associated with the survey of 1819 note that the southern part of the Site Area, comprising part of Plot 311, was owned by Rev Henry Case Morwood (DRO/D911/ZP/2). Plot 312, lying immediately to the north, was rented to Messrs Needham and is described as ‘cotton mill and lands’ covering 1 acre, 2 rods and 31 perches.

Plate 4: Extract from a plan produced in c 1810, with arrow marking the mill, the ancillary building and pond (Sheffield Archives FC/FB 124)

Site 03

Site 02

Site 01

Plate 5: Extract from the survey of Castleton township of 1819, showing the cotton mill (Site 01) and ancillary building (Site 02), together with the mill pond and headrace from Peakshole Water (Site 03) (DRO/D911/ZP/1)

Jasper Needham may have continued at the mill until 1814, when he was declared a bankrupt cotton spinner (The Literary Panorama 1814). In March 1818, the mill was advertised for let: ‘Needham’s Mill Sale, 17th March 1818 Castleton, Derbyshire To be let All that substantial COTTON MILL or FACTORY, three stories high, situate at Castleton aforesaid upon a powerful stream of water, together with a Wash house, and arched Drying Stove, and about one acre of good land adjoining, if required. Also, all that other large building, situate at Castleton aforesaid, four stories high, heretofore used as a spinning and weaving factory. Any person desirous of taking the above may be accommodated with a quantity of machinery, consisting of carding engines, mules, jennies, and a number of looms, fixtures, etc, at a fair valuation; and if particularly desirous, with a further quantity of about four acres of excellent meadow land. Also to be let, one weaving shop at Castleton aforesaid, containing ten pairs of looms. The above are eligibly situated in a populous manufacturing country, where hands are plentiful and wages low, and contiguous to the Turnpike road from Manchester to Sheffield’ (Clark 2014).

The Spital Buildings were occupied by a Mr Brearey in 1818, although the lease of the site remained in the hands of the Needhams. Correspondence from the estate office of Henry Case Moorwood addressed to Messrs N & J Needham, dated August 1833, provided a response to a request from the Needhams regarding the ‘terms upon which you might get quit of the lease of that factory’. The response to this request was that ‘Mr Moorwood will take £500 for the inheritance of the property which would of course discharge you from any further liability under the lease. He never before asked less than £600 for it’. However, the mill does not appear to have been used for cotton spinning by this date. References to the site thereafter are scant, although the 1841 census returns indicate that the cottage (Site 02) adjacent to the mill was occupied by George Hall, a lead miner, who paid a rent of 2d to the vicar and 11d to the appropriator (Rev Moorwood). George Hall, aged 30, was married to Charlotte with five children aged between 1 and 10. The layout of the buildings on the Site Area during this period is captured on the Castleton tithe map of 1841 (Plate 6). This again shows the two buildings depicted on earlier mapping, although the reservoir and feeder leat are absent, suggesting that they may have been abandoned and infilled. The line of the tail race from the mill, however, does appear to be marked. The plot description in the tithe apportionment is ‘cottage, mill and land’, with the land being ‘grass’ (DRO D2360/3/141c).

Site 02

Site 01

Plate 6: Extract from the Castleton tithe map of 1841, showing the cotton mill (Site 01) and ancillary building (Site 02), although the mill pond and headrace from Peakshole Water are not shown (DRO/D2360/3/141a)

The next available map of the Site Area is provided by the Ordnance Survey 25”: 1 mile map, published in 1880 (Fig 2). This shows the site to have been subject to some development since the early 1840s, creating the configuration of buildings that occupy the Site Area currently. These formed three sides of an enclosed courtyard, with one building occupying the northern side of the courtyard, partially subsuming the site of the infilled reservoir, and potentially elements of the water-management system. Two other smaller structures are also shown projecting from the east elevation of the mill. The central yard was clearly accessed from How Lane by a track. Whilst the mill remained extant, the smaller ancillary building/cottage (Site 02) appears to have been demolished. Subsequent editions of Ordnance Survey mapping, published in 1898, 1922, 1938 and 1973, show the same layout of buildings (Figs 3-6). By 1973, however, the three- storey mill building had fallen into considerable disrepair, with some localised collapse (Plates 7 and 8).

Plate 7: An undated photograph of the Spital Buildings that was probably taken in the 1970s, showing the roofless shell of the former cotton mill

Plate 8: An undated photograph of the Spital Buildings that was probably taken in the 1970s, showing the localised collapse of the former cotton mill

4.7 Contextual Background to the Cotton Industry

4.7.1 Early Development England’s status as a leading manufacturer of textile goods on a world stage can be traced to the medieval period, when woollens formed the nation’s largest export commodity (Ponting 1970). During the fifteenth century, the nascent linen industry began to take root in south Lancashire, using flax imported from Ireland via the port of Chester (Higham 2004, 196-7). The weaving of woollens and the production of linen remained important trades in England throughout the sixteenth century, when silk and mixed fabrics classed as small wares and fustians started to gain popularity, with cotton frequently forming the weft in the latter fabric; cotton is mentioned in the will of a Bolton fustian weaver in 1601, representing one of the earliest references to its use in England (Wadsworth and Mann 1931, 15). At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the English cotton industry was still comparatively small. Most cotton materials were imported from India, but in 1701, and again in 1721, Acts of Parliament were passed which prohibited the wearing of Indian calicoes. These measures were aimed at assisting the English woollen industry, although it was actually cotton manufacturers that benefited. The benefits were slow to be realised, however, because of two limitations: the restricted supply of raw cotton; and the slowness of hand-spinning. The supply of raw cotton did improve during the eighteenth century, first from Levant, then from the West Indies and, after, 1783 from North America (Holland 1976, 39). During the second half of the century, the technical revolution in the cotton-spinning industry was largely responsible for the dramatic change to the economic and social structure of many parts of England. Improvements in the spinning process began with the introduction of James Hargreaves’ spinning jenny in 1764, whereby a single worker could operate eight spindles simultaneously. Five years later, Richard Arkwright took out a patent for a water-driven spinning machine, called the water frame. The success of this machine enabled Arkwright to establish England’s first successful cotton factory at Cromford near Derby in 1771, following initial experimentation during 1769 in a mill in Nottingham.

The improvements in the spinning of cotton yarn wrought by the introduction of the spinning jenny and water frame created a problem in the preparatory process of carding, which was still a manual process, and was struggling to supply the increased demand of spinners. This problem was solved by Richard Arkwright in 1775, when he obtained a patent for his carding machine, although there were several other carding devices at work in the cotton industry throughout the 1770s. These also played a role in challenging the domestic structure of the developing cotton industry, and an increasing number of ‘proto-factories’ based on a variety of carding machines and jennies were established during the 1770s (Wadsworth and Mann 1931, 486-90).

4.7.2 Expansion of the Industry By 1780, the cotton industry was set for major expansion. The spinning and carding processes had been transformed completely, and the domestic structure of the spinning section had been challenged. Whilst the larger jennies and carding engines were moving into workshops, water frames were being installed in new factories; by 1780, there were between 15 and 20 water-frame factories being operated by Arkwright and his partners, or by proprietors acting under licence (Edwards 1967, 4-5).

The end of the war with America in 1783 led to an increase in exports to the former colonies. Exports of cotton goods to Europe also expanded during this period, reflecting the attempts made on both sides of the English Channel to remove some of the obstacles restricting trade. This was coupled with the emergence of a mass market in Britain, which had a significant effect on all sections of the textile trade. The cancellation of Arkwright’s patents in 1785 led to a rapid spread in the application of water frames. A serious crisis in the cotton trade started in the summer of 1787, when a trade depression set in. Nevertheless, there were an estimated 208 cotton mills operating on the Arkwright principle by 1787.

The depression in trade was over by 1789 and, during 1790, 1791 and most of 1792, the cotton trade was expanding in boom conditions (Edwards 1967, 11). The ever- increasing prospect of war with France in 1792 caused a decline in the trade, and the declaration of war in 1793 accentuated difficulties and resulted in a contraction in trade with Europe. The effects were offset quickly by the rapid growth of exports to America, however, and the cotton trade emerged from the crisis by the end of 1793 (op cit, 12). A rapid expansion of exports continued until autumn 1796, when problems occurred as the export markets were well-stocked and merchants became reluctant to give large orders until they knew the outcome of peace negotiations with France. More significantly, there was an increasing scarcity of money, and in February 1797 the Bank of England suspended cash payments (ibid).

The economic difficulties continued into the first half of 1798, although the trade had made a remarkable recovery by the summer of that year and cotton imports increased rapidly and exports soared, particularly to the North American and Caribbean markets. Another set-back in autumn 1799 was initiated with a bad harvest that necessitated large imports of grain. The crisis was over by the beginning of 1800, and imports of cotton reached a new record peak (op cit, 14). In October 1801, the preliminaries of peace with France were signed, and resulted in a period of very rapid expansion; 1802 saw spinners enjoying peak profits. The trade over-reached itself, however, and resumption of war in 1803 halted the burst of factory building (op cit, 15). The trade in general continued to be uncertain and fluctuated throughout 1804-05, although yarn exports continued to grow and soared to record levels in 1805, causing the price of yarn to rise. By this time, both spinning and weaving were carried on in almost all of the emerging textile-manufacturing towns that formed a wide belt encompassing the principal marketing centre of Manchester (Catling 1986, 116).

4.7.2 Mills in Derbyshire The earliest cotton mills in Derbyshire were established in the heart of the county, with the earliest being Richard Arkwright’s mill of 1771 at Cromford, which is widely acknowledged as the first successful cotton factory. This hugely successful water- powered cotton mill site was expanded in 1777 with the addition of a second spinning block, which was similarly water-powered. Arkwright then proceeded to erect a succession of mills in Derbyshire, including those at Ashbourne (1781), Bakewell (1782), Wirksworth (1783) and Masson (1784), all designed to house his patented machinery (Nixon 1969, 188). In partnership with Jedediah Strutt, Arkwright also established a series of cotton mills in Belper, Milford and Derby. Jedediah Strutt began building mills in Belper from 1776. The original North Mill was completed in 1786, but was destroyed by fire in 1803. Its replacement, the present mill, was built in 1804 and is now one of the oldest surviving examples of an industrialised iron-framed ‘fire-proof’ building. The international importance of the mill is recognised in its inclusion in the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site. Closer to Castleton, Litton Mill was established on the Arkwright principle by Ellis Needham in 1780-82. This mill was described in 1857 as an ‘extensive spinning and manufacturing establishment’ with 400 people employed and using water and steam power. There was a fire at the mill in the 1874, however, and most of the present buildings are of more recent date, although a building at the bottom of the yard is believed to have been part of an old warehouse. Also situated in the Litton parish was Cressbrook Mill, which was established in c 1779 by Richard Arkwright, with William Newton (latterly a partner at Spital Mill) responsible for construction work. Soon after being built, this three-storey building was destroyed by fire on 15 November 1785, but rebuilding took place two years later on the same site. Water power at this stage was provided by the Cressbrook, water from the mill pond passing beneath the road and on to the mill before discharging into the River Wye. This mill survives extant. Other eighteenth-century mills in the vicinity of the study area include Streatfield Mill in Bradwell, situated some 5km to the south-east of Castleton; this was one of three cotton mills in Brough. The business failed at the end of the nineteenth century, and the premises were used for a variety of purposes including making combs from ox horn and being used as a hostel for cement workers, before being refurbished and used for offices and light industry. Edale Mill is of particular relevance to Castleton, as many of the workers employed at the mill resided in the village. Built as a corn mill, and powered by the River Noe, the site was enlarged for cotton spinning by Nicholas Cresswell in 1795. The main, larger mill building was built to a height of three storeys, and remained in use for cotton manufacturing until 1934. Just west of the mill is the former manager's house, now a private residence, and alongside the road are workers’ cottages.

4.7.3 Mills in Castleton There is evidence to suggest that Spital Mill was not the only cotton mill to be established in Castleton. A two-storey stone building at Tricket Bridge on the northern edge of the village, currently in use for residential purposes, is known as ‘The Old Cotton Mill’ (Plate 9), although little is known of its history. It is possible, however, that this is the remodelled ‘other large building, situate at Castleton aforesaid, four stories high, heretofore used as a spinning and weaving factory’ that is referred to in the sale notice of 1818. Another building, situated at Mill Bridge on the south-western edge of the village, is also known locally as being a former mill but, again, details are scant.

Plate 9: The ‘Old Cotton Mill’ at Tricket Bridge on the northern side of Castleton In addition, a corn mill and adjacent saw mill were established on the northern side of the village. Both of these mills were water powered, exploiting the Peakshole Water as a source of power. The saw mill (SMR 33102) is thought to have been built in c 1600, whilst the corn mill (SMR 3331) may occupy the site of a medieval mill, and remained in use until the 1920s. Both buildings remain extant and are currently in commercial use, occupied by Cambion Electronics, although the remains of the wheel pit for the corn mill and the associated mill pond are still visible. It is thus apparent that the Spital Mill was not the only water-powered mill operational in late eighteenth-century Castleton, and the physical remains of these early industrial buildings survive in the village. Similarly, there are several early water-powered cotton mills in the vicinity of Castleton, most of which have been converted for residential use.

4.8 Spital Mill

4.8.1 Building Description The shell of the roofless, ten-bay, three-storey mill occupies a floor-plate of approximately 60’ by 18’ (18.5 x 5.75m), and is of rubble limestone construction. The front, west-facing elevation has largely collapsed (Plate 10), although the east wall and the north and south gable walls survive largely intact.

Plate 10: General view looking north-east towards the mill, showing the collapse of the western wall

Internally, the building comprises a single open space, with all floors and any partitions having been removed (Plate 10). Nevertheless, sufficient evidence survives in the historic fabric to demonstrate that the building was of non-fireproof construction, and was sufficiently narrow for single large-scantling beams to span the entire floor without recourse to using supporting columns; whilst any physical evidence for columns has been lost, it is likely that the beams were unsupported within the original construction. Apertures in the east and west internal elevations of the building indicate that the floor beams were set at regular intervals of 6’ (1.82m). The sawn end of the beams on the upper floors survive set in wall sockets, although the timber all appears to be rotten. Despite the recent clearance of self-seeded vegetation from the interior, the floor is concealed beneath collapsed building debris and modern detritus. It is thus currently unknown whether the original floor survives in-situ, or if this was replaced when the building was put to agricultural use. Surviving evidence of the roof structure is limited to a rotting wall-plate end projecting from the south gable, although the shape of the gable walls clearly indicates that the building originally supported a pitched roof.

The internal elevation of the south gable wall retains evidence for three large apertures (Fig 8). Those on the ground and first floor have both been infilled with brick, although surviving elements of flues connected to the apertures implies that these had housed heating stoves. The larger aperture on the second floor may similarly have been intended to house a heating stove, as a flue rises from its head, although it appears to have been remodelled into a window or loading door. In contrast to the other window apertures in the building, that on the second floor of the south gable has a stone lintel set into the external elevation (Plate 11), but retains a stone cambered arched head internally. Evidence for the original first- and second-floor level is provided by sockets for the joists, set at regular intervals of 0.55m, with many containing the rotten stumps of sawn-off timbers (Fig 8).

Plate 11: The south gable and eastern elevation of the building

The north gable of the building has no window or door apertures, although a low arched opening, now infilled, survives at the foot of the wall, and extending below modern ground level (Plate 12). This aperture has been interpreted previously as part of the water-management system, and specifically an outlet to the tail race from an internal waterwheel. Whilst this interpretation cannot be discounted entirely, it is perhaps more likely that a waterwheel was mounted to the exterior elevation, and the arched opening potentially represents the position of the housing for the waterwheel axle. This may have been connected via bevel gears to a vertical shaft inside the building, providing power to machinery on each floor of the building.

Plate 12: Arched opening at the foot of the north gable, and the likely location of the waterwheel pit

There is scant physical evidence for the waterwheel pit visible, although the north wall of the building steps out, creating a ledge that is absent from the other walls. This characteristic is consistent with a waterwheel pit, adding weight to the suggestion that a waterwheel was placed against the north gable. The internal elevation of the north gable is scarred with the marks of two stair flights, which appear to have been an original feature, and were certainly installed before the wall was plastered (Fig 9). A single, straight flight gave access to each upper floor, rising from west to east, but terminating at least 2m from the east wall of the building, potentially respecting the position of a vertical power shaft. Most of the masonry of this elevation is covered in lime-based plaster, although this has been cut at ground- floor level, close to the foot of the stair, by a circular scar on the wall, approximately 300mm in diameter, with a square hole through the wall at its centre (Plate 13). The rationale for this feature is uncertain, and whilst it is tempting to interpret it as a component of the power-transmission system, it is difficult to understand how this may have worked given the position of the stairs. The north gable did not contain any window or door apertures, which may be explained by the presence of a waterwheel against the external elevation. As with the south wall of the building, the north gable did not retain any firm evidence for power transmission, such as wall boxes for horizontal shafting or mountings for an upright shaft.

Plate 13: The internal elevation of the north gable, showing the scars for the stairs, sockets for the floor joists, and arrow marking the circular scar

The surviving four-bay section of the partially collapsed west wall is punctured with rows of closely-set apertures, with segmental stone-arched heads and no cills or other dressings (Fig 10). Most of these apertures represent window openings, and have been blocked from the inside with rubble masonry. A larger aperture in the end bay on the ground floor at the northern end remains open, and affords access to the adjacent single-storey farm building. This is likely to have been a window originally, but remodelled to a doorway in the later nineteenth century, when the stone-arched head was replaced with a timber beam. A second doorway, situated in the third bay from the northern end, also has an inserted timber beam, but has been infilled with masonry. Another infilled doorway occupies the fourth bay, and possibly formed the original access to the mill from the yard. The interior of the wall retains traces of lime-based plaster or lime wash. The sockets for the timber beams are clearly visible, although the wall does not retain any evidence for the power-transmission system, or other fixtures and fittings that can be attributed to its use as a cotton mill. Physical evidence for later additions is provided by a brick-built pier, situated adjacent to the doorway into the single-storey building. The ten-bay eastern wall contains regularly spaced window apertures on all floors (Fig 11). Many have been infilled with stone, although those on the second floor remain largely open, with fragmentary elements of timber framing and, in some cases, the remains of fixed casement windows, with three by five lights each side of a central mullion. A single doorway with a ledged and braced arch-headed timber door is set in the centre of the wall, although this may represent another remodelled window rather than an original feature. A vertical aperture through the masonry is visible immediately to the south, although this was covered with corrugated iron. It is likely that this aperture was a late insertion, associated with twentieth-century agricultural use.

4.8.2 Summary of Archaeological Significance The research carried out as part of the present project has concluded that the Spital Mill was probably water powered, as may be anticipated of a late eighteenth-century cotton mill. It has been suggested that the mill may have been powered by a horse gin (Chapman 1969), although the case is unconvincing. Irrefutable evidence for the nature of the water-management system, however, is wanting. The site of the mill pond is depicted on early historical mapping, and whilst this was largely subsumed by the single-storey farm buildings in the second half of the nineteenth century, surviving shallow earthworks allow the course of the leat from Peakshole Water to be discerned, albeit rather indistinctly. The course of the tail race from the north gable of the mill is more clearly evident in the modern topography

The position of the waterwheel pit is currently uncertain. The SMR entry description suggests that the arched opening at the foot of the north gable formed a conduit for the outflow of water from the mill, implying that the waterwheel was placed internally. The present study has concluded that the waterwheel is more likely to have been placed against the external elevation of the north gable, although the presence of a waterwheel pit in this location awaits confirmation. The placing of a waterwheel external to the building is a typical arrangement for a small cotton mill of this period, and whilst there are early examples of mills with internal wheelhouses, such as Quarry Bank Mill in Cheshire, these were usually much larger than Spital Mill. In this respect, the power arrangements in Spital Mill are not considered to be of especial significance. This is coupled with a near complete absence of any visible signs of internal fixtures and fittings associated with the power- transmission system, although some physical evidence may survive on or beneath the floor of the building, which is currently obscured from view by mounds of stone rubble.

4.8.3 Potential Archaeological Remains of the Power-Transmission System The character of the power-transmission system within the mill cannot be characterised adequately from the information available, and requires further investigation. This will require the removal of the rubble overlying the floor of the mill, which should be carried out under close archaeological supervision during the enabling works required to deliver the proposed development. It is anticipated that this could only be achieved once the standing structure has been made safe, and as a condition to planning consent. In the absence of further information, however, several different power-transmission configurations may be postulated to provide an indication of the physical remains that may potentially survive in-situ. Assuming that Spital Mill was indeed water-powered, it is most likely that a vertical waterwheel was employed, and that the power was transmitted either through the main axle, or via a ring gear attached to the shroud of the waterwheel. The latter system will have required a smaller pinion wheel that meshed with the ring gear and powered a layshaft, achieving a greater rotational speed without recourse to a large train of gears. This system was employed at numerous textile mills in the early nineteenth century, including Richard Arkwright’s cotton mill at Cromford (Plate 14). It is tempting to suggest that the small aperture and circular scar identified on the internal elevation of the north gable at Spital Mill (Plate 13) may have derived from a pinion wheel mechanism, thereby indicating the use of a ring-gear transmission system. A shaft housing a pinion wheel fixed to the external elevation may have also housed a drum at the foot of the stairs internally, to which was connected a drive belt to lineshafts hanging from the beams. The physical evidence for this will thus have been largely removed from the extant building. However, the date at which ring-gear technology was first applied to a textile mill is uncertain, although all known examples were installed during the nineteenth century, and it seems unlikely that this system was applied to Spital Mill.

Plate 14: The second-generation waterwheel at Arkwright’s cotton mill at Cromford, employing a ring-gear drive arrangement. The pinion wheel attached to the wall of the mill is clearly visible

An alternative system may have employed a series of bevel gears to transmit the power from the waterwheel to the machinery, although this could have been achieved in several ways. A recent archaeological excavation of Richard Arkwright’s Shudehill Mill in Manchester, erected in 1780-83, provided physical evidence for one such system (Miller and Glithero in press). The axle for the 28ft diameter waterwheel that powered the mill passed through the wall of the wheelpit into the main body of the building. A bevel gear was fitted to the end of the waterwheel axle, and housed a stone-lined pit sunk into the mill floor. Essentially fulfilling the function of a pit wheel, this bevel gear meshed with a large, horizontal spur wheel, which was placed in the approximate centre of the mill. This was seemingly intended to turn two horizontal shafts that ran along the centerline of the mill, with further bevel gears spaced regularly along these main shafts transmitting the power vertically to machinery. A very similar system was installed in Walker’s cotton mill in Manchester during the late eighteenth century, for which design drawings have survived (Plate 15).

Plate 15: Plan of the eighteenth-century power-transmission system in Walker’s Mill, Manchester, showing a horizontal spur wheel driving two main shafts along the centreline of the mill

The physical remains of this system exposed at Arkwright’s Shudehill Mill included a brick-lined pit that lay parallel and adjacent to the waterwheel pit, and a larger circular pit, also brick-built, to house the horizontal spur wheel. Physical evidence for the drive shafts, however, were limited to a series of stone blocks set at interval along the centerline of the mill, which are likely to have represented the position of bevel gears that transferred power vertically from the main shafts to the cotton machinery. It should be noted, however, that Arkwright’s Shudehill Mill was exceptionally large (five-stories high, with each working floor being in excess of 210ft long), and could thus accommodate the large gears necessitated by this system. It would seem unlikely, however, that the use of a similar system in Spital Mill would have been an economically viable use of the space available, even if the waterwheel had been capable of generating the power required. Taking these factors into consideration, it is perhaps more likely that the machinery in Spital Mill was powered by an upright shaft that was connected to lineshafts on the different floors. This system will have required a bevel gear fixed to the waterwheel axle, probably housed in a stone-lined pit sunk into the floor of the mill. This will have meshed with a second bevel gear attached to a vertical timber shaft, with further bevel gears at ceiling height turning lineshafts on each floor. Power to the various machines may have been transferred via belt drums fixed to the lineshafts. The vertical shaft may have served all floors in the mill (although there is no surviving evidence in Spital Mill for the iron housings that will have been required to support the vertical shaft), or just on the ground and first floor, with machinery on the second floor being driven from beneath. This arrangement appears to have been favoured most widely in the application of power to small and medium-sized cotton mills in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (eg Plate 16), although it is acknowledged that Spital Mill formed part of an initial wave of textile-mill construction, where engineering solutions were often achieved on an ad hoc basis by mill owners in the absence of millwrights with specialist experience of textile mills.

Plate 16: The power-transmission system in the early nineteenth-century Louson Mill, which powered six Arkwright-type water frames, each fitted with 24 spindles. This may have provided a broad model for the system applied to Spital Mill, albeit with the waterwheel housed internal to the building

5. Gazetteer of Sites

The following gazetteer entries summarise the sites of potential archaeological interest within the boundary of the Site Area; a list of known heritage assets beyond the Site Area but within the wider study area are presented in Appendix 2, and their location depicted on Figure 7. The identification of these non-designated heritage assets are drawn from a combination of cartographic analysis, primary documentation and physical evidence.

Site Number 01 Site Name Spital Buildings Grid Ref 415497 383203 SMR Number 3359 Designation Grade II listed building Site Type Cotton Mill (Ruinous) Period 1790s Description A former cotton mill, presumed to have been water-powered, that was used subsequently as a farm building. This three-storey building was erected in the 1790s, and comprises rubble limestone. There are ten bays with an off-centre cart entrance, and the wall above has collapsed. The interior retains little, if any, features, fixtures and fittings that can be firmly associated with the building’s former use as a cotton mill. Assessment The building is currently ruinous, but will be consolidated and retained as a fundamental component of the proposed development. There is some potential for buried remains of archaeological interest pertaining to the operation of the mill, and specifically components of the power-transmission system, to survive in-situ within the interior of the building. Such remains could potentially include the housing for a pit wheel, situated against the interior elevation of the north gable wall and parallel to the presumed waterwheel pit, together with physical evidence for the associated transmission system in the form of housings for bevel gears and stone foundation pad(s) for vertical shaft(s) transferring power to the machinery. The original floor of the mill, probably comprising flagstones, may also survive in-situ beneath the modern ground surface and collapsed rubble. However, this is predicated entirely on the assumption that the mill was water- powered, a notion that was questioned by Chapman who, pointing to the low value of the millwright’s work listed in insurance documents, suggested that power may have been derived from a horsewheel. Similarly, the lack of any specific reference to a waterwheel in historical documentation for the mill raises the possibility that it was actually a ‘jenny shop’, where all machinery was actually powered by hand. Notwithstanding this uncertainly, however, the layout and configuration of power features within the mill cannot be adequately characterised from documentary sources alone, and will necessitate further archaeological investigation as part of programme of enabling works necessitated by the proposed development.

Site Number 02 Site Name Spital Buildings Grid Ref 415490 383218 HER Number - Designation None Site Type Ancillary Building / Cottage (Site of) Period 1790s Description The site of an ancillary building associated with the cotton mill, and probably of a contemporary date. Its original form and intended function is uncertain, although it may have housed textile-finishing processes, as a ‘wash house, and arched drying stove’ is mentioned in a sale notice of 1818. The building appears to have been in use for residential purposes by the early 1840s, but had been demolished by the late nineteenth century to allow the existing single-storey buildings to be erected. Assessment The site of the ancillary building has not been redevelopment since its demolition in the mid-nineteenth century, and its foundations may survive as buried remains. Development proposals, however, do not necessitate any earth-moving works in this part of the site, and thus construction work will have a negligible impact on this non- designated heritage asset.

Site Number 03 Site Name Spital Buildings Grid Ref 415475 383205 HER Number 3359 Designation None Site Type Mill Pond and Water-Management System (Site of) Period 1790s Description The water-management system associated with the cotton mill (Site 01), comprising a feeder leat from the Peakshole Water to a small mill pond, and a tail race running from the north gable of the mill back to the river. The feeder leat and mill pond had been infilled by the 1840s, and partially redeveloped for the single-storey farm buildings (Site 05). It is likely that the water-management system was intended to power a waterwheel, although the possibility that the water was actually required for textile-finishing purposes, specifically dyeing as suggested by the documentary reference to a ‘wash house and arched drying stove’, cannot be discounted. Assessment Elements of the water-management system are likely to have been damaged or destroyed during nineteenth-century redevelopment, although other elements may survive as buried remains. Development proposals, however, do not necessitate any earth-moving works in this part of the site, and thus construction work will have a negligible archaeological impact.

Site Number 04 Site Name Spital Buildings Grid Ref 414497 383213 HER Number 3359 Designation None Site Type Waterwheel Pit (Site of) Period 1790s Description Assuming that the mill was water-powered, a waterwheel pit is likely to have been placed against the north gable wall of the cotton mill (Site 01), although this awaits confirmation via intrusive investigation. The possibility that the wheelpit was placed internally, as suggested by the SMR entry description, cannot be discounted, although the evidence available suggests that an external location is more likely. This arrangement may have required a smaller pit wheel on the inside of the building, however, which will have housed the bevel gears required for vertical power transmission. Assessment Physical remains of a waterwheel pit, and potentially the housing for a smaller pit wheel and associated gearing, are likely to survive as buried remains. Development proposals do not necessitate any earth- moving works against the external elevation of the north gable, and thus construction work will have a negligible archaeological impact if the waterwheel was placed externally. Conversely, the excavation of a foundation trench and associated piling works for the proposed new building may impact on the remains of the putative pit wheel housing, should this survive in-situ.

Site Number 05 Site Name Spital Buildings Grid Ref 415478 383206 HER Number 3359 Designation Grade II listed buildings Site Type Farm Buildings Period Later nineteenth century Description A range of single-storey farm buildings dating to the second half of the nineteenth century. Assessment The design proposals allow for the repair and conversion of the buildings for residential use.

6. Significance

6.1 The Policy Context of Heritage Assets The archaeological resource of an area can encompass a range of assets, including below-ground remains, earthworks, and standing buildings and other structures. Some of these remains may have statutory protection, such as Scheduled Monuments or listed buildings. Others do not, but may nevertheless be of archaeological significance. Under both national and local planning policy, as outlined below, both statutory and non-statutory remains are to be considered within the planning process. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policy and framework for England, and how these are expected to be implemented. NPPF places particular emphasis on assessing the development proposals in line with an up-to-date local plan. In determining applications, local planning authorities must be able to understand the significance of any heritage assets affected by a proposed development in order to assess its impact. This enables the conservation of heritage assets in a manner suitable to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations, or else they can be recorded and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence publicly accessible.

6.2 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria Significance is defined in the NPPF as ‘the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest’. One accepted methodology for assessing archaeological significance is embedded in Annex 1 of the Secretary of State’s guidance document Scheduled Monuments and Nationally Important but Non- Scheduled Monuments (DCMS 2013). This guidance document states that the heritage interest of archaeological remains can be defined in terms of their archaeological, architectural, artistic, historic or traditional interest, and particularly:  Archaeological Interest: interest in carrying out expert investigations at some point into the evidence places hold, or potentially may hold, of past human activity. Monuments with archaeological interest form a primary source of evidence relating to the substance and evolution of places, plus the people and cultures that made them;  Historic Interest: interest in how the present can be connected through a place to past people, events and aspects of life. Monuments with historic interest provide a material record of our nation’s prehistory and history, whether by association or through illustration. The significance of the potential below-ground archaeological remains within the Site Area is assessed below against these criteria.

6.3 Archaeological Interest The sites of below-ground archaeological interest within the boundary of the Site Area developed as a direct result of its development for use as a cotton mill in the 1790s. These below-ground remains potentially comprise features, fixtures and fittings pertaining to the operation of the Spital Building as a cotton mill (Site 01), together with any surviving buried remains of a building ancillary to the main mill (Site 02), the waterwheel pit for the mill (Site 04) and the associated water- management system (Site 03). There is very little potential for archaeological remains pertaining to any earlier periods to exist in the Site Area. The nature of below-ground remains within the footprint of the mill (Site 01) cannot be characterised fully from documentary sources alone, although comparison with other eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century textile mills enables a range of features that may potentially have served the building to be postulated. These putative features include a rectangular and probably stone-line pit, placed against the internal elevation of the north gable wall, which may have housed a bevel gear attached to the waterwheel axle. Identification of such a feature would be of archaeological significance as it would elicit a more informed understanding of the mechanism of the mill’s power system. Similarly, clearance of the rubble that currently forms the ground surface within the mill could potentially reveal the original floor surface, and other features associated with the power transmission system. The original floor is likely to have comprised flagstones, which have little intrinsic archaeological interest, although any stone foundation pads or bevel-gear housing that can be identified firmly as components of the power transmission system would be of some significance. Whilst the extent to which any buried archaeological remains survive beneath the modern ground surface beyond the footprint of the mill is currently unknown, it is likely that the foundations of the ancillary building depicted on early mapping (Site 02) and the waterwheel pit (Site 04) will survive in-situ. The extent to which the associated water-management system survives is similarly unknown, although elements are likely to have been damaged or destroyed during nineteenth-century redevelopment of the site.

6.4 Historic Interest The potential below-ground remains, such they exist and survive in-situ, could enhance a current understanding of the Spital Buildings, and particularly its origin and use as a cotton mill, thereby providing a material record of one element of Castleton’s historic textile-manufacturing industry. However, the greatest historic interest in the site lies in the fabric of the standing structure.

6.5 Significance of Archaeological Remains Based on the criteria above, the below-ground archaeological resource of the Site Area is considered to be of medium significance. Further elucidation of the power system, and, specifically, confirming the location of the waterwheel pit and associated pit wheel are perhaps of most interest, and any in-situ remains would be of medium significance. The foundations of the ancillary building (Site 02) that was used latterly as a domestic cottage are unlikely to be more than of local interest.

7. Impact of Development

7.1 Evaluation of the Key Impacts on Buried Archaeological Remains There are no nationally recognised standard criteria for assessing the significance of the impact of development on archaeological remains. However, the following criteria have been adopted from the Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Annex 5, August 2007. Although designed for use in transport schemes, these criteria are appropriate for use in other environmental impact assessments. The value of potential archaeological remains that may be affected by the proposed development has been ranked using the following scale: Very High, High, Medium, Low, and Negligible:  Very High includes World Heritage Sites and archaeological remains of international importance.  High includes Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and undesignated archaeological remains of national importance.  Medium includes undesignated archaeological remains of regional importance.  Low includes undesignated archaeological remains of local importance.  Negligible includes archaeological remains of little or no significance.

Notwithstanding the National Importance of the Spital Buildings inherent in their statutory designation as Grade II listed buildings, the Site Area is unlikely to contain buried archaeological remains that are anything more than medium significance. Impacts on archaeological remains can be adverse or beneficial, direct or indirect, temporary or permanent. The magnitude of sensitivity for the Site Area has been assessed using the following scale:  Major involves change to archaeological remains or their setting such that the resource is totally altered.  Moderate involves change to archaeological remains or their setting such that the resource is significantly modified.  Minor involves change to archaeological remains or their setting such that the resource is slightly altered.  Negligible involves very minor change to archaeological remains or their setting such that the resource is hardly affected.  No Change involves no change to archaeological remains or their setting.

Assessment of the magnitude of the impacts has been ranked using the following scale:  Very Large  Large  Moderate  Slight and  Neutral This assessment combines the value of the archaeological resource and the magnitude of impact, as shown in Table 7.1.

Value of Magnitude of Change Remains No Negligible Minor Moderate Major Change Very High Neutral Slight Moderate/Large Large/ Very Large Very Large High Neutral Slight Moderate/Slight Moderate/ Large/ Large Very Large Medium Neutral Neutral/Slight Slight Moderate Moderate/ Large Low Neutral Neutral/Slight Neutral/Slight Slight Moderate/ Slight Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral/Slight Neutral/ Slight Slight Table 7.1: Significance of Impact Matrix The magnitude of impact to the sites of potential archaeological interest beyond the footprint of the mill ranges from neutral to slight, the latter affecting any buried archaeological remains directly either through damage or removal, which will fundamentally alter their present character. The significance of the impact is summarised in Table 7.2 below.

Site Number and Name Potential Potential Potential Value of Magnitude Magnitude of Remains of Change Sensitivity Site 01 Cotton Mill See below Site 02 Ancillary Building / Cottage Low Negligible Neutral/Slight Site 03 Water Management System Low Negligible Neutral/Slight Site 04 Waterwheel Pit Medium Minor Slight

Table 7.2: Impact Matrix for the potential below-ground archaeological remains

The impact of the proposed development, however, will be focused within the footprint of the mill, particularly at the northern end of the building. As discussed above, the nature of the below-ground archaeological resource in this part of the Site Area cannot be determined fully from desk-based sources alone, although the range of potential remains has been postulated.

Physical evidence for a pit for a bevel gear attached to the waterwheel axle would be of medium significance. The potential magnitude of sensitivity is considered to be moderate, and the potential magnitude of impact, in the absence of an appropriate mitigation strategy, would be moderate. A similar level of impact would be applicable to any surviving evidence for bevel drive gear housings, whether these were stone foundation pads or iron castings. The survival of the original interior floor of the mill, however, is considered to be of lesser significance, and potential impact of development, again in the absence of any mitigation, is unlikely to be more than slight.

8. Further Investigation

8.1 Heritage Assets Where the loss of the whole or a material part of a heritage asset’s significance is justified by a development, the developer should be required to record that asset and advance understanding of its significance, and to make this evidence publicly accessible (NPPF para 141). The Site Area contains a ruinous Grade II listed building that will be consolidated and retained for long-term economic use as part of the development proposals. The interior of this designated heritage asset lost considerable elements of original features, fixtures and fittings, although there is some potential for below-ground archaeological remains to survive in-situ within the footprint of the building that could elucidate a better understanding of the mill, and particularly its original power- transmission system. A key component of the power system is the waterwheel pit which, based on the information currently available, is likely to lie against the external elevation of the north gable wall. The presence, extent and significance of these putative features, however, cannot be determined with any degree of confidence from desk-based sources alone, and requires intrusive investigation. The assessment has also identified sites of potential below-ground archaeological interest associated with the eighteenth-century cotton mill, including an ancillary building depicted on historical mapping, and elements of the original water- management system. Whilst there is good potential for physical evidence of the foundations of the ancillary building to survive as buried remains, it is likely that the remains of the water-management system were damaged or destroyed during previous redevelopment of the site for agricultural purposes.

8.2 Further Investigation Enabling works necessitated by the proposed development will involve clearance of collapsed rubble from the interior of the building, and limited investigations for structural assessment. Any such work should be carried out under close archaeological supervision and monitoring, which would be intended to establish the presence or absence of buried archaeological remains within the footprint of the mill, and possibly the waterwheel pit. The identification of any such remains would enable an appropriate strategy to mitigate any damage could to be formulated. It is anticipated, however, that any such further investigation could only be carried out once the building has been made safe, and would be carried out as a condition to planning consent for the development.

9. Sources

Cartographic Sources Ordnance Survey 25”: 1 mile map, 1880 Ordnance Survey 25”: 1 mile map, 1898 Ordnance Survey 25”: 1 mile map, 1922 Ordnance Survey 25”: 1 mile map, 1938 Ordnance Survey, 1951 Great Britain Sheet 2: Geological Map of England Derbyshire Record Office (DRO) D2575/E/16 Account book of Jasper Needham, 1792-5 D7676/BagC/672 A map of part of the townships of Hope, Bradwell, Thornhill, Aston, Castleton, Upper Shatton 1775 D911/ZP/1 Map of Castleton, 1819 D911/ZP/2 Survey, 1819 D2360/3/141a Castleton tithe map, 1841 D2360/3/141c Castleton tithe award, 1840 Secondary Sources Aspin, C, 1995 The First Industrial Society: Lancashire, 1750-1850, Preston Aspin, C, 2003 The Water-Spinners, Helmshore Baines, E, 1835 History of Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain, London Bowles, CEB, 1902 ‘Concerning the Commons and Waste Lands in Various Townships in the High Peak’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 24, 32-41 Cameron, K, 1959 ‘The Place-Names of Derbyshire’, English Place-Name Society, 29, Cambridge Catling, H, 1986 The Spinning Mule, Lancashire Chapman, SJ, 1905 The Cotton Industry and Trade, London Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014 Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment, Reading Clarke, L, 2014 Castleton: A History, Castleton Cox, JC, 1907a ‘Ecclesiastical History’, in The Victoria History of the County of Derbyshire, 2, reprint of 1970. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2012 National Planning Policy Framework, London

Edwards, MM, 1967 The Growth of the British Cotton Trade 1780-1815, Manchester English Heritage, 2006 Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment, London Evans, ES, 1948 About Castleton, New Mills Falconer, K, 1988 Haarlem Mill, Old Building, RCHME unpubl rep Fitton, RS, 1989 The Arkwrights: Spinners of Fortune, Manchester Fitton, RS, and Wadsworth, AP, 1958 The Strutts and the Arkwrights 1758-1830: A Study of the Early Factory System, Manchester Hart, CR, 1981 The North Derbyshire Archaeological Survey to AD 1500 Higham, NJ, 2004 A Frontier Landscape: The North West in the Middle Ages, Macclesfield Hill, RL, 2008 Development of Power in the Industrial Revolution, Ashbourne Holland, AJ, 1976 The Age of Industrial Expansion, 2nd edn, Sunbury-on-Thames Mackenzie, MH, 1968 Cressbrook and Litton Mills, Derbyshire Archaeol J, 68 Miller, I, and Glithero, J, in press Richard Arkwright’s Shudehill Mill: The Archaeology and Engineering of Manchester’s First Steam-Powered Cotton Mill Miller, I, and Wild, C, 2007 A&G Murray and the Cotton Mills of Ancoats, Lancaster Imprints, 14, Lancaster Miller, I, Wild, C, and Gregory, R, 2010 Piccadilly Place: Uncovering Manchester’s Industrial Origins, Greater Manchester’s Past Revealed, 1, Lancaster Musson, AE, and Robinson, E, 1969 Science and Technology in the Industrial Revolution, Manchester Nixon, F, 1969 The Industrial Archaeology of Derbyshire, Newton Abbot Stroud, G, 2002 Derbyshire Extensive Urban Survey, Archaeological Assessment Report. Castleton, unpubl rep Tann, J, 1970 The Development of the Factory, London Turbutt, G, 1999 A History of Derbyshire, Cardiff Wadsworth, AP, and Mann, J, 1931 The Cotton Trade and Industrial Lancashire, 1600-1780, Manchester Williams, M, with Farnie, DA, 1992 Cotton Mills in Greater Manchester, Preston

Appendix 1: Figures

Figure 1: Site location Figure 2: Site Area boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1880 Figure 3: Site Area boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1898 Figure 4: Site Area boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1922 Figure 5: Site Area boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1938 Figure 6: Site Area boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1973 Figure 7: Derbyshire Historic Environment Records within 500m radius of the Site Area Figure 8: The north-facing internal elevation of the former cotton mill Figure 9: The south-facing internal elevation of the former cotton mill Figure 10: The east-facing internal elevation of the former cotton mill Figure 11: The west-facing internal elevation of the former cotton mill Figure 12: Screenshot of a computer-generated three-dimensional model of the former cotton mill

Figure 1: Site location

Figure 2: Site Area boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1880

Figure 3: Site Area boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1898

Figure 4: Site Area boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1922

Figure 5: Site Area boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1938

Figure 6: Site Area boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1973

Figure 7: Derbyshire Historic Environment Records within 500m radius of the Site Area

Figure 8: The north-facing internal elevation of the former cotton mill

Figure 9: The south-facing internal elevation of the former cotton mill

Figure 10: The east-facing internal elevation of the former cotton mill

Figure 11: The west-facing internal elevation of the former cotton mill

Figure 12: Screenshot of a computer-generated three-dimensional model of the former cotton mill

Appendix 2: HER Data Within 500m of the Site Area

SMR No Date/Period Name Site Type Location Description

Scheduled Monuments 3324 Medieval Town Ditch (site of) Monument SK 1507 8289 The Town Ditch around medieval Castleton, probably dating to Norman or pre- Norman period. Almost the whole of this earthwork can be traced, and it survives in places up to a maximum height of 3.2m. The monument, which is in two areas of protection, includes the earthwork remains of the medieval town defences of Castleton. The monument is situated towards the outer limits of the town in the north west and south east corners. The first historical reference to the town defences was in the 18th century when it is recorded that an `entrenchment', which began in the lower end of the valley, enclosed the town, forming a semi-circle to the north east of Peveril Castle. The construction of the bank and ditch are thought to be connected with the foundation of the borough in 1196 after Henry II acquired the castle from the original owners, the Peverels. The defences signified the towns limits and the size or intended size of the settlement. Within the town defences Castleton was laid out to a formal grid with the church erected in its centre and a market place immediately to the south. The monument survives in both areas of protection as a linear earthwork which includes a bank and outer ditch. The bank is approximately 12m wide and the ditch is of a similar width. The section to the south east of the town measures approximately 200m in length and runs east to west for 100m before turning to the north and running in this direction for a further 100m. A modern field boundary follows the line of the earthworks between the bank and ditch. The section to the north-west of the town measures approximately 105m in length and is aligned north to south but curves to the east at its northern end. This section of the monument is more clearly defined with the bank sloping down steeply to the west and north. A mill stream now occupies this section of the town ditch. The town was originally totally enclosed within the earthwork defences but elsewhere these have been levelled, infilled and encroached on by later development. Nevertheless, the original line of the town defences can still be traced from the surviving remains on the north west side to those on the south east side of the town. The mill stream marks the line of the ditch on the northern side of the town and the curve in Mill Lane follows the line around the north east corner. Modern property boundaries link the western side with the surviving earthworks in the south west corner of the town.

SMR No Date/Period Name Site Type Location Description

Scheduled Monument 3336 Medieval Spital House Medieval Hospital (Site SK 1554 8332 Earthwork and buried remains of a medieval hospital founded in the 12th century; Hospital of) now a scheduled monument. Halfway between the villages of Hope and Castleton, by the roadside, stood a spital house or hospital, dedicated to St Mary, which was founded for certain infirm poor of the district. There is no doubt that it was of early establishment, but little can now be learnt of its exact history. William of Worcester, who travelled through Derbyshire in 1478, says that the hospital was founded 'per uxorem domini Peverelle', meaning the wife of William Peverel, the reputed illegitimate son of the Conqueror. In 1377 the hospital was valued at £3 and four bushels of oatmeal per annum; however, in the Valor Ecclesiasticus of 1535, where there is a special entry under 'Hospital de Spyttelhowse in Alt' Peke…' it was stated that the average annual income was only 40s. It seems that for some time before its disappearance the hospital served no other purpose but to provide a small income for a non-resident warden. Certificates of 1547 show that it possessed no goods and that its income had been granted by the king to one John Savage. An EDM survey of the earthworks was carried out in c. 1994, as part of a Masters Degree at the University of Sheffield. This indicated that the site appeared to fulfil the criteria necessary for a medieval hospital, in that it had access to a communication route and the rectangular earthwork was a potentially viable place for a building. However, additional research suggested that the site is not necessarily that of the hospital; for example a grant of 1548 detailing lands that belonged to the hospital describes all those physically adjacent to it as being to the south, whereas 'spital' place names in later documents lie both north and south of the earthworks. A ditch surviving as an earthwork and running downslope towards the Peakshole can be seen to connect with the surviving earthworks associated with the hospital and may have formed part of a drainage system of some antiquity. A section across the ditch was excavated as part of a watching brief along the line of a Severn Trent Water replacement sewer in 1999. However, no dating evidence was recovered. Between November 2007 and June 2008 several geophysical surveys and an earthwork survey were carried out across the scheduled area, as well as beyond it. While the existing interpretation of the site is based on a certain amount of conjecture and the visible features in particular are somewhat ambiguous, the results of the surveys did reveal several areas of possible archaeological deposits/structures, particularly outside the current scheduled area.

SMR No Date/Period Name Site Type Location Description

Listed Buildings 3359 Post- Spital Buildings Mill SK 1540 8320 This Grade II listed water mill was later used as farm buildings, but is now partly medieval derelict. It is late 18th century in date and constructed of rubble limestone with stone slate roofs. The buildings form three sides around a courtyard. A single storey exists to the west and north ranges, whilst a three storeyed mill is on east side, now roofless and partially ruinous. There are nine bays with off centre cart entrance, the wall above collapsed. The segmental arched windows are mostly blocked. There are stable type doors to the lower wings (from list description). A reference of c. 1790 states that ‘in the middle of the valley [between Castleton and Hope] is a large, white building, which is a cotton-mill and worked by a water-wheel’. This is thought to refer to this site just outside Castleton to the north-east, later known as Spital Buildings, presumably due to their proximity to Spital Bridge rather than to any link with the medieval hospital. There is said to be a hollow to the north-west of the building, representing the remains of a mill pond, and evidence of a water channel beyond the building, running parallel to the river, representing the tail race. Low down on the river side wall of the building is an arched outlet which could have taken the outflow of water from the mill. The building has also been described as a former workhouse, although the evidence upon which this interpretation was based is not known. At that time (the early 1980s) the building was roofless and in use as stables, although it still retained some cast iron window frames. 8144 Post- Milepost Milepost SK 1595 8341 Post medieval milepost set against the wall of Veinbutt Villas, to the west of medieval Hope, afforded statutory protection as a Grade II listed building. It is cast-iron, in good condition, and painted white with black lettering. The west face reads 'SHEFFIELD / 15 MILES / HATHERSAGE / 5 MILES' and the east face reads 'CASTLETON / 1 MILE / CHAPEL EN LE / FRITH / 7 MILES'. The milepost is on the 1758 Sheffield-Sparrowpit Gate turnpike road.

Building 3383 Post- Old Needle Factory Building SK 1533 8285 20th-century Dutch barn constructed from four telegraph poles with a roof medieval suspended from pulleys attached to the top of the poles. Although the core of the roof has collapsed the supporting beams of the roof and the telegraph poles and pulley system are still intact.

SMR No Date/Period Name Site Type Location Description

3358 Post- House Adjoining House SK 1500 8300 Post-medieval house with a gas lamp and bracket attached to it. It also has a cast- medieval ‘Rambler’s Rest’ iron window frame in its gable end. 33100 Post- Wesleyan Methodist Chapel SK 1504 8296 A former 19th-century Wesleyan Methodist Chapel, Back Street, Castleton. medieval Chapel 33102 Post- Saw Mill Saw Mill SK 1514 8310 An early saw mill located next to the corn mill in Castleton. medieval 33106 Post- How Lane Footpath Sign SK 1536 8314 Cast iron footpath sign on How Lane, Castleton, erected in 1908. medieval Sign

Monument 3331 Medieval – Corn Mill, Mill Lane, Corn Mill SK 1514 8312 The former water-powered corn mill, in use until the 1920s. The remains of the Post- Castleton (Site of) wheel pit and the mill pond can still be seen. medieval Castleton Mill. James Farey, in 1811, noted that 'At Castleton is the only 'soke mill' or one at which Tenants of the Manor are compelled to grind their corn and pay toll, which remains in Derbyshire'. It continued to be used for milling until about 1920 when the limestone building was then used for a variety of purposes. The wooden waterwheel 10-12ft diameter, survived until the 1950s but the building has been demolished. Henry Ashton was the miller between 1881 and 1904. The origins of this mill are not known, but there is a reference to a corn mill at Castleton in accounts covering the period May 1243 to Michaeolmas 1244, when money was received from the mill or mills of 'castri de pecco'. There is a further reference in 1508 to the 'molendinum de Castelton'. Watermill sites are often long-lived and this site may also therefore be that of the medieval mill. 3355 Post- Trackway, Castleton to Trackway SK 1360 8400 A trackway used by cotton workers from Castleton to Edale Mill. The exact route medieval Edale Mill is not certain. 99017 Post- Sparrowpit Gate Road Trackway SK 1907 8271 Toll road from Sheffield to Chapel-en-le-Frith, also known as the Sparrowpit Gate medieval Road. The surveyor for the road was J. Fairbank. Set up by Act 31 George 11 c62 1758. Trustees included the Cavendish family, the Curzon family and the Company of Cutlers of Hallamshire. A section of this original road, from Sparrowpit via Peaslows to Blackbrook, was bypassed in 1764. It has an incline of 1:8, which was quite acceptable to packhorses but not to coaches and waggons.

SMR No Date/Period Name Site Type Location Description

33107 Medieval – Corn-Drying Kiln Kiln (Site of) SK 1548 8328 A watching brief along the line of a Severn Trent Water replacement sewer at Post- Castleton identified a number of features within the Spittal field on the east side of medieval the town, close to the traditional site of the medieval Hospital of St Mary in the Peak. Towards the western edge of the field a corn-drying kiln was exposed and excavated. This consisted of a stone-built oven and flue, the oven chamber being 1.8m in diameter and surviving to some six courses (0.7m) in height set back into the slope of the valley side above the river, with a stone-capped flue at least 4m in length. Dating evidence was sparse, indicating operation some time between the 14th-15th and 15th-17th centuries. This would allow for an association with the medieval hospital, but it is perhaps more likely to relate to agricultural exploitation of the fields after the 16th century dissolution of the hospital. Once out of use, the structure had been partly demolished and the chamber backfilled with stone rubble. 33111 Post- Oden Sough Ventilation SK 1447 8332 An open low bolt to an historically important sough, with four surviving large, medieval Shafts (site well-spaced, ventilation-shaft mounds allowing its course across relatively flat of) ground to be traced. 33119 Post- Shaft/Wasteheap/Sough Shaft (Site Not given Large mound with a slight hollow at the upslope side, possibly marking a run-in medieval of) shaft to a drainage slough running from the Red Seats Vein to the valley bottom. This may be the 'level in Red Seats Wood' referred to as being cleared out in 1802. 33120 Medieval – Lynchet North of Lynchet (Site Not given Lynchet that probably marks the edge of a medieval cultivation strip. Boundary Post- Pindale Road of) was removed between 1844 and 1922. medieval 33121 Medieval – Ridge and Furrow Ridge and Not given Degraded remains of medieval or early post-medieval broad-type ridge and Post- North of Pindale Road Furrow (Site furrow. medieval of)

Event EDR2771 Medieval – University of Sheffield Survey SK 1553 8330 Two resistivity surveys, a magnetometer survey and an earthwork survey were Post- and Castleton carried out in the field known as Spital Field, a Scheduled Monument thought to medieval Historical Society, in be the site of Castleton's medieval hospital founded in the 12th century. The results 2007 and 2008 confirmed the presence of a series of modern pipes and drains across the field and revealed several areas of possible archaeological deposits/structures, particularly outside the current scheduled area.

SMR No Date/Period Name Event Type Location Description

EDR2948 Medieval – STW Replacement Watching SK 1530 8311 Three areas along the route of pipe-laying for a replacement sewer were identified Post- Sewer Brief for watching brief cover. In the light of discoveries along the route, this was medieval followed up with a programme of salvage excavation and recording in one of the areas by Trent & Peak Archaeology. Excavated features included a ditch and a corn-drying kiln. Dating evidence was sparse, but the kiln appeared to have been in operation some time between the 14th/15th and the 15th/17th centuries. EDR2949 Medieval – Spital Earthworks Measured SK 1552 8332 A preliminary EDM survey of earthworks traditionally believed to represent the Post- earthwork site of the medieval hospital at Castleton was carried out as part of a University medieval survey of Sheffield MA in c. 1994. While the earthwork survey indicated that the site fulfilled the criteria necessary for a medieval hospital, the report suggested that a couple of alternative locations were also possible. EDR3444 Post- Losehill Hal Restoration SK 1547 8362 Management plan assisting a grant to enhance the Historic Landscape information medieval management of the area. survey EDR3680 Prehistoric / Aston Hall Field Survey SK 1507 81 Archaeological field survey, land at Aston Hall, by PDNPA, in 1992. Survey of Medieval – land and area. Features include Cave Dale barrow, outer bailey of Peveil Castle Post- and medieval fields. medieval EDR3712 Medieval – Castleton Furlongs Field Survey SK 1557 8300 Archaeological survey of the land around the farm area by PDNPA, in 1993 The Post- features identified were medieval and post-medieval. medieval EDR3977 Medieval – HEFA Castleton Test Pitting SK 1500 8299 Test pits excavated as part of a Higher Education Field Academy project. Post- Survey Survey Assemblages of medieval pottery were found ranging in quantity. medieval EDR4133 Post- Beanhill Farm Field Survey SK 1530 8288 Archaeological survey of the area around Beanhill Farm by PDNPA in 2002 as a medieval requirement for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. EDR2735 - Losehill Caravan Park Watching SK 1554 8336 An archaeological watching brief was carried out by ARS during groundworks Brief associated with the layout of a new electricity cable along Castleton Road. No archaeological features were discovered during the watching brief and the only finds recovered were three pieces of unstratified animal bone.