Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Report Status Final Archeritage Project No

ArcHeritage

Redmires MBT, Sheﬃeld, South Yorkshire Archaeological appraisal

ArcHeritage 2017 Redmires MBT, South Yorkshire: Archaeological Assessment

ArcHeritage Campo House, 54 Campo Lane, Sheffield, S1 2EG

Phone: +44 (0)114 2728884 Fax: +44 (0)114 3279793 [email protected] www.archeritage.co.uk

Key Project Information

Project Name Redmires MBT Report Title Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Report status Final ArcHeritage Project No. 1094 Type of Project Archaeological Appraisal Client Sheffield City Council NGR SK 25594 85121 (NE) to SK 24894 84643 (SW)

Author Mark Stenton Illustrations Mark Stenton Editor Glyn Davies Report Number and Date 2017/82 29.11.17 Version and filename v1 Redmires MBT

Copyright Declaration: ArcHeritage give permission for the material presented within this report to be used by the archives/repository with which it is deposited, in perpetuity, although ArcHeritage retains the right to be identified as the author of all project documentation and reports, as specified in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (chapter IV, section 79). The permission will allow the repository to reproduce material, including for use by third parties, with the copyright owner suitably acknowledged.

Disclaimer:Disclaimer:Disclaimer: This Report has been prepared solely for the person/party which commissioned it and for the specifically titled project or named part thereof referred to in the Report. The Report should not be relied upon or used for any other project by the commissioning person/party without first obtaining independent verification as to its suitability for such other project, and obtaining the prior written approval of York Archaeological Trust for Excavation and Research Limited (“YAT”) (trading as ArcHeritage). YAT accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequences of this Report being relied upon or used for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was specifically commissioned. Nobody is entitled to rely upon this Report other than the person/party which commissioned it. YAT accepts no responsibility or liability for any use of or reliance upon this Report by anybody other than the commissioning person/party.

© York Archaeological Trust for Excavation and Research Limited. Registered Office: 47 Aldwark, York YO1 7BX. A Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England No. 1430801. A Registered Charity in England & Wales (No. 09060) and Scotland (No. SCO42846)

CONTENTS

NonNonNon-Non---technicaltechnical Summary ...... iiiiiiiii

111 INTRODUCTION ...... 444

222 LOCATION, GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY ...... 444

333 METHODOLOGY ...... 444 3.1 Aims ...... 4 3.2 Methodology ...... 4

444 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...... 777 4.1 Designated assets ...... 7 4.2 Prehistoric, Roman and Medieval ...... 7 4.3 Sixteenth to eighteenth centuries ...... 8 4.4 Nineteenth century ...... 9 4.5 Modern ...... 10

555 SITE VISITSITE VISIT ...... 111111

666 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL AND SIGNIFICANCE ...... 131313

777 CONCLUSIONS ...... 141414

888 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 141414

999 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 151515

PLATESPLATESPLATES ...... 171717

FIGURESFIGURESFIGURES ...... 262626

AAAPPENDIXAPPENDIX 1 ––– GAZETEER OF HERITAGE ASSETS ...... 272727

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 ii

Figures Figure 1: Site location map Figure 2: Heritage assets Figure 3: 1791and c.1825 Fairbank plans Figure 4: 1829 Fairbank plan and 1854 OS map Figure 5: 1894 and 1924 OS maps Figure 6: 1956 and 1976 OS maps Figure 7: Walkover survey photograph viewpoints

Plates

Plate 1: Looking north-east towards site of Fairthorn Farm Plate 2: Bank on site of c.1825 Fairthorn farmyard boundary Plate 3: North-east terminus of MBT Plate 4: Possible saw pit, to north of MBT Plate 5: Surviving part of 1950s plantation Plate 6: MBT route across felled plantation Plate 7: MBT route across felled plantation Plate 8: Looking east towards Redmires Reservoirs Plate 9: Dry stone wall field boundary Plate 10: Dry stone wall field boundary Plate 11: Looking south-west towards Long Causeway Plate 12: Former path, to be crossed by MBT Plate 13: Dry stone wall along 1791 enclosure boundary Plate 14: Looking north towards south-west end of MBT Plate 15: South-west terminus of MBT Plate 16: Long Causeway, looking north-east with MBT route at left Plate 17: Long Causeway, looking north-east with MBT route at left Plate 18: Long Causeway, looking north-east towards MBT terminus and Redmires Reservoirs

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 iii

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY This report present the results of an archaeological appraisal of the route of Redmires Mountain Bike Trail, South Yorkshire. The report was commissioned by Sheffield City Council. Research for the report demonstrates that there are no heritage assets recorded along the route of the Redmires MBT, although a small number of flints have been found in its immediate vicinity. These were all surface finds and there is no evidence of prehistoric settlement in the area. The Long Causeway, immediately to the south of the MBT, is not now thought to be a Roman road, although a Roman coin has been found near the Stanage Pole, to the south-west of the route. The Long Causeway is a medieval and early post-medieval packhorse route that was used principally by the Cheshire to Sheffield salt trade. To the south of the MBT, three sections of bank survive, indicating that parts of the route formed a braided hollow way. The braids appear to date from at least the early post-medieval period, as they are topped by stone walls that demarcate late 18th-century enclosure boundaries. The route of the MBT crosses land that was enclosed as a single plot in 1791 and had been subdivided into smaller fields by c.1825. These are likely to have belonged to Fairthorn Farm, which stood a short distance to the north-east of the MBT. A small number of additional fields had been created along the route by 1854. The land remained fields throughout the 19th and into the mid-20th century. There is no evidence to suggest that the First World War Redmires Trench Warfare Training Ground extended into this area. A plantation that was established on the land in the 1950s was felled in 2017. No heritage assets are known to have been found during the creation and felling of the plantation. The MBT’s north-east terminus will impact on one of the sections of braided hollow way and will cross several of the early and mid-19th-century field boundaries. However, along the majority of the route, past impacts have substantially reduced the dry stone walls and an early 20th-century path across the route has recently been reinforced with compacted earth and hardstanding in order to facilitate vehicular access for the felling and removal of trees.

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 4

1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an archaeological appraisal of the route of Redmires Mountain Bike Trail, South Yorkshire (henceforth ‘MBT). The aim of the report is to establish the known cultural heritage resource along the route of the MBT; to provide a context for the identification and understanding of any potential cultural heritage resource; to identify cultural heritage constraints; and to assess the effect of the proposed development on the cultural heritage resource. The report was commissioned by Sheffield City Council.

2 LOCATION, GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY The MBT, which runs from NGR SK 25594 85121 at the north-east to SK 24894 84643 at the south-west, is located to the west of Redmires Reservoirs, approximately 10km to the south- west of Sheffield city centre (Figure 1). The MBT runs through a former plantation located to the north of the Long Causeway, to the north-east of the Stanage Pole and to the south-west of the Redmires Reservoir Upper Dam. From the north-east terminus, a short section of the MBT runs through a surviving part of the plantation. The underlying geology is predominantly Rough Rock sandstone, with a small area near the south-west terminus of the MBT being Rossendale Formation mudstone and siltstone (BGS). A search of BGS borehole records did not return any entries for the Sites (BGS). Ground level along the route of the MBT rises steeply from north-east to south-west.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Aims The general aim of the heritage statement was to determine the nature of the archaeological resource and built heritage resource in the Site and potential impacts arising from the proposed development. This was achieved by collating existing archaeological and historic information relating to the Site and its immediate environs. The desk-based research was undertaken in line with the standards and guidance produced by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA 2014).

3.2 Methodology 3.2.1 Desk-based research Information on recorded heritage assets within a 1km radius of the Site was obtained from the South Yorkshire Sites and Monuments Record (SMR). The following sources were also consulted:

• Derbyshire Historic Environment Record (HER); • Sheffield Archives (SA); • Derbyshire Record Office (DRO); • National Archives (NA); • Historic England Archive (HEA); • Archaeology Data Service (ADS);

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 5

• Heritage Gateway online; • National Heritage List for England (NHLFE); • British Geological Survey online (BGS); • Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC); • www.britainfromabove.org.uk; • Google Earth; • ArcHeritage library. 3.2.2 Walkover survey A walkover survey of the MBT and a visual inspection of the exterior of the property were undertaken to establish the condition of the MBT and identify any cultural heritage assets. 3.2.3 Assessing heritage significance The term ‘heritage assets’ covers a wide variety of features including: buildings; standing, buried and submerged archaeological remains, sites and landscapes; and parks and gardens, whether designated or not. Heritage assets hold meaning for society over and above functional utility. The value of a heritage asset may be derived from many different factors. English Heritage (now Historic England) guidelines (2008) suggest the following themes to help establish the value of heritage assets:

• Evidential value – the potential of the place to yield evidence about past human activity • Historical value – the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present (this may be illustrative or associative) • Communal value – derived from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, of for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory. • Aesthetic value – derived from the way people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation form a place Table 1: Criteria for assessing the significance of heritage assets Significance Heritage Asset (examples) Note

Very High World Heritage Sites (including Substantial harm to, or loss of, these assets nominated sites). should be wholly exceptional Assets of acknowledged Any harm or loss to a heritage assets international importance. requires clear and convincing justification Assets that can contribute (NPPF para 132 & 152) significantly to acknowledged international research objectives. Scheduled Monuments (including proposed). Undesignated assets of schedulable quality and importance. Grade I and II* Listed Buildings, Parks & Gardens Other substantial or very legible historic landscapes of note

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 6

Significance Heritage Asset (examples) Note

High Assets that can contribute Substantial harm to, or loss of, these assets significantly to acknowledged should be exceptional (NPPF para 132) national research objectives. Any harm or loss to a heritage assets Conservation Areas requires clear and convincing justification Undesignated assets of clear (NPPF para 132 &152) regional or national importance Grade II Listed Buildings, Parks & Gardens Other legible historic landscapes

Medium Undesignated assets that contribute Any harm or loss to a heritage assets to regional research objectives requires clear and convincing justification Locally Listed buildings (NPPF para 132 &152) Legible historic landscapes

Low Undesignated Assets of limited Any harm or loss to a heritage assets value, but with potential to requires clear and convincing justification contribute to local research (NPPF para 132 &152 ) objectives.

Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations. Historic (unlisted) buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical association. Fragmented historic landscapes

Negligible Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological/heritage interest Buildings of no architectural or historical note Buildings of an intrusive character Areas of known ground disturbance

Unknown The importance of the resource Field evaluation may be required to evaluate (below ground deposits, landscape, potential buried assets setting or historic building) has not (NPPF para 128) been ascertained.

3.2.4 Assessing archaeological potential The assessment of the potential for buried archaeological remains to be present is a professional judgement based on known cultural heritage assets in the vicinity, the nature of current and historic land-use, and available information on the nature and condition of sub- surface deposits. The assessment is not a definitive statement, but a consideration of potential based on the currently available evidence. The assessment of potential could be modified if additional information was to become available.

A lowlowlow potential reflects a below-average likelihood for the preservation of remains based on known parameters; moderatemoderatemoderate represents an average potential; and highhighhigh would reflect an above-average potential for the survival of archaeology. If there is insufficient evidence on

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 7

which to make a judgement the potential is deemed to be unknownunknownunknown. unknown A negligiblenegligiblenegligible potential means that no significant archaeological remains are present; this is only used where evaluation has indicated an absence of archaeological remains, or where it is known that substantial sub- surface disturbance has occurred in the past (such as excavation for deep basements or quarrying) which will have removed any earlier remains.

4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND This section presents a summary of the archaeological and historical background of the MBT and its surrounding area. A gazetteer of known heritage assets within 1km of the MBT has been collated from local and national databases and is presented in Appendix 1. Heritage asset numbers mentioned in the text refer to the gazetteer. The locations of the assets are shown on Figure 2.

4.1 Designated assets All cultural heritage designations were checked for the 1km search area, including Scheduled Monuments (SMs), Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and Conservation Areas. 4.1.1 MBT No nationally- or locally-designated heritage assets are recorded along the route of the MBT. The MBT is located within the Peak District National Park (PDNP). 4.1.2 Search Area One Scheduled Monument is recorded in the 1km search area: Redmires First World War Training Camp (SMR 4663; SM no.1417488). No World Heritage Sites, Grade I, Grade II* or Grade II listed buildings, Registered Battlefields, Registered Parks or Gardens or Conservation Areas are recorded in the 1km search area. Land immediately to the south and west of the MBT is a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

4.2 Prehistoric The SMR and HER do not record any prehistoric heritage assets along the route of the MBT. However, two prehistoric assets are recorded in the immediate vicinity of the MBT’s south-west terminus: three ‘tiny concentrations’ of Mesolithic flints (SMR 01027) found to the north of the route and a waste flint (SMR 03164) found adjacent to the Long Causeway, which runs to the south of the MBT. While the Causeway is a medieval packhorse route (see Sections 4.2 and 4.3, below), it is possible that its course followed a substantially earlier track across Hallam Moors. A Mesolithic flint scraper (SMR 03187) was discovered approximately 0.19km to the south of the MBT’s north-east terminus, while flint and chert cores and waste (SMR 03087) were found approximately 0.12km to the south-east of the north-east terminus. Further prehistoric activity in the MBT’s vicinity is demonstrated by a cup-marked stone (SMR 5391) found approximately 0.65km to the north-west of the MBT’s north-east terminus; a Neolithic flint spearhead (SMR 00688) found in an area now covered by the Redmires Reservoirs Upper Dam; flint tools found on the north side of the Upper Dam (SMR 03088); and

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 8

a flint graver (HER 113110) found to the south-west of the MBT, near the Stanage Pole (SMR 5724).

4.2 Roman The SMR and HER do not record any Roman heritage assets along the route of the MBT. The Long Causeway, now largely accepted as a medieval packhorse route, was marked on historic Ordnance Survey maps as a Roman road. William Fairbank’s 1791 plan of High Moor (Figure 3) labelled the route ‘Long Causey Road’, with ‘causey’ being a Yorkshire dialect word meaning a ‘paved road’ or footway that was sometimes applied to presumed Roman roads (Addy 1888, 39). Antiquarians believed the route to be part of Batham Gate, a road that connected the Roman forts of Brough, Derbyshire, and Templeborough, near Rotherham. I.D. Margary, however, stated that while part of the Long Causeway followed the course of the Roman road, the Roman route continued west past Redmires Reservoirs towards Stanage Lodge, rather than south-west towards the MBT and the Stanage Pole (SMR 05724) (Margary 1955, 362). Margary’s argument may be supported by part of an old stone-surfaced road (SMR 5392) that was exposed on the south side of the Redmires Road/Soughley Lane junction during Yorkshire Water works in the early 21st century. While this feature was discovered outside the 1km search area, attempts to project its subsequent course suggested that, if the road maintained an approximately straight alignment, its course would pass to the north of the Redmires Reservoir Lower Dam and go through the Middle and Upper dams. If accurate, this would support both Margary’s suggested route and the suggestion that the Long Causeway to the south of the MBT is a medieval packhorse route, rather than a Roman road. The HER records a coin of Maximinus II (HER 11315), emperor of Rome between AD 308 and 311, that was found in the vicinity of the Stanage Pole. The precise findpsot is unknown. Two further HER entries for Roman coins in this area (HER 11344; HER 11345) are now thought to be duplicate records for this coin.

4.3 Medieval The SMR and HER do not record any medieval heritage assets along the route of the MBT. The date at which the Long Causeway was established as a packhorse route for the Cheshire to Sheffield salt trade is unclear. While generally accepted as a medieval route, the earliest surviving reference to the name ‘Long Causeway’ appears to date from the late 18th century (Sidebottom 2002, 9).

4.4 Sixteenth to eighteenth centuries The SMR and HER do not record any early post-medieval heritage assets along the course of the MBT. The Long Causeway remained in use throughout this period, with carts replacing packhorses along some sections of the route. Graffiti carved into the boulders at the base of the Stanage Pole includes the date ‘1550’ (SMR 05724). Despite not being a turnpike road, milestones were erected along the Causeway in the 1730s. Traffic along the route declined, following the construction of a route that led to Sheffield via Ringinglow in the 1760s. Peter Perez Burdett’s

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 9

1767 Map of Derbyshire marked the Stanage Pole, but showed the route of the MBT as moorland without any distinguishing features, while Thomas Jefferys’ 1771 map of Yorkshire showed the course as open moorland immediately to the north of the Long Causeway. No features were shown along the route of the MBT at that date. Phil Sidebottom’s 2002 survey of Hallam Moors identified three substantial ‘braids of a hollow- way’ along parts of the north side of the Long Causeway (Sidebottom 2002, 22). The braids or banks were overlain by dry stone walls, indicating that they pre-dated the late 18th-century enclosure of Hallam Moors. The MBT’s north-east terminus will cross the northernmost of the braids. Hallam Moors were enclosed between 1791 and 1805 (Hey 2014, 124). William Fairbank’s 1791 High Moors enclosure map (Figure 3) showed that the land crossed by the MBT formed part of a single enclosure plot. The accompanying enclosure award (SA ACM S70) gave the name of the plot as ‘Spring’, but did not describe the condition of the land. Given its enclosure from unimproved moorland, the plot-name is unlikely to refer to a spring (ie. coppiced) wood and the probability is that the land was open, rough heath. No features were marked along the MBT’s course on the 1791 map, although Spring’s western boundary was situated immediately to the west of the MBT’s south-west terminus. This field boundary remains extant.

4.5 Nineteenth century The SMR and HER do not record any 19th-century heritage assets along the course of the MBT. William Fairbank’s 1810 plan of Outseats (SA FC Hath 4S) showed land immediately to the west of the Stanage Pole, but did not cover the area crossed by the MBT. No features or indications of land use were shown along the course of the MBT on Christopher Greenwood’s 1817 map of Yorkshire. William Fairbank’s undated plan of land between Fulwood Booth and the Stanage Pole (Figure 3) showed that the large 18th-century enclosure plot was subsequently subdivided into several fields. While undated, this plan was drawn on paper watermarked 1825 and appears to have been produced shortly thereafter, as it does not show the proposed site of Redmires Reservoir, which appears on several Fairbank plans dating from 1829. Fairthorn Farm had been constructed to the east of the MBT’s north-east terminus by the time of the c.1825 plan. While neither the farm buildings nor the farmyards extended into the area to be crossed by the MBT, several field boundaries were shown along the MBT’s route at this date. None of the plots were labelled and land use along the route c.1825 is unknown. No changes were shown along the route of the MBT on an 1829 William Fairbank plan of land between Fairthorn Farm and Fulwood Booth (Figure 4). A further building had been constructed at the farm by that date, while the course of a substantial land drain was shown to the north of the MBT. No changes were shown along the course of the MBT on an 1829 Fairbank plan of the proposed Redmires Reservoirs (SA FC EWa 41S). The reservoirs were eventually constructed in 1836, with the creation of the Upper Dam drowning a section of the Long Causeway to the east and north-east of the MBT. The field boundaries that had been shown on the 1820s Fairbank plans remained extant at the time of the 1840 Ordnance Survey first series map, while a small number of additional field

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 10

boundaries were shown along the route on the 1854 Ordnance Survey map (Figure 4). Several of the fields along the course of the MBT were shown as rough heath at that date, which suggests that they may have been used to graze livestock. ‘Stand Edge Plantation’ had been established immediately to the west of the MBT’s south-west terminus by 1854, while several small quarries were shown immediately to the south of the Long Causeway. A historic photograph (Picture Sheffield s11256) taken looking north-east towards the Upper Dam is undated, but pre-dates the late 19th-century redevelopment of Fairthorn Farm. The photograph shows a substantial wooden post-and-panel fence and several mature trees at the site of the MBT’s north-east terminus. To the south, this section of the Long Causeway appears to have been a rough, earthen track, which was not surfaced with the stone flags that were present along its course closer to the Stanage Pole (Picture Sheffield s12114). Later photographs show that the wooden fence had been replaced by a substantial stone wall (Picture Sheffield s22685; y00387). This is likely to have occurred during the redevelopment of the farm, which had taken place by 1894. The 1894 Ordnance Survey map (Figure 5) depicted a large plot towards the MBT’s south-west terminus as moorland. Immediately to the west of this plot, a narrow path had been established along one of the field boundaries that had been first shown on the 1820s Fairbank plans. Phil Sidebottom’s 2002 survey of the area identified two guide posts along the initial south- east/north-west section of the path (Sidebottom 2002, 18). The date at which the guideposts were erected is unknown. No further changes were shown along the course of the MBT on the 1894 OS map.

4.6 Modern The SMR and the HER do not record any modern heritage assets along the route of the MBT. No changes were shown along the course of the MBT on the 1905 Ordnance Survey map, with the exception of a narrow, linear plantation that had been established midway along the route. The plantation was bounded by one of the field boundaries that had been first shown on the c.1825 William Fairbank plan. Redmires First World War Trench Warfare Training Ground (SMR 04663) was established on Hallam Moors, approximately 0.62km to the north of the MBT, in 1915. A series of practice trenches were excavated at Brown Edge, to the west and north-west of the Redmires Reservoir Upper Dam (Ullathorne 2006, 6-7, 12). These areas were known to the trainees as ‘Hill 60’ and ‘Quarry Hill’ (Ullathorne 2006, 6-7, 12). The remains of the practice trenches were not marked on subsequent Ordnance Survey maps, but remain visible on aerial photographs (Google Earth 2002-2017). The known practice trenches are all located within two adjacent fields, both of which are demarcated at the south by a substantial field drain. The latter had been labelled the ‘Lord’s Seat Stream’ on the 1829 William Fairbank plan of land between Fairthorn Farm and Fulwood Booth (SA FC EWa 44 S). The Historic England Archive holds aerial photographs of the Redmires area from 1928 onwards. However, a large plantation had been established to the south of the Lord’s Seat Stream drain in 1925 (Sidebottom 2002, 12), thereby obscuring any potential further practice trenches in this area. Dr. Phil Sidebottom, the first to investigate the Hill 60 and Quarry Hill trenches archaeologically, surveyed the plantation in 2002 (Sidebottom 2002). While

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 11

Sidebottom identified a disused quarry, a ruined building, a stone marker, stone-getting hollows, a pit and a ditch, his survey did not reveal the remains of any further practice trenches within the 1920s plantation (Sidebottom 2002, 22-23). The Redmires practice trenches therefore appear to have been restricted to the two large fields immediately to the north of the land drain. Other activity associated with the Redmires training camp did take place in the vicinity of the MBT, however, with trainees’ diary entries reporting marches to the Stanage Pole and simulated assault/defence manoeuvres in its vicinity (Ullathorne 2006, 30). These activities do not appear to have left any physical remains in the landscape. Towards the south-west end of the MBT, the 1924 Ordnance Survey map (Figure 5) showed a small, rectangular feature in the angle between the path and the adjacent fields. Its function is unknown, although aerial photographs taken in 1928 (Britain From Above EPW020411; EPW020414; EPW020415) suggest that it was a building. The 1928 photographs were taken after a heavy snowfall and, other than field boundaries, do not show any other features along the course of the MBT. No further changes were shown along, or in the vicinity of, the MBT on the 1935, 1948 or 1954 OS maps. However, a plantation had been established across the course of the MBT by the time of the 1956 Ordnance Survey map (Figure 6). The small, rectangular building was not shown at that date, although the 19th-century plot boundaries remained extant within the wood and the path to the Lord’s Seat continued to be shown. No changes were shown along the route of the MBT on the 1976 OS map (Figure 6), with the exception of a small quarry that had been excavated across two field boundaries to the north of the MBT’s south-west terminus. Fairthorn Farm had been demolished by 1976. No changes were shown along the course of the MBT on the 1984 or 1993 Ordnance Survey maps and no obvious changes are visible on aerial photographs taken between 1999 and 2015 (Google Earth, Bing Maps). However, with the exception of a small area of woodland around the MBT’s north- east terminus, the 1950s plantation had been felled by the time of a 2017 aerial photograph (Google Earth). Along with the path that had been established along the late 18th-century enclosure boundary, sections of several early 19th-century field boundaries survived the felling of the plantation. The Environment Agency do not have lidar coverage for the course of the MBT.

5 SITE VISIT A site visit was carried out by Richard Jackson of ArcHeritage on 7th November 2017. The viewpoints of the photographs taken during the site visit are shown in Figure 7. No obvious remains were visible at the site of Fairnthorn Farm, although a possible house platform may be present beneath the overgrowth of vegetation, scrub and trees (Plate 1). To the west of the farm site, a bank and ditch may mark the boundary of the western farm yard that was depicted on the c.1825 William Fairbank plan (Plate 2). The MBT’s north-east terminus is accessed from the Long Causeway via an informal track. This runs up one of the surviving hollow way braids on the Causeway’s northern edge and enters the plantation through a breach in a stone wall on top of the bank. The wall appears to date from the late 19th-century redevelopment of Fairthorn Farm, as it is shown in an early 20th-century

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 12

photograph taken looking north-east along the Causeway (Picture Sheffield s22686), while a substantial wooden post-and-panel fence stood along this alignment in a photograph of the earlier farm (Picture Sheffield s11256). Parts of the wall are in relatively poor condition, with upper courses missing and sections tumbled. At the MBT’s north-east terminus, an area of scrub and dense grass is present between the wall and the surviving part of the 1950s plantation. A water-filled, rectangular feature, is situated just to the north of the route (Plate 4). This feature, which is over 1m in depth and may be a saw pit, is not marked on historic Ordnance Survey maps. Within the wooded area, no features are visible along the route of the MBT itself (Plate 5). To the south-west of the surviving part of the plantation, the route of the MBT crosses a large area from which the trees have recently been felled and removed (Plates 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11). This activity has caused considerable surface-level ground disturbance and the ground is strewn with numerous discarded branches, stumps and tree-throws. The majority of the dry stone field boundary walls along the route of the MBT have been partly or largely levelled (Plates 7, 9 and 10). Some sections of the walls have a heavy covering of moss, indicating that the damage occurred at least several years ago. Other fallen sections of walling are free of moss, however, which suggests that these parts were damaged more recently, most likely during the felling and removal of trees from the plantation. The path that was shown crossing the south-west part of the route from the 1905 Ordnance Survey map onwards has recently been used as a logging road, in order to remove the felled trees from the plantation (Plate 12). A modern metal gate secures access from the Long Causeway, while the track’s southern section has been reinforced with compacted earth and hardstanding in order to facilitate vehicular access. Further extensive surface ground disturbance, including substantive wheel ruts, are present in this area. Two stone gate posts survive where the track passes the remains of the early 20th-century building (Plate 12). Other than scattered, tumbled stone, no obvious above-ground remains survive at the site of the building. Immediately to the north and west of the MBT’s south-west terminus, the dry stone wall that demarcates the 1791 enclosure boundary survives in better condition that the other field boundaries along the route (Plate 13). This is likely to be due to its position at the perimeter of the plantation and to the modern double post-and-wire fences that have been constructed to the east of the wall (Plate 14). Between the track and MBT’s south-west terminus, surface damage from vehicles is again evident and the felling of the plantation has also left this part of the route strewn with stumps, tree-throws and discarded branches (Plate 14). Further modern fencing is also present between the MBT’s south-west terminus and the Long Causeway (Plate 15). Just to the north-east, a ditch and the remains of a dry stone wall run parallel with the Causeway. A series of stone blocks lines the northern edge of the Causeway in this area (Plate 16). The date at which the stones were laid is unknown. To the north-east, the sections of braided hollow-way that were identified by Phil Sidebottom in 2002 remain extant (Plates 17, 18 and 19).

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 13

6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL AND SIGNIFICANCE The assessment of the potential for archaeological remains to be present is based on known cultural heritage assets in the vicinity, the nature of current and historic land-use, and available information on the nature and condition of sub-surface deposits. The assessment is not a definitive statement, but a consideration of potential based on the currently available evidence. The assessment of potential could be modified if additional information was to become available. Prehistoric activity in the vicinity of the MBT is demonstrated by several flints, including a core and waste material. These are all surface finds, however, and there is no evidence of settlement in the area during this period. Ground disturbance associated with the 20th-century plantation, including its felling, may have brought similar artefacts to the surface. The archaeological potential for the prehistoric period is considered to be lowlowlow to moderatemoderatemoderate. moderate The heritage significance of any assets from this period is unknownunknownunknown.unknown While a Roman coin has been found to the south-west of the MBT, the section of the Long Causeway to the south of the route does not appear to follow the course of the Roman road from Brough to Templeborough. The actual course of the Roman road appears to have run considerably to the north of the MBT. The archaeological potential and heritage significance for the Roman period are both considered to be lowlowlow.low Medieval and post-medieval activity in the immediate vicinity of the MBT is demonstrated by the Long Causeway. Three sections of hollow way to the west of the Causeway pre-date the area’s late 18th-century enclosure and indicate that parts of the existing route run slightly to the east of the medieval and early post-medieval route. The MBT’s north-east terminus will cross one of the hollow ways. In the latter area, the archaeological potential for the medieval and early post-medieval periods is highhighhigh.high As the hollow way formed part of a wider, regional route, the heritage significance of this feature is mediummediummedium. medium Excluding the hollow way at the MBT’s north-east terminus, the archaeological potential and heritage significance for the medieval and early post-medieval periods are both considered to be lowlowlow.low The route of the MBT crosses land that was enclosed as a single, large plot in 1791. The MBT itself will not impact on any of the late 18th-century plot boundaries, although its south-west terminus is situated immediately to the east of one of these walls. The MBT route will, however, cross several dry stone walls, the majority of which demarcate boundaries that were extant by c.1825, with others having been established by 1854. Many sections of walling appear to have been damaged for a considerable period of time, while others have been damaged by the recent felling and removal of trees from the land. The lower courses of some of the walls do survive in places along the route and the construction of the MBT will impact on these features. Given the extent of past impacts, however, the archaeological potential relating to the late 18th- and early 19th-century enclosure boundaries is considered to be lowlowlow.low As the walls form part of a wider, regional landscape created by Parliamentary enclosure of moorland within the Peak District, their heritage significance is mediummediummedium. medium However, given their poor condition and the nature of the proposed works, the significance of the impacts on the walls will be negligible. Throughout the 19th and into the mid-20th century, the land crossed by the MBT was fields. A 2002 archaeological landscape survey did not find any evidence to suggest that the Redmires

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 14

Trench Warfare Training Ground extended into this area. In the 1950s, a plantation was established on the land crossed by the MBT. This was felled in 2017. No heritage assets are known to have been found during the creation and felling of the plantation or the undertaking of the 2002 survey. The archaeological potential and heritage significance for the 19th century is considered to be lowlowlow. low The archaeological potential and heritage significance for the modern period is considered to be negligiblenegligiblenegligible to lowlowlow.low

7 CONCLUSIONS Research for the report demonstrates that there are no heritage assets recorded along the route of the Redmires MBT, although a small number of flints have been found in its immediate vicinity. These were all surface finds and there is no evidence of prehistoric settlement in the area. The Long Causeway, immediately to the south of the MBT, is not now thought to be a Roman road, although a Roman coin has been found near the Stanage Pole, to the south-west of the route. The Long Causeway is a medieval and early post-medieval packhorse route that was used principally by the Cheshire to Sheffield salt trade. To the south of the MBT, three sections of bank survive, indicating that parts of the route formed a braided hollow way. The braids appear to date from at least the early post-medieval period, as they are topped by stone walls that demarcate late 18th-century enclosure boundaries. The route of the MBT crosses land that was enclosed as a single plot in 1791 and had been subdivided into smaller fields by c.1825. These are likely to have belonged to Fairthorn Farm, which stood a short distance to the north-east of the MBT. A small number of additional fields had been created along the route by 1854. The land remained fields throughout the 19th and into the mid-20th century. There is no evidence to suggest that the First World War Redmires Trench Warfare Training Ground extended into this area. A plantation that was established on the land in the 1950s was felled in 2017. No heritage assets are known to have been found during the creation and felling of the plantation. The MBT’s north-east terminus will impact on one of the sections of braided hollow way and will cross several of the early and mid-19th-century field boundaries. However, along the majority of the route, past impacts have substantially reduced the dry stone walls and an early 20th-century path across the route has recently been reinforced with compacted earth and hardstanding in order to facilitate vehicular access for the felling and removal of trees.

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank Gill and Helen of Sheffield Archives and Zac Nellist of the South Yorkshire SMR.

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 15

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY Addy, S.O. 1888. A Glossary of Words Used in the Neighbourhood of Sheffield. English Dialect Society/Trubner & Co.: London. Buglass, J. 2017 Redmires Reservoir Woodlands, South Yorkshire. Unpublished JB Archaeology report. CIfA. 2014. Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists: Reading. Hey, D. 2014. A History of the Peak District Moors. Pen and Sword; Barnsley. Historic England. 2015. The Setting of Heritage Assets. https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa3-setting-of-heritage-assets/gpa3.pdf/ Margary, I.D. 1955. Roman Roads in Britain. Phoenix House: London. NPPF. 2012. National Planning Policy Framework. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf Sidebottom, P. 2002. An Archaeological Desktop Assessment of Woodland at Redmires, South Yorkshire. Unpublished PSAC report. Ullathorne, H. 2006. Training Trenches at Redmires, Sheffield. Unpublished University of Sheffield report.

DocumentsDocumentsDocuments 1791-1805 Upper Hallam enclosure award (SA FC ACM S70)

Historic maps 1767 Peter Perez Burdett map of Derbyshire 1771 Thomas Jefferys map of Yorkshire 1791 High Moor enclosure map (SA FC ACM S70, Map 1) 1795 William Fairbank map of the parish of Sheffield 1798 John Tuke map of Yorkshire n.d. William Fairbank plan of Upper Hallam (SA FC 24759) 1810 Outseats enclosure map (SA FC Hath 4 S) 1817 Christopher Greenwood map of Yorkshire n.d. (c.1825-1829) William Fairbank plan of fields between Fulwood Booth and Stanage Pole (SA FC SheD 457 S) 1829 William Fairbank plan of a proposed reservoir at Redmires (SA FC EWa 41 S) 1829 William Fairbank plan of White Path Moss and Redmires Reservoir (SA FC SheD 458 L) 1829 William Fairbank plan of land between Fairthorn Farm and Fulwood Booth (SA FC EWa 44 S) 1830 Hathersage enclosure map (SA FC Hath 11R L)

Redmires MBT, Sheffield, South Yorkshire Archaeological Appraisal Report No 2017/82 16

1840 Ordnance Survey first series map 1854 OS map 1894 OS map 1905 OS map 1924 OS map 1935 OS map 1948 OS map 1954 OS map 1956 OS map 1962 OS map 1976 OS map 1984 OS map 1993 OS map

Historic photographsphotographsphotographs Picture Sheffield

Aerial photographs Bing Maps: 2012 Britain From Above: 1928 CUCAP: 1975 Google Earth: 2000, 2005, 2008, 2015, 2016